The Money Mustache Community
Other => Off Topic => Topic started by: BlueHouse on June 11, 2019, 07:02:54 AM
-
I didn't want to hijack the thread on trigger words, but this just happened this morning and I wanted some feedback on it.
This morning when I parked, a huge ass truck had a picture of a machine-gun toting Lincoln on the back tailgate protecting something. It was so out of place, I needed a better look so I walked up to it to look more closely. That's when I saw the stick figure images on the back windscreen. A stick figure woman humping an NRA logo, a few other stupid things, and smack dab in the center was an image of a male and female stick figure with the male bending the woman over and the words "this is how stick figures make families".
Yeah, it's cartoons. But this was the first time I've ever seen something any place where I go where I thought "The driver of this truck clearly wants to intimidate other people and believes that violence against women is funny or acceptable".
I'm not easily offended. Why is a cartoon making me so uncomfortable?
-
I think I missed the violence towards women part?
No doubt the truck owner is probably a complete tool but i think its a bit much to leap to thinking the guy is violent.
Im triggered by people who brandish the hammer and sickle on thier clothes or have it on protest signs... its like they dont understand the millions of deaths and generations of suffering the ideology has inflicted on those who had to live uunder that symbol.
-
We do not know if the cartoon figure woman gave consent to be bent over.
She was clearly enjoying the NRA logo bloke.
-
We do not know if the cartoon figure woman gave consent to be bent over.
She was clearly enjoying the NRA logo bloke.
yes, in the one bending over, it honestly appeared like a stick-figure rape. I know that sounds ridiculous. That's what looked violent. I know "she" wasn't smiling. I'm going back out to look at it again. Maybe I'll snap a picture if I think I can get away with it (we're not allowed to use cameras here)
-
We do not know if the cartoon figure woman gave consent to be bent over.
She was clearly enjoying the NRA logo bloke.
yes, in the one bending over, it honestly appeared like a stick-figure rape. I know that sounds ridiculous. That's what looked violent. I know "she" wasn't smiling. I'm going back out to look at it again. Maybe I'll snap a picture if I think I can get away with it (we're not allowed to use cameras here)
My comment was mostly tongue in cheek.
I don’t think you have to go to the length of photographing the stick figure cartoon woman to see the expression on her face to know that this is generally an inappropriate visual image to parade on your truck. It is juvenile. It may be a jerk-ish.
-
I would say that if you are offended, the vehicle owner has accomplished what he/she set out to do.
-
My usual thought here seems to apply:
You have the right to say/display what you want. I have the right to judge you based on what you say/display.
I'll agree with Adam, the individual probably intended to offend. If someone you know shows up with such an image on their vehicle, then you can feel free to disassociate yourself from them.
-
No confederate flag? Weird.
-
I would say that if you are offended, the vehicle owner has accomplished what he/she set out to do.
Yep, I got that feeling as soon as I saw it.
No confederate flag? Weird.
I'll probably find one if I go look some more. There's a whole other side that I haven't seen yet.
-
I would say that if you are offended, the vehicle owner has accomplished what he/she set out to do.
Yep, I got that feeling as soon as I saw it.
The proper reaction should be "Wow, I bet his penis is HUGE."
-
I would say that if you are offended, the vehicle owner has accomplished what he/she set out to do.
Yep, I got that feeling as soon as I saw it.
The proper reaction should be "Wow, I bet his penis is HUGE."
Car is there again today. I might print out a banner and tape it to his windshield. I love this as a giant banner!
-
I would say that if you are offended, the vehicle owner has accomplished what he/she set out to do.
Yep, I got that feeling as soon as I saw it.
The proper reaction should be "Wow, I bet his penis is HUGE."
Car is there again today. I might print out a banner and tape it to his windshield. I love this as a giant banner!
This guy is just trolling for responses. Usually the policy is don't feed.
-
The irony is that a car with a simple rainbow flag bumper sticker would probably get him riled.
I would say that if you are offended, the vehicle owner has accomplished what he/she set out to do.
Yep, I got that feeling as soon as I saw it.
The proper reaction should be "Wow, I bet his penis is HUGE."
Car is there again today. I might print out a banner and tape it to his windshield. I love this as a giant banner!
This guy is just trolling for responses. Usually the policy is don't feed.
+1
-
Perhaps the images did not strike you as consensual, as evidenced by the stick figure's positions. Remember the old twist on the "Hang Ten" feet, where a smaller pair of feet was inverted and between the larger feet? It was considered a bit racy at the time, but it was also kind of cute. It didn't have the menace that you felt. Oh, yeah, maybe that's why they call them "triggers".
I agree that feeding the troll might not help. Is this a Company parking lot? If so, maybe think about looping HR in, maybe?? Otherwise, doing nothing, beyond counting the number of stickers to estimate the owner's IQ and EQ, is probably the best course of action.
-
Perhaps the images did not strike you as consensual, as evidenced by the stick figure's positions. Remember the old twist on the "Hang Ten" feet, where a smaller pair of feet was inverted and between the larger feet? It was considered a bit racy at the time, but it was also kind of cute. It didn't have the menace that you felt. Oh, yeah, maybe that's why they call them "triggers".
I agree that feeding the troll might not help. Is this a Company parking lot? If so, maybe think about looping HR in, maybe?? Otherwise, doing nothing, beyond counting the number of stickers to estimate the owner's IQ and EQ, is probably the best course of action.
I studied it a little closer this morning to try to determine what was bugging me about it. The image shows the female stick figure with eyebrows raised and her mouth in an "O", which appears to be shock or surprise. Her hair is also disheveled. The male stick figure is winking.
I work on a military base, but there are few military people here. I'm a contractor, so there isn't really an HR for me. This is a strange, creative, and scientific environment where you're pretty much left to yourself and there's really no one to "tell".
I feel angry because the owner of this truck is clearly making an aggressive statement, but using a cartoon do so, thus pretending it means nothing. It is violence against women. There's no doubt in my mind. But I am sure that if I were to say that publicly, then some other people would gaslight me into thinking "huh, how can stick figures even have sex?" I'm also angry because in this day and age, I have to accept that some asshole is walking around thinking that violence against women is funny, and there's either nothing I can do about it, or nothing I can do without fear of reprisal. It's 2019, why are we still having this conversation?
-
There's a black pickup in my town that has a couple of stickers I find offensive - the first is a bumpersticker that has "Trump that b*tch!" written on it and a caricature of HRC looking very disheveled. The second is the outline of the US with the words "F*ck off, we're full!"
I've also spent a lot of time reflecting on why those messages bother me so much more than others which might support similar policies but less offensively (e.g. a simple Trump/Pence sticker or one that supports curtailing immigration). Both seem designed to evoke an emotional response from opponents as much as offer support ('success', i guess). There's also something I'm interpreting as deeply misogynistic about the caricature of HRC, though without further examples it's impossible to definitively say this attitude extends to women in general vs exclusively HRC.
-
Perhaps the images did not strike you as consensual, as evidenced by the stick figure's positions. Remember the old twist on the "Hang Ten" feet, where a smaller pair of feet was inverted and between the larger feet? It was considered a bit racy at the time, but it was also kind of cute. It didn't have the menace that you felt. Oh, yeah, maybe that's why they call them "triggers".
I agree that feeding the troll might not help. Is this a Company parking lot? If so, maybe think about looping HR in, maybe?? Otherwise, doing nothing, beyond counting the number of stickers to estimate the owner's IQ and EQ, is probably the best course of action.
I studied it a little closer this morning to try to determine what was bugging me about it. The image shows the female stick figure with eyebrows raised and her mouth in an "O", which appears to be shock or surprise. Her hair is also disheveled. The male stick figure is winking.
I work on a military base, but there are few military people here. I'm a contractor, so there isn't really an HR for me. This is a strange, creative, and scientific environment where you're pretty much left to yourself and there's really no one to "tell".
I feel angry because the owner of this truck is clearly making an aggressive statement, but using a cartoon do so, thus pretending it means nothing. It is violence against women. There's no doubt in my mind. But I am sure that if I were to say that publicly, then some other people would gaslight me into thinking "huh, how can stick figures even have sex?" I'm also angry because in this day and age, I have to accept that some asshole is walking around thinking that violence against women is funny, and there's either nothing I can do about it, or nothing I can do without fear of reprisal. It's 2019, why are we still having this conversation?
Any way you can draw a oh my god that hurts face on the male stick figure?
-
Perhaps the images did not strike you as consensual, as evidenced by the stick figure's positions. Remember the old twist on the "Hang Ten" feet, where a smaller pair of feet was inverted and between the larger feet? It was considered a bit racy at the time, but it was also kind of cute. It didn't have the menace that you felt. Oh, yeah, maybe that's why they call them "triggers".
I agree that feeding the troll might not help. Is this a Company parking lot? If so, maybe think about looping HR in, maybe?? Otherwise, doing nothing, beyond counting the number of stickers to estimate the owner's IQ and EQ, is probably the best course of action.
I studied it a little closer this morning to try to determine what was bugging me about it. The image shows the female stick figure with eyebrows raised and her mouth in an "O", which appears to be shock or surprise. Her hair is also disheveled. The male stick figure is winking.
I work on a military base, but there are few military people here. I'm a contractor, so there isn't really an HR for me. This is a strange, creative, and scientific environment where you're pretty much left to yourself and there's really no one to "tell".
I feel angry because the owner of this truck is clearly making an aggressive statement, but using a cartoon do so, thus pretending it means nothing. It is violence against women. There's no doubt in my mind. But I am sure that if I were to say that publicly, then some other people would gaslight me into thinking "huh, how can stick figures even have sex?" I'm also angry because in this day and age, I have to accept that some asshole is walking around thinking that violence against women is funny, and there's either nothing I can do about it, or nothing I can do without fear of reprisal. It's 2019, why are we still having this conversation?
Any way you can draw a oh my god that hurts face on the male stick figure?
It would be much more satisfying to modify the woman stick figure to look like a man.
-
There's a black pickup in my town that has a couple of stickers I find offensive - the first is a bumpersticker that has "Trump that b*tch!" written on it and a caricature of HRC looking very disheveled. The second is the outline of the US with the words "F*ck off, we're full!"
I've also spent a lot of time reflecting on why those messages bother me so much more than others which might support similar policies but less offensively (e.g. a simple Trump/Pence sticker or one that supports curtailing immigration). Both seem designed to evoke an emotional response from opponents as much as offer support ('success', i guess). There's also something I'm interpreting as deeply misogynistic about the caricature of HRC, though without further examples it's impossible to definitively say this attitude extends to women in general vs exclusively HRC.
My neighbor across the street puts up signs supporting Trump, but it seems as if he does it ONLY to make a point and to be extra-insensitive. For instance, at the first Women's March, he put up the "We support Trump" signs and another one with a donkey getting fucked (can't remember exactly). During the March for our Lives protest, he had NRA signs and signs about pulling his guns out of his cold, dead hands. On Presidents' Day, he flies the Trump Flag. I usually have groups of people staying in my home during these well-publicized protests, so I think he must do it as his own sort of protest (not against me, personally, but the whole town fills with protestors). I don't find it threatening at all and I find it easy to laugh it off. I do not post any political signs in my house or yard, but I always insist that any protestors staying with me pose with their signs in front of the house for posterity, so I'm sure he thinks he knows my political leanings.
Can't wait to see what he does for July 4th this year.
-
It would be much more satisfying to modify the woman stick figure to look like a man.
Then put a little rainbow flag sticker next to them. The beauty of simplified line art is that it's easy to subvert.
-
There's a black pickup in my town that has a couple of stickers I find offensive - the first is a bumpersticker that has "Trump that b*tch!" written on it and a caricature of HRC looking very disheveled. The second is the outline of the US with the words "F*ck off, we're full!"
I've also spent a lot of time reflecting on why those messages bother me so much more than others which might support similar policies but less offensively (e.g. a simple Trump/Pence sticker or one that supports curtailing immigration). Both seem designed to evoke an emotional response from opponents as much as offer support ('success', i guess). There's also something I'm interpreting as deeply misogynistic about the caricature of HRC, though without further examples it's impossible to definitively say this attitude extends to women in general vs exclusively HRC.
My neighbor across the street puts up signs supporting Trump, but it seems as if he does it ONLY to make a point and to be extra-insensitive. For instance, at the first Women's March, he put up the "We support Trump" signs and another one with a donkey getting fucked (can't remember exactly). During the March for our Lives protest, he had NRA signs and signs about pulling his guns out of his cold, dead hands. On Presidents' Day, he flies the Trump Flag. I usually have groups of people staying in my home during these well-publicized protests, so I think he must do it as his own sort of protest (not against me, personally, but the whole town fills with protestors). I don't find it threatening at all and I find it easy to laugh it off. I do not post any political signs in my house or yard, but I always insist that any protestors staying with me pose with their signs in front of the house for posterity, so I'm sure he thinks he knows my political leanings.
Can't wait to see what he does for July 4th this year.
There is a Trump flag? Interesting.
-
It would be much more satisfying to modify the woman stick figure to look like a man.
Then put a little rainbow flag sticker next to them. The beauty of simplified line art is that it's easy to subvert.
Ha ha! Yes, that would be perfect!
-
It would be much more satisfying to modify the woman stick figure to look like a man.
Then put a little rainbow flag sticker next to them. The beauty of simplified line art is that it's easy to subvert.
Ha ha! Yes, that would be perfect!
It would be perfect, but do be careful. This may not be the type that can take a joke.
-
Not a single image, and not socially offensive per se, but I'm sensitive to photos or video of people getting blood drawn.
In real life I have fainted once or twice from a blood draw because my veins are tiny and it can be painful with the wrong technician. I used to work for a boss who reacted the same way. One year our company had on-site mini-physicals prior to the annual health insurance renewal, and both of walked into the room only to see multiple employees getting their veins jabbed for blood samples. No privacy curtains. Took a deep breath, turned our heads and tried distracting ourselves.
It happens also on TV news, shows, or movies when there's a sudden switch to a medical blood draw scene and I have to cover my eyes or leave the room. I don't get the same reaction when viewing gory images of war or destruction - it's the blood draw specifically. Wimpy, I know, but just give me a heads up, please …!
-
I find his stick figures to be bizarre. I wouldn’t do anything to poke the bear. He could be unstable.
-
Not a single image, and not socially offensive per se, but I'm sensitive to photos or video of people getting blood drawn.
In real life I have fainted once or twice from a blood draw because my veins are tiny and it can be painful with the wrong technician. I used to work for a boss who reacted the same way. One year our company had on-site mini-physicals prior to the annual health insurance renewal, and both of walked into the room only to see multiple employees getting their veins jabbed for blood samples. No privacy curtains. Took a deep breath, turned our heads and tried distracting ourselves.
It happens also on TV news, shows, or movies when there's a sudden switch to a medical blood draw scene and I have to cover my eyes or leave the room. I don't get the same reaction when viewing gory images of war or destruction - it's the blood draw specifically. Wimpy, I know, but just give me a heads up, please …!
It's nothing to be ashamed about - vasovagal syncope (the clinical term for this sort of thing) affects 2-4% of the global population (or roughly one out of every 20 people)
It's such a common reaction that phlebotomists (people trained to draw blood) receive training for both patients and observers who faint or get woozy at the sight of a blood draw. I have a rather minor case, despite being the child of medical professionals. I don't faint but it definitely makes me woozy, whereas I can watch a horror film where someone is getting ripped apart in any number of ways and be fine.
-
Not a single image, and not socially offensive per se, but I'm sensitive to photos or video of people getting blood drawn.
In real life I have fainted once or twice from a blood draw because my veins are tiny and it can be painful with the wrong technician. I used to work for a boss who reacted the same way. One year our company had on-site mini-physicals prior to the annual health insurance renewal, and both of walked into the room only to see multiple employees getting their veins jabbed for blood samples. No privacy curtains. Took a deep breath, turned our heads and tried distracting ourselves.
It happens also on TV news, shows, or movies when there's a sudden switch to a medical blood draw scene and I have to cover my eyes or leave the room. I don't get the same reaction when viewing gory images of war or destruction - it's the blood draw specifically. Wimpy, I know, but just give me a heads up, please …!
It's nothing to be ashamed about - vasovagal syncope (the clinical term for this sort of thing) affects 2-4% of the global population (or roughly one out of every 20 people)
It's such a common reaction that phlebotomists (people trained to draw blood) receive training for both patients and observers who faint or get woozy at the sight of a blood draw. I have a rather minor case, despite being the child of medical professionals. I don't faint but it definitely makes me woozy, whereas I can watch a horror film where someone is getting ripped apart in any number of ways and be fine.
Oh, me too! My mother and grandmother were nurses, but I knew I just couldn't do it. When my first cousin decided to become a nurse, I said "close enough". I just look away, which helps, but if there's a lot of tubes to be filled, I get skitchy. Can't watch injections or incisions either. Thanks for the info, nereo. It's oddly comforting.
-
It would be much more satisfying to modify the woman stick figure to look like a man.
Then put a little rainbow flag sticker next to them. The beauty of simplified line art is that it's easy to subvert.
Ha ha! Yes, that would be perfect!
I'd say it is less than ideal.
The person who was these decals likely isn't doing it simply to express an opinion, they are doing it to get a rise out if people.
Putting additional stickers is exactly the kind of thing that could cause them to escalate; more in your face stickers maybe, an in person confrontation (verbal or physical) its possible, legal issues for defacing private property/vandalism/disorderly conduct could be.
If the owner responds then what, continue to escalate?
My opinion is either leave it be or if it really bothers the OP look to see if it violates some local obscenity laws.
-
Why would you want to do anything about this? Just be glad this idiot broadly advertises his idiocy so you can avoid him.
-
Perhaps the images did not strike you as consensual, as evidenced by the stick figure's positions. Remember the old twist on the "Hang Ten" feet, where a smaller pair of feet was inverted and between the larger feet? It was considered a bit racy at the time, but it was also kind of cute. It didn't have the menace that you felt. Oh, yeah, maybe that's why they call them "triggers".
I agree that feeding the troll might not help. Is this a Company parking lot? If so, maybe think about looping HR in, maybe?? Otherwise, doing nothing, beyond counting the number of stickers to estimate the owner's IQ and EQ, is probably the best course of action.
I studied it a little closer this morning to try to determine what was bugging me about it. The image shows the female stick figure with eyebrows raised and her mouth in an "O", which appears to be shock or surprise. Her hair is also disheveled. The male stick figure is winking.
I work on a military base, but there are few military people here. I'm a contractor, so there isn't really an HR for me. This is a strange, creative, and scientific environment where you're pretty much left to yourself and there's really no one to "tell".
I feel angry because the owner of this truck is clearly making an aggressive statement, but using a cartoon do so, thus pretending it means nothing. It is violence against women. There's no doubt in my mind. But I am sure that if I were to say that publicly, then some other people would gaslight me into thinking "huh, how can stick figures even have sex?" I'm also angry because in this day and age, I have to accept that some asshole is walking around thinking that violence against women is funny, and there's either nothing I can do about it, or nothing I can do without fear of reprisal. It's 2019, why are we still having this conversation?
I cannot help but wonder if you and the owner are viewing this graphic differently. (I still find it in poor taste) I grew up with a group that would find that sticker funny and more of a sarcastic jab at the folks who have stick figure families on their grocery getter or meant to insult those who hold different values than the ones that they have (the same crowd tends to love the calvin urinating on the logo of a different truck brand).
The folks I grew up with wouldn't see any violence against women in the image you describe, but instead would view it as bragging that women prefer "real men" (which they happen to define with all the characteristic the believe they have). They also would interpret women as being attracted to the values they hold (woman "humping" the NRA/pro-gun logo). The only offensive message they would see, and intend, in these sticker is aimed firmly at the people who disagree with them; basically calling you (the disagreeing viewer) less than a real man who members of the opposite sex have no interest in. The Lincoln with guns . . . well I don't know, maybe they just find it cool?
Honestly nothing in your description so far, other than your interpretation, scream rape/violence; not a childish wink when dealing with the topic of sex, not the choice of position, not the woman having an "O face", and not the fact that a woman's hair might become disheveled during the act of sex.
I went so far as to look online for a source of a sticker similar to what you describe (trigger warning: there are stick people engaged in sex, well behind a censor bar, in the following link) and the closest thing I could find is this: https://www.amazon.com/stick-Figure-Families-sticker-censored/dp/B00CFUFM56. Which I simply do not see violence/rape in.
I do not encourage you to engage or spend any of your time thinking any further about this an I certainly do not agree with a need to photograph this item. If it were me, I would try and convince myself that the owner had attributed a different meaning to the images then the one you have, try and put it out of my mind, and go on with my life. Letting it stew in your mind is likely part of the intention of the owner and, based upon the folks I grew up with, any action on your part could be seen as permission to escalate. Again based on the folks I grew up around, if you edit or add stickers or banners to their truck (as suggested in this thread) you better be prepared to find stickers on your car that support positions you disagree with or are simply meant to be offensive.
-
It would be much more satisfying to modify the woman stick figure to look like a man.
Then put a little rainbow flag sticker next to them. The beauty of simplified line art is that it's easy to subvert.
Ha ha! Yes, that would be perfect!
I'd say it is less than ideal.
The person who was these decals likely isn't doing it simply to express an opinion, they are doing it to get a rise out if people.
Putting additional stickers is exactly the kind of thing that could cause them to escalate; more in your face stickers maybe, an in person confrontation (verbal or physical) its possible, legal issues for defacing private property/vandalism/disorderly conduct could be.
If the owner responds then what, continue to escalate?
My opinion is either leave it be or if it really bothers the OP look to see if it violates some local obscenity laws.
I suspect that the person with the stickers on the truck would vehemently argue that they're just there to be funny, not offensive (in fact would argue that anyone offended by them simply didn't have a sense of humour) . . . and therefore we can surmise that he (it's a dude of course) must really like a laugh and would therefore find the rainbow flag joke funny.
Also, I bet that he would be driving around with the rainbow flag for a few weeks before he noticed . . . and it's not like any lasting or consequential damage would be done to his vehicle by adding yet another sticker.
-
It would be much more satisfying to modify the woman stick figure to look like a man.
Then put a little rainbow flag sticker next to them. The beauty of simplified line art is that it's easy to subvert.
Ha ha! Yes, that would be perfect!
I'd say it is less than ideal.
The person who was these decals likely isn't doing it simply to express an opinion, they are doing it to get a rise out if people.
Putting additional stickers is exactly the kind of thing that could cause them to escalate; more in your face stickers maybe, an in person confrontation (verbal or physical) its possible, legal issues for defacing private property/vandalism/disorderly conduct could be.
If the owner responds then what, continue to escalate?
My opinion is either leave it be or if it really bothers the OP look to see if it violates some local obscenity laws.
I suspect that the person with the stickers on the truck would vehemently argue that they're just there to be funny, not offensive (in fact would argue that anyone offended by them simply didn't have a sense of humour) . . . and therefore we can surmise that he (it's a dude of course) must really like a laugh and would therefore find the rainbow flag joke funny.
Also, I bet that he would be driving around with the rainbow flag for a few weeks before he noticed . . . and it's not like any lasting or consequential damage would be done to his vehicle by adding yet another sticker.
I agree they would argue that they are just being funny.
But having grown in the southern U.S. around folks who had all kinds of stickers on their expensive and modified trucks, I can say that they also identified with the positions in those stickers (see my post above) and would be just as likely to find a rainbow sticker funny as they were interpret is as an insult directly aimed at their personal sexuality and not that of a stick figure.
-
It would be much more satisfying to modify the woman stick figure to look like a man.
Then put a little rainbow flag sticker next to them. The beauty of simplified line art is that it's easy to subvert.
Ha ha! Yes, that would be perfect!
I'd say it is less than ideal.
The person who was these decals likely isn't doing it simply to express an opinion, they are doing it to get a rise out if people.
Putting additional stickers is exactly the kind of thing that could cause them to escalate; more in your face stickers maybe, an in person confrontation (verbal or physical) its possible, legal issues for defacing private property/vandalism/disorderly conduct could be.
If the owner responds then what, continue to escalate?
My opinion is either leave it be or if it really bothers the OP look to see if it violates some local obscenity laws.
I suspect that the person with the stickers on the truck would vehemently argue that they're just there to be funny, not offensive (in fact would argue that anyone offended by them simply didn't have a sense of humour) . . . and therefore we can surmise that he (it's a dude of course) must really like a laugh and would therefore find the rainbow flag joke funny.
Also, I bet that he would be driving around with the rainbow flag for a few weeks before he noticed . . . and it's not like any lasting or consequential damage would be done to his vehicle by adding yet another sticker.
I agree they would argue that they are just being funny.
But having grown in the southern U.S. around folks who had all kinds of stickers on their expensive and modified trucks, I can say that they also identified with the positions in those stickers (see my post above) and would be just as likely to find a rainbow sticker funny as they were interpret is as an insult directly aimed at their personal sexuality and not that of a stick figure.
I'd expect someone who feels a need to display their masculinity so overtly to be at least bi-curious if not closeted. And would strongly mention it to them if it ever came up.
-
It would be much more satisfying to modify the woman stick figure to look like a man.
Then put a little rainbow flag sticker next to them. The beauty of simplified line art is that it's easy to subvert.
Ha ha! Yes, that would be perfect!
I'd say it is less than ideal.
The person who was these decals likely isn't doing it simply to express an opinion, they are doing it to get a rise out if people.
Putting additional stickers is exactly the kind of thing that could cause them to escalate; more in your face stickers maybe, an in person confrontation (verbal or physical) its possible, legal issues for defacing private property/vandalism/disorderly conduct could be.
If the owner responds then what, continue to escalate?
My opinion is either leave it be or if it really bothers the OP look to see if it violates some local obscenity laws.
I suspect that the person with the stickers on the truck would vehemently argue that they're just there to be funny, not offensive (in fact would argue that anyone offended by them simply didn't have a sense of humour) . . . and therefore we can surmise that he (it's a dude of course) must really like a laugh and would therefore find the rainbow flag joke funny.
Also, I bet that he would be driving around with the rainbow flag for a few weeks before he noticed . . . and it's not like any lasting or consequential damage would be done to his vehicle by adding yet another sticker.
I agree they would argue that they are just being funny.
But having grown in the southern U.S. around folks who had all kinds of stickers on their expensive and modified trucks, I can say that they also identified with the positions in those stickers (see my post above) and would be just as likely to find a rainbow sticker funny as they were interpret is as an insult directly aimed at their personal sexuality and not that of a stick figure.
I'd expect someone who feels a need to display their masculinity so overtly to be at least bi-curious if not closeted. And would strongly mention it to them if it ever came up.
Most of the folks I knew who behaved like that were in a social group that had significant ramification for being gay, whether they were really straight, bi, or closeted adopting a persona of stereotypical hyper masculinity acted as both a defense against those ramification and to prevent them from ever considering their sexuality. I hear that some of them grew up moved away and even came out.
Again, based on my limited life experience, I would be hesitant to suggest to them that they were potentially something other than straight. It puts them in a state of fear; fear of either having their sexuality questioned by their social group or fear of having to examine their own sexuality. With that kind of fear people can react unexpectedly.
Having a couple decades and 1,500 miles separating me from my childhood, perhaps things have changed . . . but that is a situation I would want to put myself in.
-
There's a black pickup in my town that has a couple of stickers I find offensive - the first is a bumpersticker that has "Trump that b*tch!" written on it and a caricature of HRC looking very disheveled. The second is the outline of the US with the words "F*ck off, we're full!"
I've also spent a lot of time reflecting on why those messages bother me so much more than others which might support similar policies but less offensively (e.g. a simple Trump/Pence sticker or one that supports curtailing immigration). Both seem designed to evoke an emotional response from opponents as much as offer support ('success', i guess). There's also something I'm interpreting as deeply misogynistic about the caricature of HRC, though without further examples it's impossible to definitively say this attitude extends to women in general vs exclusively HRC.
My neighbor across the street puts up signs supporting Trump, but it seems as if he does it ONLY to make a point and to be extra-insensitive. For instance, at the first Women's March, he put up the "We support Trump" signs and another one with a donkey getting fucked (can't remember exactly). During the March for our Lives protest, he had NRA signs and signs about pulling his guns out of his cold, dead hands. On Presidents' Day, he flies the Trump Flag. I usually have groups of people staying in my home during these well-publicized protests, so I think he must do it as his own sort of protest (not against me, personally, but the whole town fills with protestors). I don't find it threatening at all and I find it easy to laugh it off. I do not post any political signs in my house or yard, but I always insist that any protestors staying with me pose with their signs in front of the house for posterity, so I'm sure he thinks he knows my political leanings.
Can't wait to see what he does for July 4th this year.
There is a Trump flag? Interesting.
There certainly is. I pass two (three if I take a slight detour) along my way home from work. For the two I pass, one has a confederate flag above it and one has a confederate flag below it. Perhaps someone could advise me on the flag etiquette of which one should be on top.......
-
There certainly is. I pass two (three if I take a slight detour) along my way home from work. For the two I pass, one has a confederate flag above it and one has a confederate flag below it. Perhaps someone could advise me on the flag etiquette of which one should be on top.......
Kind of depends on that person's political leanings. Do they support Trump because they love racism, or do they support racism because they love Trump?
-
I feel angry because the owner of this truck is clearly making an aggressive statement, but using a cartoon do so, thus pretending it means nothing. It is violence against women. There's no doubt in my mind. But I am sure that if I were to say that publicly, then some other people would gaslight me into thinking "huh, how can stick figures even have sex?" I'm also angry because in this day and age, I have to accept that some asshole is walking around thinking that violence against women is funny, and there's either nothing I can do about it, or nothing I can do without fear of reprisal. It's 2019, why are we still having this conversation?
You are having this conversation because you live in a country that values free speech. The whole point of having freedom of speech is that you will occasionally run into speech/text etc that you don't like. If we could outlaw speech that offended us, we wouldn't have freedom of speech.
As a retired military officer I absolutely hate to see someone burning the US Flag. It enrages me. That being said, I am glad I live in a country that so highly values freedom of expression that it is legal to burn the flag in protest.
Last comment. I have a theory that the number of stickers on the back of a vehicle has a direct correlation to instances and severity of mental illness. This applies to all portions of the political spectrum.
-
You are having this conversation because you live in a country that values free speech. The whole point of having freedom of speech is that you will occasionally run into speech/text etc that you don't like. If we could outlaw speech that offended us, we wouldn't have freedom of speech.
Yep. The guy's a tool but it's his right to "speak" like a tool.
Adding a small rainbow sticker is pretty damn funny, though.
Last comment. I have a theory that the number of stickers on the back of a vehicle has a direct correlation to instances and severity of mental illness. This applies to all portions of the political spectrum.
...pre-social media display of narcissism?
-
I'm also angry because in this day and age, I have to accept that some asshole is walking around thinking that violence against women is funny, and there's either nothing I can do about it, or nothing I can do without fear of reprisal. It's 2019, why are we still having this conversation?
Because your president condones it. Sadly I think you are in for another 5 years at least.
-
I'm also angry because in this day and age, I have to accept that some asshole is walking around thinking that violence against women is funny, and there's either nothing I can do about it, or nothing I can do without fear of reprisal. It's 2019, why are we still having this conversation?
Because your president condones it. Sadly I think you are in for another 5 years at least.
The president, with the full support of one of the two major political parties in the US.
-
I find truck testicles offensive. I always have the urge to kick them, but I think it would hurt my foot more than the truck.
(http://bsalert.com/f-store/hitch_nuts.jpg)
-
I'm also angry because in this day and age, I have to accept that some asshole is walking around thinking that violence against women is funny, and there's either nothing I can do about it, or nothing I can do without fear of reprisal. It's 2019, why are we still having this conversation?
Because your president condones it. Sadly I think you are in for another 5 years at least.
The president, with the full support of one of the two major political parties in the US.
You are both wrong. You have to accept someone thinking something and advertising something you don't like because of freedom of speech. It has nothing to do with political party or presidents. That being said, one party in particular is trying to place more and more limits on free speech.
-
I find truck testicles offensive. I always have the urge to kick them, but I think it would hurt my foot more than the truck.
(http://bsalert.com/f-store/hitch_nuts.jpg)
ewww! is that a thing? I have to admit, I'd laugh at that, but I don't think they would last long in my neighborhood before someone else stole them.
-
I see ‘truck-nuts’ from time to time, but I’ve always been a bit unclear about how to interpret them. I mean, is the driver (almost always a male) saying his genitalia, and by extension his manhood, is tied to his truck? What if the truck breaks down? What does a flat tire symbolize then? And what exactly happened to the penis? It’s always just testicles... which seem a bit odd, no?
-
I see ‘truck-nuts’ from time to time, but I’ve always been a bit unclear about how to interpret them. I mean, is the driver (almost always a male) saying his genitalia, and by extension his manhood, is tied to his truck? What if the truck breaks down? What does a flat tire symbolize then? And what exactly happened to the penis? It’s always just testicles... which seem a bit odd, no?
I've never see them in real life, just on media - my gut reaction is that must have been a painful surgery.
-
I see ‘truck-nuts’ from time to time, but I’ve always been a bit unclear about how to interpret them. I mean, is the driver (almost always a male) saying his genitalia, and by extension his manhood, is tied to his truck? What if the truck breaks down? What does a flat tire symbolize then? And what exactly happened to the penis? It’s always just testicles... which seem a bit odd, no?
To me it is just a very literal representation of the inadequacy complex on display, an extension of the big truck itself. An old high school friend of mine dubbed them LPTs: Little Penis Trucks.
-
I see ‘truck-nuts’ from time to time, but I’ve always been a bit unclear about how to interpret them.
They hang under the truck. The truck is a penis. They want you to think it makes them manly to have a big faux penis.
I don't think there is any irony in it. People who hang fake testicles on their trucks are not slyly commenting on the phallic symbolism of big trucks, they just like balls the same way they like big dicks.
edit: embarrassing phone autocorrect typo
-
I see ‘truck-nuts’ from time to time, but I’ve always been a bit unclear about how to interpret them.
They hang under the truck. The truck is a penis.
Well in that case the testicles are woefully undersized...
-
I see ‘truck-nuts’ from time to time, but I’ve always been a bit unclear about how to interpret them.
They hang under the truck. The truck is a penis.
Well in that case the testicles are woefully undersized...
maybe it is an accurate representation of the damage done by steroids? After all the stereotypical truck-nut owner does seem to display roid-range.
-
These analyses may each have some truth in them, but I think the thought process for most guys is, "haha, balls" and that's the full extent of it.
And my analysis I just made up is that the truck is like a horse where you can see the testicles from behind.
-
These analyses may each have some truth in them, but I think the thought process for most guys is, "haha, balls" and that's the full extent of it.
And my analyses I just made up is that the truck is like a horse where you can see the testicles from behind.
I kinda buy into that. Mostly because . . . I find this extremely funny:
(https://odditymall.com/includes/content/upload/bike-balls-light-up-bike-scrotum-4388.gif)
-
I'm also angry because in this day and age, I have to accept that some asshole is walking around thinking that violence against women is funny, and there's either nothing I can do about it, or nothing I can do without fear of reprisal. It's 2019, why are we still having this conversation?
Because your president condones it. Sadly I think you are in for another 5 years at least.
The president, with the full support of one of the two major political parties in the US.
You are both wrong. You have to accept someone thinking something and advertising something you don't like because of freedom of speech. It has nothing to do with political party or presidents. That being said, one party in particular is trying to place more and more limits on free speech.
Nope, sorry, this isn't a free speech issue and the problem isn't about one party trying to place limits on free speech. It is about the dumbing down of 'Merica and a president who plays to that fact, he is emboldened by his base and vice versa. Behaviours that were previously considered unacceptable for public figures have become accepted by the masses, which then allows those same behaviours to be normalized by the masses. Free speech never meant freedom from the consequences of that speech, but today, those consequences that were the backbone to civil society seem to be disappearing.
Nice try though.
-
Got it. Orange man bad.
-
And my analysis I just made up is that the truck is like a horse where you can see the testicles from behind.
Er, nope :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stallion
-
I find truck testicles offensive. I always have the urge to kick them, but I think it would hurt my foot more than the truck.
I think you can kick them if you like. My experience has been that they are free swinging and made of a rubber-like material, so you shouldn't be harmed.
-
This is an older thread, but I hope that you did not touch another person's truck or put stickers on it.
Would you want someone putting stickers on your vehicle? No? OK.
Hope you are feeling better.
-
Question:
What does the American flag in black & white with a single blue stripe stand for? They are often hung vertically, I think. I've been seeing them for a few years & don't have a clue what they mean, but assume it's something negative.
-
Question:
What does the American flag in black & white with a single blue stripe stand for? They are often hung vertically, I think. I've been seeing them for a few years & don't have a clue what they mean, but assume it's something negative.
Thin blue line, law enforcement. Not negative
-
Why would you want to do anything about this? Just be glad this idiot broadly advertises his idiocy so you can avoid him.
This is the correct response. I always appreciate people that save me time by advertising their stupidity as I don't have to discover it on my own.
This is an older thread, but I hope that you did not touch another person's truck or put stickers on it.
Would you want someone putting stickers on your vehicle? No? OK.
Hope you are feeling better.
Agreed. I thought most people were taught as children the lesson of "is that yours? No, so don't touch it"
-
Question:
What does the American flag in black & white with a single blue stripe stand for? They are often hung vertically, I think. I've been seeing them for a few years & don't have a clue what they mean, but assume it's something negative.
Thin blue line, law enforcement. Not negative
I knew the blue line had something to do with law enforcement. I thought the colorless flag with the single blue line, hung vertically might indicate that somebody feels that we're living in a police state. I wasn't sure if they were against that or supporting it.
The colorless flag seemed to signify that they believe the American dream is dead, or under threat, especially since they're hung vertically.
-
Question:
What does the American flag in black & white with a single blue stripe stand for? They are often hung vertically, I think. I've been seeing them for a few years & don't have a clue what they mean, but assume it's something negative.
Thin blue line, law enforcement. Not negative
I knew the blue line had something to do with law enforcement. I thought the colorless flag with the single blue line, hung vertically might indicate that somebody feels that we're living in a police state. I wasn't sure if they were against that or supporting it.
The colorless flag seemed to signify that they believe the American dream is dead, or under threat, especially since they're hung vertically.
Looks like that, doesn't it? I've always found that flag to look weird and sinister.
-
This is an older thread, but I hope that you did not touch another person's truck or put stickers on it.
Would you want someone putting stickers on your vehicle? No? OK.
Hope you are feeling better.
Agreed. I thought most people were taught as children the lesson of "is that yours? No, so don't touch it"
yes, you should not touch things that are not yours, and I think stickers count. In the same vein, most children are taught some variant of "don't be a dick". It seems to me that many want to do things largely because another group will find it offensive.
-
Question:
What does the American flag in black & white with a single blue stripe stand for? They are often hung vertically, I think. I've been seeing them for a few years & don't have a clue what they mean, but assume it's something negative.
As others have said -
thin blue line = law enforcement
thin red line = firefighters
thin green line = Federal Agents such as Border Patrol, Park Rangers, Game Wardens and Conservation Personnel.
thin orange line = Search and Rescue Personnel (SAR), and Emergency First Responders.
per tradition and flag etiquette: When displayed either horizontally or vertically against a wall, the union should be uppermost and to the flag's own right, that is, to the observer's left. When displayed in a window, the American flag should be displayed in the same way, with the union or blue field to the left of the observer in the street.
(https://www.crwflags.com/fotw/images/u/us_tblus.gif)
--
--
(https://www.crwflags.com/fotw/images/u/us_trl3.gif)
--
--
(https://www.crwflags.com/fotw/images/u/us_tglus.gif)
--
--
(https://www.crwflags.com/fotw/images/u/us_tolus.gif)
-
I haven't seen any red, green, or orange stripes displayed yet.
Maybe they aren't as proud as the cops, around here anyway.
-
I had to look up the image. If it’s this one, then it seems to me that she’s into it but the guys eyes are maybe angry looking. I really don’t think this particular version (if different from yours) is trying to imply rape. In Terrible taste though
(https://i.imgur.com/3PLhwUj.jpg)
-
I had to look up the image. If it’s this one, then it seems to me that she’s into it but the guys eyes are maybe angry looking. I really don’t think this particular version (if different from yours) is trying to imply rape. In Terrible taste though
(https://i.imgur.com/3PLhwUj.jpg)
It's interesting that some people would be so offended by such as thing. Some people are so sensitive these days. I would just give it a look and move on without a second though.
-
I wouldn't say that I'm "offended", but I do find it suprising how trashy Americans have become.
-
I agree: it’s trashy but I don’t see it depicting violence towards women. Just an obnoxious mental juvenile who likes to post sex doodles on his vehicles. Tee hee! Sex exists!
ETA: I understand getting a first impression and having your own interpretation. And maybe that’s not the decal that you are describing.
-
Sounds like it's this one:
While trashy and I would never put it on my car, this thread says a whole lot more about the OP than it does about the bloke with the sticker. Said bloke would be as happy as that OP is so upset. I just shake my head at how fragile some people choose to be.
-
Well I was going to tell about the person I encountered in the grocery store with several very visible nazi tattoos, but it seems like we're talking about stick figures here.
I have met nazi's before and while I would much rather have neo nazi's who are open about their ideology rather than those pretending they are decent people while having Hitler's portrait hanging above their bed, I was quite shocked because this guy just casually had many nazi tattoos on full display in a very neutral place. He was standing next to me in line and I felt my skin crawl and my heartbeat went up even though he was just standing there buying food.
-
I wouldn't say that I'm "offended", but I do find it suprising how trashy Americans have become.
How trashy some Americans have become. I blame the liberals. ;) LOL.
MOD NOTE: Unnecessary trolling. Please don't.
-
It would be much more satisfying to modify the woman stick figure to look like a man.
Then put a little rainbow flag sticker next to them. The beauty of simplified line art is that it's easy to subvert.
Ha ha! Yes, that would be perfect!
I'd say it is less than ideal.
The person who was these decals likely isn't doing it simply to express an opinion, they are doing it to get a rise out if people.
Putting additional stickers is exactly the kind of thing that could cause them to escalate; more in your face stickers maybe, an in person confrontation (verbal or physical) its possible, legal issues for defacing private property/vandalism/disorderly conduct could be.
If the owner responds then what, continue to escalate?
My opinion is either leave it be or if it really bothers the OP look to see if it violates some local obscenity laws.
This is how sticker-on-sticker violence gets started.
-
I haven't seen any red, green, or orange stripes displayed yet.
Maybe they aren't as proud as the cops, around here anyway.
I haven't seen any of the other color either. In my area I noticed a rise in the blue stripe ones as a result of the Black Lives Matter movement and protests against police brutality.
-
I haven't seen any red, green, or orange stripes displayed yet.
Maybe they aren't as proud as the cops, around here anyway.
I haven't seen any of the other color either. In my area I noticed a rise in the blue stripe ones as a result of the Black Lives Matter movement and protests against police brutality.
Does having the flag imply you are that profession, or is it just like... I support this profession?
-
It's support.
-
It's support.
It's also "please consider giving me a warning rather than a ticket".
-
It's support.
It's also "please consider giving me a warning rather than a ticket".
LOL +1.
-
It's support.
It's also "please consider giving me a warning rather than a ticket".
LOL +1.
So it’s the new police benevolent association sticker without having to donate anything
-
It's support.
It's also "please consider giving me a warning rather than a ticket".
LOL +1.
So it’s the new police benevolent association sticker without having to donate anything
Very mustachian! ;)
-
I feel angry because the owner of this truck is clearly making an aggressive statement, but using a cartoon do so, thus pretending it means nothing. It is violence against women. There's no doubt in my mind. But I am sure that if I were to say that publicly, then some other people would gaslight me into thinking "huh, how can stick figures even have sex?" I'm also angry because in this day and age, I have to accept that some asshole is walking around thinking that violence against women is funny, and there's either nothing I can do about it, or nothing I can do without fear of reprisal. It's 2019, why are we still having this conversation?
You are having this conversation because you live in a country that values free speech. The whole point of having freedom of speech is that you will occasionally run into speech/text etc that you don't like. If we could outlaw speech that offended us, we wouldn't have freedom of speech.
As a retired military officer I absolutely hate to see someone burning the US Flag. It enrages me. That being said, I am glad I live in a country that so highly values freedom of expression that it is legal to burn the flag in protest.
Last comment. I have a theory that the number of stickers on the back of a vehicle has a direct correlation to instances and severity of mental illness. This applies to all portions of the political spectrum.
Yes to both bolded parts - plus the number of stuffed animals on display in a car rear window is in direct relationship to how bad someone drives.
I don't really find too many things offensive. Trashy, stupid, funny, obnoxious but not really anger-inducing offensive. Apparently a "Hello Kitty with an assault rifle" tee shirt I have seems to enrage some other people though. But it's pink! It's Hello Kitty! How can something so adorable enrage anyone ;-).
The comment that number of stickers on the back of a vehicle correlates to mental illness made me remember a study that was done a while ago on the correlation of number of bumper stickers to road rage. Turns out, there is one.
https://www.nature.com/news/2008/080613/full/news.2008.889.html
-
I live in a small college town & it's common to see cars with dozens of interesting stickers on the rear. I enjoy reading them at traffic lights. Most of them are the "friendly hippie" type of stickers. I have a hard time believing they belong to a bunch of road ragers.
-
The sticker is meant to be in shockingly poor taste. It's the logical next step up from naked-lady truck flaps and Calvin urinating. They put it there specifically to get a rise out of people like the OP.
Regarding Truck Nutz, y'all might enjoy this podcast episode exploring the phenomenon:
https://slate.com/culture/2019/03/decoder-ring-explores-the-strange-and-wacky-world-of-novelty-testicle-products-truck-nutz-bulls-balls-neuticles-bike-balls-gunsticles-and-more.html
The host finds that people who hang the Nutz on their bumpers aren't doing it to showcase their masculinity. They know the Nutz are silly and trashy, but that's a style they revel in, and they enjoy imagining other peoples' reactions.
-
Try putting a drawing of Mohammed on your car and see what happens.
-
Try putting a drawing of Mohammed on your car and see what happens.
Nothing would happen . . . since nobody knows what he looked like, nobody would recognize that the drawing was of the prophet. Unless you explicitly wrote out 'This is the prophet Mohammed'. In which case you would probably be treated poorly by members of the muslim community. This isn't unique in any way of course. If you replaced the woman stick figure with a bearded man and wrote the text 'Jesus likes it up the ass' I'd expect an unfriendly response from Christians.
-
Sounds like it's this one:
While trashy and I would never put it on my car, this thread says a whole lot more about the OP than it does about the bloke with the sticker. Said bloke would be as happy as that OP is so upset. I just shake my head at how fragile some people choose to be.
This is the sticker!
I'm actually not fragile, but thank you for trying to take me down a peg so that I don't voice my opinion about what is clearly advocating "Rape Culture". I'm sick of looking at this truck and I'm tired of pulling up into a parking lot where someone can imply, through the use of cartoons no less, that it's okay to advocate for hurting women. Yep, it's pretty easy for me to just walk past and forget all about it, but your response and implication that there's something wrong with ME now makes me want to report this to the EEO office on base. Thanks for convincing me that I need to stand up and speak out against a culture that is okay with treating women like property.
-
Sounds like it's this one:
While trashy and I would never put it on my car, this thread says a whole lot more about the OP than it does about the bloke with the sticker. Said bloke would be as happy as that OP is so upset. I just shake my head at how fragile some people choose to be.
This is the sticker!
I'm actually not fragile, but thank you for trying to take me down a peg so that I don't voice my opinion about what is clearly advocating "Rape Culture". I'm sick of looking at this truck and I'm tired of pulling up into a parking lot where someone can imply, through the use of cartoons no less, that it's okay to advocate for hurting women. Yep, it's pretty easy for me to just walk past and forget all about it, but your response and implication that there's something wrong with ME now makes me want to report this to the EEO office on base. Thanks for convincing me that I need to stand up and speak out against a culture that is okay with treating women like property.
First, mjr's assumptions are unfair. I don't think this is a sign of fragility. If the image were advocating rape, which you honestly believe it does, then maybe you should say something.
On the other hand, I think you are making incorrect assumptions as well
yes, in the one bending over, it honestly appeared like a stick-figure rape.
I don't know how you came to this conclusion, but I'd say I'm around 99.9% certain that this was not the intent of whoever drew this cartoon. I would say this is "clearly" a joke which alludes to the stick figure families people stick on their back window, which in turn suggests the stick figures are in a consenting relationship. I don't see anything about the image which suggests force.
-
Sounds like it's this one:
While trashy and I would never put it on my car, this thread says a whole lot more about the OP than it does about the bloke with the sticker. Said bloke would be as happy as that OP is so upset. I just shake my head at how fragile some people choose to be.
This is the sticker!
I'm actually not fragile, but thank you for trying to take me down a peg so that I don't voice my opinion about what is clearly advocating "Rape Culture". I'm sick of looking at this truck and I'm tired of pulling up into a parking lot where someone can imply, through the use of cartoons no less, that it's okay to advocate for hurting women. Yep, it's pretty easy for me to just walk past and forget all about it, but your response and implication that there's something wrong with ME now makes me want to report this to the EEO office on base. Thanks for convincing me that I need to stand up and speak out against a culture that is okay with treating women like property.
Your ability to interpret stick figure facial expressions must far exceed my own if that is "clearly" nonconsensual. I also don't know much about stick figure mores but I'd guess that, like with humans, rape is not typically how families are created.
As others have said, it's intentionally crass and the owner is delighted thinking of all the people they're offending. I would deny them the satisfaction of a formal complaint, and silently thank them for making it abundantly clear that they're an idiot.
-
It's gross. Full stop.
Personally, I kind of appreciate these tasteless displays from morons. Because they are a clear signal to me that this is just the kind of person I prefer to stay far away from.
-
Try putting a drawing of Mohammed on your car and see what happens.
Nothing would happen . . . since nobody knows what he looked like, nobody would recognize that the drawing was of the prophet. Unless you explicitly wrote out 'This is the prophet Mohammed'. In which case you would probably be treated poorly by members of the muslim community. This isn't unique in any way of course. If you replaced the woman stick figure with a bearded man and wrote the text 'Jesus likes it up the ass' I'd expect an unfriendly response from Christians.
Seventeen people dead at Charlie hebdo is an "unfriendly response"?
-
Try putting a drawing of Mohammed on your car and see what happens.
Nothing would happen . . . since nobody knows what he looked like, nobody would recognize that the drawing was of the prophet. Unless you explicitly wrote out 'This is the prophet Mohammed'. In which case you would probably be treated poorly by members of the muslim community. This isn't unique in any way of course. If you replaced the woman stick figure with a bearded man and wrote the text 'Jesus likes it up the ass' I'd expect an unfriendly response from Christians.
Seventeen people dead at Charlie hebdo is an "unfriendly response"?
Yes, everyone who puts a drawing of Mohammed on their car will be murdered by Al Qaeda /s
What point are you trying to make here?
-
I swear, there are certain posters on this forum that make me want to buy a bunch of copies of this book and distribute it liberally.
www.amazon.com/Bullshit-Harry-G-Frankfurt-ebook/dp/B001EQ4OJW
-
***Warning: Random bitching that maybe I only care about***
To venture further off-topic, I was triggered when watching the US - Mexico Gold Cup Final on Univision (because fuck cable, I don't care if the only word I understand is GOOOOOLLLLL!!!!!!!) and the camera decided to focus on the guy wearing a "Chingue Su Madre" shirt for a full ten seconds or so after the Mexicans went up 1-0. Now, I was never good at Spanish, but I was very good at learning foreign curse words and phrases, and somehow felt the US television stations would be bombarded with complaints if they said the equivalent of "Fuck Your Mother" on national broadcast television, especially with the implication that the other country's team (which happened to be my team) is the mother being fucked. (In other words, it wasn't the t-shirt that offended (I probably would have chuckled had I seen it in person), but rather the focused broadcast of that t-shirt on national television implying it was the editorial thought of Univision.)
***End rant***
-
Try putting a drawing of Mohammed on your car and see what happens.
Nothing would happen . . . since nobody knows what he looked like, nobody would recognize that the drawing was of the prophet. Unless you explicitly wrote out 'This is the prophet Mohammed'. In which case you would probably be treated poorly by members of the muslim community. This isn't unique in any way of course. If you replaced the woman stick figure with a bearded man and wrote the text 'Jesus likes it up the ass' I'd expect an unfriendly response from Christians.
Seventeen people dead at Charlie hebdo is an "unfriendly response"?
No, it's a horrific act of terrorism. The terrorism committed in the name of Christianity by Anders Breivik and Brenton Tarrant were also not 'unfriendly response'. I understand though, that these extreme outliers are not indicative of the behaviour of the majority of religious people in the world. Do you?
-
The image dragoncar posted (#1) is crass. The one MJR posted (#2) is offensive.
Someone whose car/truck sported #1 is someone I am most likely not to have many shared values with. The person who would have #2 is someone I would actively avoid.
-
#2 looks like it was composed with little bits of tape.
-
The terrorism committed in the name of Christianity by Anders Breivik and Brenton Tarrant....
Not the best examples. Both figures were anti-Islamist white supremacists, but the Christian tag is clearly rejected except for its potential use as a 'tool' or means to an end.
There are surely better examples, though none I can come up with on the top of my head with the sole motivation of defending the honor of Christianity against blasphemers.
-
The terrorism committed in the name of Christianity by Anders Breivik and Brenton Tarrant....
Not the best examples. Both figures were anti-Islamist white supremacists, but the Christian tag is clearly rejected except for its potential use as a 'tool' or means to an end.
There are surely better examples, though none I can come up with on the top of my head with the sole motivation of defending the honor of Christianity against blasphemers.
Islam hasn't quite drawn the modern boundaries around what should happen with blasphemers. Or other boundaries like nonbelievers, women's rights, etc. I think in part it's because European faith experienced transformation during the enlightenment and Islam hasn't dealt with individual sovereignty so clearly. Just speculation there, I'm far from an expert.
Anyway I know it's only partly relevant to the topic but it seemed interesting to me. Islam is fascinating but I think it will have to transform to a less ritualistic state to coexist.
-
The artiste behind this sticker doesn't seem to have applied much skill. But my own sense is that it wasn't intended to show rape, just copulation that will lead to the usual stick-figure family.
What to me is most off-putting is the male figure's expression. He is goofy and distracted, performing more for the viewer than for his partner. He needs to show more consideration for her! I'm laying odds he is an inadequate lover.
Anyway, this is not a good sticker! But it's just expression of trashiness, not a threat of violence.
You could respond with your own humor (maybe bring in a windshield marker to make your own contributions to the image, altering its meaning). Or just avert your gaze.
If you let it bother you, the driver wins.
-
The image FIREstache posted (#1) is crass. The one MJR posted (#2) is offensive.
Someone whose car/truck sported #1 is someone I am most likely not to have many shared values with. The person who would have #2 is someone I would actively avoid.
I didn't post any images.
-
The image FIREstache posted (#1) is crass. The one MJR posted (#2) is offensive.
Someone whose car/truck sported #1 is someone I am most likely not to have many shared values with. The person who would have #2 is someone I would actively avoid.
I didn't post any images.
You are right - I saw it in your post, but you were quoting dragoncar. I'll go back and fix it.
-
The terrorism committed in the name of Christianity by Anders Breivik and Brenton Tarrant....
Not the best examples. Both figures were anti-Islamist white supremacists, but the Christian tag is clearly rejected except for its potential use as a 'tool' or means to an end.
There are surely better examples, though none I can come up with on the top of my head with the sole motivation of defending the honor of Christianity against blasphemers.
Breivik claimed to be a member of an "international Christian military order" that he named as a branch of the Knights Templar, and made multiple references to Christianity and God in his manifesto. Tarrant was certainly motivated by his support of the Christian religion . . . he supported Serbian ethnic cleansing as "Christian Europeans attempting to remove these Islamic occupiers from Europe", and decorated his gun with references to battles in the Crusades and magazines with the names of Christians who fought against Muslims in the past.
But if you would prefer more overtly Christian terrorists, we can talk about Robert Doggart, Alexandre Bissonette, Eric Rudolph, Larry McQuilliams, James Kopp, Robert Dear, or others. It's also important to remember that the KKK for example, identifies itself as a Christian group. It's roots of course are Christian, and each member swears to uphold Christian morality upon initiation.
I guess my point is that it could be argued that Christianity hasn't quite drawn the modern boundaries around what should happen to people who worship the same God in a different way (Muslims), or regarding women's rights (abortion).
Or at least if I was hell-bent on attempting to tie all Christianity to the extremist actions of a few criminals that's the argument that I'd make. But that wouldn't be very fair to the huge numbers of moderate Christians out there.
-
I believe Christianity has more precedence for tolerance and forgiveness within the culture and within the teachings of the faith than Islam does. Islam is more Imperialist in its teachings and less tolerant of transgressions and infidels.
You might be able to tell by the dead gay people hanging from cranes in Saudi Arabia. Perhaps my concerns should be directed at Wahhabism, rather than say Indonesian style Muslims which have coexisted for a long time with Christians, others. Again, my knowledge is limited.
Islam does have precedence for exclusion and purity though, this is embodied when prayer is practiced; those that want to pray must clean themselves before presenting themselves before god, food restrictions, etc.
-
I believe Christianity has more precedence for tolerance and forgiveness within the culture and within the teachings of the faith than Islam does. Islam is more Imperialist in its teachings and less tolerant of transgressions and infidels.
As with any religion, interpretation of the ancient text is everything. I can quote dozens of passages from the bible that are very intolerant of transgressions. From what I've read, I'd say the Koran is pretty comparable to the old testament of the bible in terms of advocating aggressively killing your enemies. I'd agree that the new testament is generally softer language. When it advocates death, it's usually couched in parable so comes across much softer.
You might be able to tell by the dead gay people hanging from cranes in Saudi Arabia. Perhaps my concerns should be directed at Wahhabism, rather than say Indonesian style Muslims which have coexisted for a long time with Christians, others. Again, my knowledge is limited.
It's a good thing that there have never been any dead gay people at the hands of Christians! Oh wait. Look at Christian countries like the Democratic Republic of Congo . . . where being gay is illegal, and gay people are regularly killed by the police.
Yes, there are more and less extreme versions of religions. It would be foolish to condemn all Christians in the US because of the actions of Christians in the DRC.
Islam does have precedence for exclusion and purity though, this is embodied when prayer is practiced; those that want to pray must clean themselves before presenting themselves before god, food restrictions, etc.
There's plenty of exclusion in Christianity. Catholics don't allow female priests. Mormons have a disturbing history regarding oppression and polygamy. Most christian churches still openly disparage homosexuality as evil.
Food? That's a religions thing, not specific to Muslims. Seventh-day Adventist are supposed to limit eating meat and highly spiced food,, several Chrisian denominations proscribe alcohol, Hindus don't eat beef, Jews don't eat pork, etc.
Muslims are supposed to clean themselves before praying . . . but does that seem any stranger than practicing ritual cannibalism (this is my body, this is my blood) to you?
-
The sticker is meant to be in shockingly poor taste. It's the logical next step up from naked-lady truck flaps and Calvin urinating. They put it there specifically to get a rise out of people like the OP.
I was pleasantly surprised that this combination didn't already exist. So I took it upon myself to make it:
(https://i.imgur.com/zDNmFs5.png)
-
what hath god wrought
-
Sounds like it's this one:
While trashy and I would never put it on my car, this thread says a whole lot more about the OP than it does about the bloke with the sticker. Said bloke would be as happy as that OP is so upset. I just shake my head at how fragile some people choose to be.
I think it's in poor taste, but "violence"? The man looks pleased with himself and the woman looks blissed out.
At any rate OP, write down the license plate number, maybe take a picture, submit it anonymously to whatever passes for HR at your workplace. Then move on. Don't let gross redneck dude get you down. I read your insightful posts on this board with interest. I like you and hate to see you stressing over this at all.
-
Sounds like it's this one:
While trashy and I would never put it on my car, this thread says a whole lot more about the OP than it does about the bloke with the sticker. Said bloke would be as happy as that OP is so upset. I just shake my head at how fragile some people choose to be.
I think it's in poor taste, but "violence"? The man looks pleased with himself and the woman looks blissed out.
At any rate OP, write down the license plate number, maybe take a picture, submit it anonymously to whatever passes for HR at your workplace. Then move on. Don't let gross redneck dude get you down. I read your insightful posts on this board with interest. I like you and hate to see you stressing over this at all.
And OP, don't watch any TV or PG/R movies and keep yourself sheltered - I'm afraid you are way too fragile. A stick figure is pretty mild to what's on TV or out there in the real world.
-
Or at least if I was hell-bent on attempting to tie all Christianity to the extremist actions of a few criminals that's the argument that I'd make. But that wouldn't be very fair to the huge numbers of moderate Christians out there.
I agree that the lone-wolf crazies will always be out there, whether they're interpreting the Koran, the Bible, or Catcher in the Rye. I think the emphasis regarding Muslims in regards to this thread is that there is a significant proportion of current Muslim religious doctrine that encourages excessive punishment (beyond excommunication) for blasphemy. Christianity was similar in the past, but in general has moved beyond that (with certainly some exceptions).
-
I believe Christianity has more precedence for tolerance and forgiveness within the culture and within the teachings of the faith than Islam does. Islam is more Imperialist in its teachings and less tolerant of transgressions and infidels.
You might be able to tell by the dead gay people hanging from cranes in Saudi Arabia. Perhaps my concerns should be directed at Wahhabism, rather than say Indonesian style Muslims which have coexisted for a long time with Christians, others. Again, my knowledge is limited.
Islam does have precedence for exclusion and purity though, this is embodied when prayer is practiced; those that want to pray must clean themselves before presenting themselves before god, food restrictions, etc.
You do realize that the most dangerous countries for gay men are actually predominantly Protestant, right? Uganda and Jamaica. Christianity doesn't have a good track record with tolerance over history. It's better at this moment in history when traditionally Christian ethic groups are better off economically, but a few centuries ago when it was reversed we had the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Salem Witch trials etc. The real roots of the violence aren't religious but economic.
-
Or at least if I was hell-bent on attempting to tie all Christianity to the extremist actions of a few criminals that's the argument that I'd make. But that wouldn't be very fair to the huge numbers of moderate Christians out there.
I agree that the lone-wolf crazies will always be out there, whether they're interpreting the Koran, the Bible, or Catcher in the Rye. I think the emphasis regarding Muslims in regards to this thread is that there is a significant proportion of current Muslim religious doctrine that encourages excessive punishment (beyond excommunication) for blasphemy. Christianity was similar in the past, but in general has moved beyond that (with certainly some exceptions).
I don't believe that this has anything to do with the particulars of the religion, but rather with the economy and social supports existing where the religion is practiced. It's a lot easier to be magnanimous about your beliefs when you live safe and sound in a first world country with a job. If you're in real danger of starving or being killed by a drone, there are few schools and no work for you even if you manage to graduate you're going to be more susceptible to extremism. How many Muslim countries are first world? How many Christian countries are? The only 3rd world Christian country that I could think of was the DRC, and they are very extreme in their application of Christian doctrine as law - specifically relating to gay rights.
You can even see this effect in the US. The poorest states of the US with lower than average employment, the worst human rights records, and fewer social supports are the southern states - which are also the places where Christian extremism and fundamentalism is most prolific.
-
Or at least if I was hell-bent on attempting to tie all Christianity to the extremist actions of a few criminals that's the argument that I'd make. But that wouldn't be very fair to the huge numbers of moderate Christians out there.
I agree that the lone-wolf crazies will always be out there, whether they're interpreting the Koran, the Bible, or Catcher in the Rye. I think the emphasis regarding Muslims in regards to this thread is that there is a significant proportion of current Muslim religious doctrine that encourages excessive punishment (beyond excommunication) for blasphemy. Christianity was similar in the past, but in general has moved beyond that (with certainly some exceptions).
I don't believe that this has anything to do with the particulars of the religion, but rather with the economy and social supports existing where the religion is practiced. It's a lot easier to be magnanimous about your beliefs when you live safe and sound in a first world country with a job. If you're in real danger of starving or being killed by a drone, there are few schools and no work for you even if you manage to graduate you're going to be more susceptible to extremism. How many Muslim countries are first world? How many Christian countries are? The only 3rd world Christian country that I could think of was the DRC, and they are very extreme in their application of Christian doctrine as law - specifically relating to gay rights.
You can even see this effect in the US. The poorest states of the US with lower than average employment, the worst human rights records, and fewer social supports are the southern states - which are also the places where Christian extremism and fundamentalism is most prolific.
A majority of Sub-Saharan Africa is Christian, and there is religious violence there. Nigeria for instance is split between Muslims and Christians and both sides have committed violence against the other.
A lot of the homophobia in poor Protestant countries was actually initiated by fundamentalists from here in the Southern US which is the hinterland of the extremist elements of Christianity. And yes it is lack of opportunity that drives extremism here too. I'm not trying to put Christianity down but illustrate that all belief systems can be used to justify extremism; it's not at all specific to Islam.
-
Lots of interesting information connecting (religious) extremism and economic choices. I don't doubt that the correlation is there. I would question whether the causation arrow exists as postulated, and that perhaps on the contrary the stagnant economic choices arise because of dogmatism, and that extremism comes about more from perceived unfairness than from anything else.
But this digresses from the main point, particularly that in some areas of the world, it is not considered extremist to murder somebody for blasphemy (or homosexuality, or any other number of (what most of us would consider victimless) crimes). Some bumper stickers might get you reproached by the offended, but only in extremist areas would you be risking your life with non-negligible probability by posting a certain subset of messages or symbols.
-
Sounds like it's this one:
While trashy and I would never put it on my car, this thread says a whole lot more about the OP than it does about the bloke with the sticker. Said bloke would be as happy as that OP is so upset. I just shake my head at how fragile some people choose to be.
I think it's in poor taste, but "violence"? The man looks pleased with himself and the woman looks blissed out.
At any rate OP, write down the license plate number, maybe take a picture, submit it anonymously to whatever passes for HR at your workplace. Then move on. Don't let gross redneck dude get you down. I read your insightful posts on this board with interest. I like you and hate to see you stressing over this at all.
And OP, don't watch any TV or PG/R movies and keep yourself sheltered - I'm afraid you are way too fragile. A stick figure is pretty mild to what's on TV or out there in the real world.
This is exactly the kind of gaslighting that makes violence and bigotry acceptable in this country. Convince everyone that cartoons don't mean anything. Sticks and stones and all that, right? That's how I grew up too. So no, not fragile, but I am just now recognizing that the world was and still is a harsh, harsh place for a lot of people when it doesn't have to be. You know who it's never been harsh to? White males. So you can say that I'm too fragile in an effort to quash my speech, but I'm not, never have been.
You may want to ask yourself why you want to change subject to make it about me instead of simply focusing on the subject at hand.
-
Sounds like it's this one:
While trashy and I would never put it on my car, this thread says a whole lot more about the OP than it does about the bloke with the sticker. Said bloke would be as happy as that OP is so upset. I just shake my head at how fragile some people choose to be.
This is the sticker!
I'm actually not fragile, but thank you for trying to take me down a peg so that I don't voice my opinion about what is clearly advocating "Rape Culture". I'm sick of looking at this truck and I'm tired of pulling up into a parking lot where someone can imply, through the use of cartoons no less, that it's okay to advocate for hurting women. Yep, it's pretty easy for me to just walk past and forget all about it, but your response and implication that there's something wrong with ME now makes me want to report this to the EEO office on base. Thanks for convincing me that I need to stand up and speak out against a culture that is okay with treating women like property.
You are free to have your impression of the meaning of the sticker and regardless of the interpretation, this thread seems to have proven that the general consensus is that this style of sticker is crass and in poor taste. By all means feel free to report it to the powers that be if you feel that it violates a policy. Depending on your role in the organization you may even have an obligation to report things that you feel violate policies, rules, and laws.
What you should not do, the absence of other evidence, is presume the intention of the owner; which you do by your use of words like advocating and imply (when referring the the owner). Yes you interpret the sticker as an endorsement of rape and others may too, but this thread has shown that reasonable people (if you can call our forums members that) can hold greatly differing opinions about the sticker than the one you espouse. It is possible, regardless of the likelihood, that the owner has a crass/anti-social sense of humor and simply finds it funny.
I am not saying your interpretation of the intent is not correct, but you seem wholly unwilling to even entertain the idea that there could be a different intent or implied meaning behind the sticker.
You are upset that your expression (in this case a post on this forum) has you labeled as "fragile" when you dislike a image that could reasonably interpreted as reflecting social norms glorifying male sexuality and conquest while ignoring/downplaying female sexuality, yet you seem willing to label another person based on their expression (in this case a sticker on a car) as a sexist or as supporting/endorsing rape/rape culture/violence against women, when the situation could reasonably be they thought it would be funny to get a rise out of people.
After seeing the actual image you are referencing, I personally cannot see the same message that you see in the image, partially because the image is so basic and crudely drawn. I can see how it could be interpreted reflect a social framework where sex is only thought of as a male's domain (active male and passive female) and discussing it is used to make a male more of a "man" (hence the wink breaking the 4th wall). But, beyond that, I simply do interpret anything to say the fictional stick figure intercourse is non-consensual or forcible.
-
Sounds like it's this one:
While trashy and I would never put it on my car, this thread says a whole lot more about the OP than it does about the bloke with the sticker. Said bloke would be as happy as that OP is so upset. I just shake my head at how fragile some people choose to be.
I think it's in poor taste, but "violence"? The man looks pleased with himself and the woman looks blissed out.
At any rate OP, write down the license plate number, maybe take a picture, submit it anonymously to whatever passes for HR at your workplace. Then move on. Don't let gross redneck dude get you down. I read your insightful posts on this board with interest. I like you and hate to see you stressing over this at all.
And OP, don't watch any TV or PG/R movies and keep yourself sheltered - I'm afraid you are way too fragile. A stick figure is pretty mild to what's on TV or out there in the real world.
This is exactly the kind of gaslighting that makes violence and bigotry acceptable in this country. Convince everyone that cartoons don't mean anything. Sticks and stones and all that, right? That's how I grew up too. So no, not fragile, but I am just now recognizing that the world was and still is a harsh, harsh place for a lot of people when it doesn't have to be. You know who it's never been harsh to? White males. So you can say that I'm too fragile in an effort to quash my speech, but I'm not, never have been.
You may want to ask yourself why you want to change subject to make it about me instead of simply focusing on the subject at hand.
Say that to all of the "white males" who died for their country fighting for your freedom, and for the freedom of people to put stick figure pictures on their cars. If the world is too harsh for you, you should reflect on what others gave so that you have it so well that you are upset about such minor things that most people wouldn't give a second thought.
-
Sounds like it's this one:
While trashy and I would never put it on my car, this thread says a whole lot more about the OP than it does about the bloke with the sticker. Said bloke would be as happy as that OP is so upset. I just shake my head at how fragile some people choose to be.
I think it's in poor taste, but "violence"? The man looks pleased with himself and the woman looks blissed out.
At any rate OP, write down the license plate number, maybe take a picture, submit it anonymously to whatever passes for HR at your workplace. Then move on. Don't let gross redneck dude get you down. I read your insightful posts on this board with interest. I like you and hate to see you stressing over this at all.
And OP, don't watch any TV or PG/R movies and keep yourself sheltered - I'm afraid you are way too fragile. A stick figure is pretty mild to what's on TV or out there in the real world.
This is exactly the kind of gaslighting that makes violence and bigotry acceptable in this country. Convince everyone that cartoons don't mean anything. Sticks and stones and all that, right? That's how I grew up too. So no, not fragile, but I am just now recognizing that the world was and still is a harsh, harsh place for a lot of people when it doesn't have to be. You know who it's never been harsh to? White males. So you can say that I'm too fragile in an effort to quash my speech, but I'm not, never have been.
You may want to ask yourself why you want to change subject to make it about me instead of simply focusing on the subject at hand.
Say that to all of the "white males" who died for their country fighting for your freedom, and for the freedom of people to put stick figure pictures on their cars. If the world is too harsh for you, you should reflect on what others gave so that you have it so well that you are upset about such minor things that most people wouldn't give a second thought.
Using veterans to push your own personal agenda? That's pretty low dude. I'm a "white male" veteran btw. It's ok to disagree with BlueHouse, but it's not ok to designate yourself a spokesperson for veterans and use their voice for your own personal agenda. Just stop dude!
-
Sounds like it's this one:
While trashy and I would never put it on my car, this thread says a whole lot more about the OP than it does about the bloke with the sticker. Said bloke would be as happy as that OP is so upset. I just shake my head at how fragile some people choose to be.
I think it's in poor taste, but "violence"? The man looks pleased with himself and the woman looks blissed out.
At any rate OP, write down the license plate number, maybe take a picture, submit it anonymously to whatever passes for HR at your workplace. Then move on. Don't let gross redneck dude get you down. I read your insightful posts on this board with interest. I like you and hate to see you stressing over this at all.
And OP, don't watch any TV or PG/R movies and keep yourself sheltered - I'm afraid you are way too fragile. A stick figure is pretty mild to what's on TV or out there in the real world.
This is exactly the kind of gaslighting that makes violence and bigotry acceptable in this country. Convince everyone that cartoons don't mean anything. Sticks and stones and all that, right? That's how I grew up too. So no, not fragile, but I am just now recognizing that the world was and still is a harsh, harsh place for a lot of people when it doesn't have to be. You know who it's never been harsh to? White males. So you can say that I'm too fragile in an effort to quash my speech, but I'm not, never have been.
You may want to ask yourself why you want to change subject to make it about me instead of simply focusing on the subject at hand.
Say that to all of the "white males" who died for their country fighting for your freedom, and for the freedom of people to put stick figure pictures on their cars. If the world is too harsh for you, you should reflect on what others gave so that you have it so well that you are upset about such minor things that most people wouldn't give a second thought.
Using veterans to push your own personal agenda? That's pretty low dude. I'm a "white male" veteran btw. It's ok to disagree with BlueHouse, but it's not ok to designate yourself a spokesperson for veterans and use their voice for your own personal agenda. Just stop dude!
I'm a veteran. And I'm speaking only for myself, and there is no agenda. Did you actually read what I posted? I gave an example of while males who died for their country in response to the comment that they never had it harsh. If you can't deal with that, then don't read! I stand behind what I said, despite your mischaracterization of my post.
-
Sounds like it's this one:
While trashy and I would never put it on my car, this thread says a whole lot more about the OP than it does about the bloke with the sticker. Said bloke would be as happy as that OP is so upset. I just shake my head at how fragile some people choose to be.
This is the sticker!
I'm actually not fragile, but thank you for trying to take me down a peg so that I don't voice my opinion about what is clearly advocating "Rape Culture". I'm sick of looking at this truck and I'm tired of pulling up into a parking lot where someone can imply, through the use of cartoons no less, that it's okay to advocate for hurting women. Yep, it's pretty easy for me to just walk past and forget all about it, but your response and implication that there's something wrong with ME now makes me want to report this to the EEO office on base. Thanks for convincing me that I need to stand up and speak out against a culture that is okay with treating women like property.
You are free to have your impression of the meaning of the sticker and regardless of the interpretation, this thread seems to have proven that the general consensus is that this style of sticker is crass and in poor taste. By all means feel free to report it to the powers that be if you feel that it violates a policy. Depending on your role in the organization you may even have an obligation to report things that you feel violate policies, rules, and laws.
What you should not do, the absence of other evidence, is presume the intention of the owner; which you do by your use of words like advocating and imply (when referring the the owner). Yes you interpret the sticker as an endorsement of rape and others may too, but this thread has shown that reasonable people (if you can call our forums members that) can hold greatly differing opinions about the sticker than the one you espouse. It is possible, regardless of the likelihood, that the owner has a crass/anti-social sense of humor and simply finds it funny.
I am not saying your interpretation of the intent is not correct, but you seem wholly unwilling to even entertain the idea that there could be a different intent or implied meaning behind the sticker.
You are upset that your expression (in this case a post on this forum) has you labeled as "fragile" when you dislike a image that could reasonably interpreted as reflecting social norms glorifying male sexuality and conquest while ignoring/downplaying female sexuality, yet you seem willing to label another person based on their expression (in this case a sticker on a car) as a sexist or as supporting/endorsing rape/rape culture/violence against women, when the situation could reasonably be they thought it would be funny to get a rise out of people.
After seeing the actual image you are referencing, I personally cannot see the same message that you see in the image, partially because the image is so basic and crudely drawn. I can see how it could be interpreted reflect a social framework where sex is only thought of as a male's domain (active male and passive female) and discussing it is used to make a male more of a "man" (hence the wink breaking the 4th wall). But, beyond that, I simply do interpret anything to say the fictional stick figure intercourse is non-consensual or forcible.
This is a reasonable response with some good points. I just think we've all been conditioned to "laugh" at stuff that's really not funny. I admit, I do read something into the owner's intentions, probably because of the larger context of the other stickers on the same truck. I think it's reasonable for me to see the entire context and have a good understanding that a) the owner is someone that I don't want to hang around with; b) the owner is trying to make a statement for the purpose of getting attention, positive or negative; c) the owner doesn't care that half or more of the population will find the sticker offensive; and d) I would even guess that he enjoys flaunting his power to make others uncomfortable in his presence. I say the last part because if it was merely not giving a shit, then he wouldn't have gone to the trouble of applying all the stickers. He clearly WANTS the negative attention and discomfort it brings.
-
You may want to ask yourself why you want to change subject to make it about me instead of simply focusing on the subject at hand.
Say that to all of the "white males" who died for their country fighting for your freedom, and for the freedom of people to put stick figure pictures on their cars. If the world is too harsh for you, you should reflect on what others gave so that you have it so well that you are upset about such minor things that most people wouldn't give a second thought.
So now, in addition to making it about me (again), you're going to use veterans as a shield? Let me remind you that plenty of people other than "white males" have died for their country and for the rights of all humans.
-
Sounds like it's this one:
While trashy and I would never put it on my car, this thread says a whole lot more about the OP than it does about the bloke with the sticker. Said bloke would be as happy as that OP is so upset. I just shake my head at how fragile some people choose to be.
I think it's in poor taste, but "violence"? The man looks pleased with himself and the woman looks blissed out.
At any rate OP, write down the license plate number, maybe take a picture, submit it anonymously to whatever passes for HR at your workplace. Then move on. Don't let gross redneck dude get you down. I read your insightful posts on this board with interest. I like you and hate to see you stressing over this at all.
And OP, don't watch any TV or PG/R movies and keep yourself sheltered - I'm afraid you are way too fragile. A stick figure is pretty mild to what's on TV or out there in the real world.
This is exactly the kind of gaslighting that makes violence and bigotry acceptable in this country. Convince everyone that cartoons don't mean anything. Sticks and stones and all that, right? That's how I grew up too. So no, not fragile, but I am just now recognizing that the world was and still is a harsh, harsh place for a lot of people when it doesn't have to be. You know who it's never been harsh to? White males. So you can say that I'm too fragile in an effort to quash my speech, but I'm not, never have been.
You may want to ask yourself why you want to change subject to make it about me instead of simply focusing on the subject at hand.
Say that to all of the "white males" who died for their country fighting for your freedom, and for the freedom of people to put stick figure pictures on their cars. If the world is too harsh for you, you should reflect on what others gave so that you have it so well that you are upset about such minor things that most people wouldn't give a second thought.
Using veterans to push your own personal agenda? That's pretty low dude. I'm a "white male" veteran btw. It's ok to disagree with BlueHouse, but it's not ok to designate yourself a spokesperson for veterans and use their voice for your own personal agenda. Just stop dude!
I'm a veteran. And I'm speaking only for myself, and there is no agenda. Did you actually read what I posted? I gave an example of while males who died for their country in response to the comment that they never had it harsh. If you can't deal with that, then don't read! I stand behind what I said, despite your mischaracterization of my post.
My bad. I should have know the word “all” actually meant “me.” Thanks for clearing that up. Clearly I am being trolled. Sigh
-
Sounds like it's this one:
While trashy and I would never put it on my car, this thread says a whole lot more about the OP than it does about the bloke with the sticker. Said bloke would be as happy as that OP is so upset. I just shake my head at how fragile some people choose to be.
This is the sticker!
I'm actually not fragile, but thank you for trying to take me down a peg so that I don't voice my opinion about what is clearly advocating "Rape Culture". I'm sick of looking at this truck and I'm tired of pulling up into a parking lot where someone can imply, through the use of cartoons no less, that it's okay to advocate for hurting women. Yep, it's pretty easy for me to just walk past and forget all about it, but your response and implication that there's something wrong with ME now makes me want to report this to the EEO office on base. Thanks for convincing me that I need to stand up and speak out against a culture that is okay with treating women like property.
You are free to have your impression of the meaning of the sticker and regardless of the interpretation, this thread seems to have proven that the general consensus is that this style of sticker is crass and in poor taste. By all means feel free to report it to the powers that be if you feel that it violates a policy. Depending on your role in the organization you may even have an obligation to report things that you feel violate policies, rules, and laws.
What you should not do, the absence of other evidence, is presume the intention of the owner; which you do by your use of words like advocating and imply (when referring the the owner). Yes you interpret the sticker as an endorsement of rape and others may too, but this thread has shown that reasonable people (if you can call our forums members that) can hold greatly differing opinions about the sticker than the one you espouse. It is possible, regardless of the likelihood, that the owner has a crass/anti-social sense of humor and simply finds it funny.
I am not saying your interpretation of the intent is not correct, but you seem wholly unwilling to even entertain the idea that there could be a different intent or implied meaning behind the sticker.
You are upset that your expression (in this case a post on this forum) has you labeled as "fragile" when you dislike a image that could reasonably interpreted as reflecting social norms glorifying male sexuality and conquest while ignoring/downplaying female sexuality, yet you seem willing to label another person based on their expression (in this case a sticker on a car) as a sexist or as supporting/endorsing rape/rape culture/violence against women, when the situation could reasonably be they thought it would be funny to get a rise out of people.
After seeing the actual image you are referencing, I personally cannot see the same message that you see in the image, partially because the image is so basic and crudely drawn. I can see how it could be interpreted reflect a social framework where sex is only thought of as a male's domain (active male and passive female) and discussing it is used to make a male more of a "man" (hence the wink breaking the 4th wall). But, beyond that, I simply do interpret anything to say the fictional stick figure intercourse is non-consensual or forcible.
I assume that you find this an inoffensive image too then:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48274972527_2c5fe80130.jpg)
Obviously, it's a pilot going out for a fun plane ride near a city. It's too basic and crudely drawn to be interpreted as anything else . . . otherwise you would be assuming the intent of the artist.
-
I’m definitely offended because it looks like that pilot is about to fly the plane up between that girls legs in a non consensual flyby
-
Sounds like it's this one:
While trashy and I would never put it on my car, this thread says a whole lot more about the OP than it does about the bloke with the sticker. Said bloke would be as happy as that OP is so upset. I just shake my head at how fragile some people choose to be.
This is the sticker!
I'm actually not fragile, but thank you for trying to take me down a peg so that I don't voice my opinion about what is clearly advocating "Rape Culture". I'm sick of looking at this truck and I'm tired of pulling up into a parking lot where someone can imply, through the use of cartoons no less, that it's okay to advocate for hurting women. Yep, it's pretty easy for me to just walk past and forget all about it, but your response and implication that there's something wrong with ME now makes me want to report this to the EEO office on base. Thanks for convincing me that I need to stand up and speak out against a culture that is okay with treating women like property.
You are free to have your impression of the meaning of the sticker and regardless of the interpretation, this thread seems to have proven that the general consensus is that this style of sticker is crass and in poor taste. By all means feel free to report it to the powers that be if you feel that it violates a policy. Depending on your role in the organization you may even have an obligation to report things that you feel violate policies, rules, and laws.
What you should not do, the absence of other evidence, is presume the intention of the owner; which you do by your use of words like advocating and imply (when referring the the owner). Yes you interpret the sticker as an endorsement of rape and others may too, but this thread has shown that reasonable people (if you can call our forums members that) can hold greatly differing opinions about the sticker than the one you espouse. It is possible, regardless of the likelihood, that the owner has a crass/anti-social sense of humor and simply finds it funny.
I am not saying your interpretation of the intent is not correct, but you seem wholly unwilling to even entertain the idea that there could be a different intent or implied meaning behind the sticker.
You are upset that your expression (in this case a post on this forum) has you labeled as "fragile" when you dislike a image that could reasonably interpreted as reflecting social norms glorifying male sexuality and conquest while ignoring/downplaying female sexuality, yet you seem willing to label another person based on their expression (in this case a sticker on a car) as a sexist or as supporting/endorsing rape/rape culture/violence against women, when the situation could reasonably be they thought it would be funny to get a rise out of people.
After seeing the actual image you are referencing, I personally cannot see the same message that you see in the image, partially because the image is so basic and crudely drawn. I can see how it could be interpreted reflect a social framework where sex is only thought of as a male's domain (active male and passive female) and discussing it is used to make a male more of a "man" (hence the wink breaking the 4th wall). But, beyond that, I simply do interpret anything to say the fictional stick figure intercourse is non-consensual or forcible.
I assume that you find this an inoffensive image too then:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48274972527_2c5fe80130.jpg)
Obviously, it's a pilot going out for a fun plane ride near a city. It's too basic and crudely drawn to be interpreted as anything else . . . otherwise you would be assuming the intent of the artist.
Is that a car decal? I think you just drew that so you could have a bit of a Strawman argument here. I agree that the original stick-figure decal is crass and meant to get a rise out of people. It seems to be a dig at the “stick figure family” decal by acknowledging children originate from sex, and take that you family-friendly squares! What is the airplane decal a riff of?
Of course the question of the title is “what is offensive”? If someone posted the airplane decal I would find it crass, too .... and confusing. What exactly are they advocating? Weirdo!
-
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48274972527_2c5fe80130.jpg)
What is the airplane decal a riff of?
Marge Simpson?
-
How about this? COEXIST.
-
How about this? COEXIST.
I support the concept of 'Coexist' wholeheartedly, but half of that is up to one party not acting like a dick. From what many have said in this thread, it appears that things like stickers of stick-figure copulation and truck-nutz are put on vehicles by their owners specifically because they know that others will find them offensive. I see this a lot with the extreme ends of protests (regardless of which 'end' you are on) - people will choose outfits and imagery specifically to annoy and sometimes enrage the other side. And then it has the anticiapted effect.
Sure, someone may have the constitutional right to display such imagery, but that doesn't make it socially appropriate to do so. We can't tell people not to get offended at images that were designed and deployed to be offensive.
-
Sounds like it's this one:
While trashy and I would never put it on my car, this thread says a whole lot more about the OP than it does about the bloke with the sticker. Said bloke would be as happy as that OP is so upset. I just shake my head at how fragile some people choose to be.
This is the sticker!
I'm actually not fragile, but thank you for trying to take me down a peg so that I don't voice my opinion about what is clearly advocating "Rape Culture". I'm sick of looking at this truck and I'm tired of pulling up into a parking lot where someone can imply, through the use of cartoons no less, that it's okay to advocate for hurting women. Yep, it's pretty easy for me to just walk past and forget all about it, but your response and implication that there's something wrong with ME now makes me want to report this to the EEO office on base. Thanks for convincing me that I need to stand up and speak out against a culture that is okay with treating women like property.
You are free to have your impression of the meaning of the sticker and regardless of the interpretation, this thread seems to have proven that the general consensus is that this style of sticker is crass and in poor taste. By all means feel free to report it to the powers that be if you feel that it violates a policy. Depending on your role in the organization you may even have an obligation to report things that you feel violate policies, rules, and laws.
What you should not do, the absence of other evidence, is presume the intention of the owner; which you do by your use of words like advocating and imply (when referring the the owner). Yes you interpret the sticker as an endorsement of rape and others may too, but this thread has shown that reasonable people (if you can call our forums members that) can hold greatly differing opinions about the sticker than the one you espouse. It is possible, regardless of the likelihood, that the owner has a crass/anti-social sense of humor and simply finds it funny.
I am not saying your interpretation of the intent is not correct, but you seem wholly unwilling to even entertain the idea that there could be a different intent or implied meaning behind the sticker.
You are upset that your expression (in this case a post on this forum) has you labeled as "fragile" when you dislike a image that could reasonably interpreted as reflecting social norms glorifying male sexuality and conquest while ignoring/downplaying female sexuality, yet you seem willing to label another person based on their expression (in this case a sticker on a car) as a sexist or as supporting/endorsing rape/rape culture/violence against women, when the situation could reasonably be they thought it would be funny to get a rise out of people.
After seeing the actual image you are referencing, I personally cannot see the same message that you see in the image, partially because the image is so basic and crudely drawn. I can see how it could be interpreted reflect a social framework where sex is only thought of as a male's domain (active male and passive female) and discussing it is used to make a male more of a "man" (hence the wink breaking the 4th wall). But, beyond that, I simply do interpret anything to say the fictional stick figure intercourse is non-consensual or forcible.
I assume that you find this an inoffensive image too then:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48274972527_2c5fe80130.jpg)
Obviously, it's a pilot going out for a fun plane ride near a city. It's too basic and crudely drawn to be interpreted as anything else . . . otherwise you would be assuming the intent of the artist.
While I am not offended by the image the thread starter is offended by, I have not intended to argue that it could not be offensive to some; in fact I believe I stated could see how it could be a reflection of a set of social norms that view men and women through very different lenses.
What I did say is that I do not interpret the image, nor do I see how it could be interpreted, as an explicit advocation of violence against women and rape.
An image can be offensive without having to advocate for anything.
Now on to your image; No I am not offended. Maybe because I infer your intent in posting it is to have a conversation regarding the place of offensive images in our society. Possibly because I have just become numb to these kind of things.
But, you asked about the artist not the poster. I ran the image through a google image search and may I presume you are also the artist?
I find the artwork to be equally lacking in details and crass/in poor taste. As much as it is possible it seems to lack even more of a point than the copulating stick figures; at least that one could be interpreted as mocking the stick figures often seen on family cars or simply enjoying taking something that is often seen a wholesome expression of love for your family and perverting it.
Your image appears to take advantage of a shared moment in our history, by using an airplane piloted by a man seemingly wearing a turban or other headdress flying near two seeming identical rectangular buildings our shared experiences make it likely that most people will interpret this to a reference to acts of terrorism on September 11, 2001. When addressing the image referenced by the thread starter I can think of no event in our consciousness that would link a sexual act in a certain position with advocating violence or rape. In other words, the two really aren't the same thing are they?
Like the thread starters image, I find your image to be lacking advocacy for an action or position. Now if you remove the "airplane rock" and replace it with say a quote from casablanca "play it again, Sam" then I could understand the interpretation that you are advocating for an additional terrorist attack.
Should I ever see you decal out in the world, I likely wouldn't get offended; but, I would think that the person who chose to display it is an idiot and I would make several assumptions about the character of the individual (including that they are likely someone that I would not want to associate with due to lack of shared values). And that is how expression/speech should work, one may be judged on what they express.
To be clear, I am operating off of the definition of offended being along the lines of "resentful or annoyed, typically as a result of a perceived insult" which is the definition that Google gave me. In the case of either image am I not resentful of the poster or artist, nor am I annoyed. In fact it is out of my mind the second after I see it (I have other browser tabs open to the images for reference while writing this post). But, I can understand how others might be.
This really is a bit of a straw man though, my point was not that the image cannot be offensive to some or many, but that I cannot see the explicit endorsement of advocacy for violence against women or rape as being the intent of the person displaying the image. Even if you or others were to explain how it could reasonably be interpreted as such, it would still not be the only possible intent for displaying the image. And where the are multiple reasonable option as to what the intent is we should not assign the worst possible one to the individual.
-
It's clearly an image of a guy out enjoying a plane ride. The caption indicates that it's merely intended to show how great airplanes are. None of the 9/11 highjackers even wore turbans. You've stated that you would immediately make a whole bunch of assumptions about the person displaying it, and the intent of the image.
My argument is that the two images are equal in that they are designed to be offensive in a similar (deniable) way. In the second, there is no explicit endorsement or advocacy for violence or terrorism against Americans. Even though you have explained how it could reasonably be interpreted as such, it is still not the only possible intent for displaying this image. You are not being consistent by assuming the worst for the fun airplanes image, and the best for the stick figure rape image.
-
I think the way you coexist with jerks, or jerk behavior, is to give them space.
-
and the best for the stick figure rape image.
You are making an assumption by call it a rape image. Most of the posters in this thread do not make that assumption. It looks consensual to me, and "families" are not typically made from rape, so even the caption would tend to imply it as consensual.
-
and the best for the stick figure rape image.
You are making an assumption by call it a rape image. Most of the posters in this thread do not make that assumption. It looks consensual to me, and "families" are not typically made from rape, so even the caption would tend to imply it as consensual.
The plane image has nothing to do with september 11th or terrorists (as the turban, open cockpit, size of the airplane, and caption all clearly show). Yet some people immediately jump to 'terrorism'. It's funny how people often see things that aren't explicitly spelled out for them.
-
and the best for the stick figure rape image.
You are making an assumption by call it a rape image. Most of the posters in this thread do not make that assumption. It looks consensual to me, and "families" are not typically made from rape, so even the caption would tend to imply it as consensual.
The plane image has nothing to do with september 11th or terrorists (as the turban, open cockpit, size of the airplane, and caption all clearly show). Yet some people immediately jump to 'terrorism'. It's funny how people often see things that aren't explicitly spelled out for them.
The examples are not the same. Your drawing is about a specific event. Regardless of how crudely drawn it is, that's pretty obvious.
"Rape" is not specific event with specific details. If there was one occurrence of rape in the history of the world and there were a couple details from that event that matched this image, then you'd have a point.
-
and the best for the stick figure rape image.
You are making an assumption by call it a rape image. Most of the posters in this thread do not make that assumption. It looks consensual to me, and "families" are not typically made from rape, so even the caption would tend to imply it as consensual.
The plane image has nothing to do with september 11th or terrorists (as the turban, open cockpit, size of the airplane, and caption all clearly show). Yet some people immediately jump to 'terrorism'. It's funny how people often see things that aren't explicitly spelled out for them.
The examples are not the same. Your drawing is about a specific event. Regardless of how crudely drawn it is, that's pretty obvious.
"Rape" is not specific event with specific details. If there was one occurrence of rape in the history of the world and there were a couple details from that event that matched this image, then you'd have a point.
According to the logic used by several people in this thread, we should accept things at face value only.
*The plane drawing clearly says 'planes are fun'. - Not advocating terror, just enjoyment of flying.
*The plane drawing has a man with a turban flying the plane. - Not a 9/11 reference. There were no men with turbans involved in the hijackings.
*The plane drawing has an open cockpit plane, and is the proportions are wrong for a passenger jet. - Not 9/11 reference. The planes involved did not have an open cockpit, and were commercial passenger planes.
On the surface, the plane drawing has nothing to do with terrorists or 9/11 - and therefore is not about a specific event. Unless you're saying that it's perfectly reasonable to read more into a picture than a facile assessment. In which case, yeah, both the terrorist image and the rape image are well out of line. Which was kinda the point I was trying to make.
I just shake my head at how fragile some people choose to be.
The plane drawing would seem to indicate a great many people 'choosing to be fragile' in this thread.
-
I just shake my head at how fragile some people choose to be.
The plane drawing would seem to indicate a great many people 'choosing to be fragile' in this thread.
I do not agree with mjr’s tone or sentiment about “fragility”. I have interpreted things quite differently than other people based on my personal experience or even my mood that day. That does not make me fragile. Personally, I think that calling other people fragile because they have an alternative view point is dismissive and it is discourages civilized discussion.
I do think it is helpful to realize that my own interpretation may not be the original intent. Or maybe My interpretation was right on the nose.
So please: report this person to HR if that seems appropriate. It is a decal obviously meant to elicit a reaction. Is it about violence against women? I don’t think so, and it seems the majority or the small subsample of MMM posters don’t think so ... that doesn’t mean it’s not offensive and the truck owner - who knows- may indeed intend it to support violence.
-
The plane drawing would seem to indicate a great many people 'choosing to be fragile' in this thread.
My exact reaction to your plane drawing was - what the heck is that? Lame.
-
It's clearly an image of a guy out enjoying a plane ride. The caption indicates that it's merely intended to show how great airplanes are. None of the 9/11 highjackers even wore turbans. You've stated that you would immediately make a whole bunch of assumptions about the person displaying it, and the intent of the image.
My argument is that the two images are equal in that they are designed to be offensive in a similar (deniable) way. In the second, there is no explicit endorsement or advocacy for violence or terrorism against Americans. Even though you have explained how it could reasonably be interpreted as such, it is still not the only possible intent for displaying this image. You are not being consistent by assuming the worst for the fun airplanes image, and the best for the stick figure rape image.
I apologize if this was not direct at me, but if so, please go back and re-read my post. Pay special attention to the conditioning words such as "could see how", "at least one could interpret", "appear to take advantage", "likely that most people will interpret", and"I could understand the interpretation". In short I conditioned almost every sentence as a possible, or even likely, interpretation, but not an absolute (i.e. I intentionally made no personal assumptions when addressing the image or indicated my personal position on those).
Now, I did say that I would make imply that I would make a series of assumption about the individual who would choose to display such an image. Concluding that I would judge them to not be the character of person that I would like to associate with; in much the same way that the individual who would display the kind of image that started this thread is not likely the kind of person I would want to deal with; they kind who get annoys others for no reason other than enjoyment. And yes I did say I would judge them an idiot; and yes that was partially if they overlooked the strong similarity to recent historical events (regardless of intent) and partially because of the trouble annoying the wrong people can bring.
In so much as the two images are intended to get a rise out of a viewer, I agree they serve the same purpose. In subject matter, alleged advocacy, and ties to a common social narrative (regardless of the reality/stylization/exaggeration of certain details), I believe they diverge greatly.
My intended point throughout (though albeit with different amount of effort clarify, choice of beverage depending on time of day, and proofreading) is that I could not see a reasonable interpretation of the original image that lead to the conclusion of the alleged position of the person displaying it. Much as a could not find advocacy in the airplane example. I can see how some may be reasonably offended by both images (which as we agree is likely at least one of the intended purposes).
-
The plane drawing would seem to indicate a great many people 'choosing to be fragile' in this thread.
My exact reaction to your plane drawing was - what the heck is that? Lame.
Yeah I don’t recall anyone being super offended by guitarstv’s image. Maybe I missed it (entirely possible). Since it seems guitarstv is actually the author of this image, I would ask him what his intention was when creating it. Was it intended to poorly evoke 9/11?. That honestly was not my first reaction for the same reasons he mentioned (open cockpit plane) and I truly thought it was legs at first. If he purposely crafted the image with the intent to reference a terrorist attack then I think that’s quite a step above showing a vague sexual act
I think Ann summarized my feelings perfectly.
-
Yes, it was intended to evoke 9/11 in a plausibly deniable way. Mostly in response to the ridiculous arguments that as long as a facile and surface reading of something exists, we should always assume that it is the intent of the artist. But dammit Jim, I'm an engineer . . . not an artist! Maybe that point was not well conveyed.