Author Topic: "Trigger" images - what is offensive?  (Read 6559 times)

FIREstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 640
Re: "Trigger" images - what is offensive?
« Reply #100 on: July 10, 2019, 03:19:54 PM »
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.

RetiredAt63

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11719
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: "Trigger" images - what is offensive?
« Reply #101 on: July 10, 2019, 06:06:57 PM »
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.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14326
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: "Trigger" images - what is offensive?
« Reply #102 on: July 10, 2019, 06:08:07 PM »
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.

Wrenchturner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 627
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Canada
Re: "Trigger" images - what is offensive?
« Reply #103 on: July 10, 2019, 06:16:05 PM »
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.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14326
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: "Trigger" images - what is offensive?
« Reply #104 on: July 10, 2019, 06:48:58 PM »
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?

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8838
  • Registered member
Re: "Trigger" images - what is offensive?
« Reply #105 on: July 10, 2019, 09:55:37 PM »
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:


marble_faun

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 446
Re: "Trigger" images - what is offensive?
« Reply #106 on: July 11, 2019, 12:08:32 AM »
what hath god wrought

Louisville

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 500
Re: "Trigger" images - what is offensive?
« Reply #107 on: July 11, 2019, 05:57:07 AM »
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.

FIREstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 640
Re: "Trigger" images - what is offensive?
« Reply #108 on: July 11, 2019, 10:37:00 AM »
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.

Boofinator

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1176
Re: "Trigger" images - what is offensive?
« Reply #109 on: July 11, 2019, 11:07:36 AM »
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).

dougules

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1670
  • Location: AL
Re: "Trigger" images - what is offensive?
« Reply #110 on: July 11, 2019, 11:16:19 AM »
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.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14326
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: "Trigger" images - what is offensive?
« Reply #111 on: July 11, 2019, 11:19:50 AM »
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.

dougules

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1670
  • Location: AL
Re: "Trigger" images - what is offensive?
« Reply #112 on: July 11, 2019, 11:38:06 AM »
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.

Boofinator

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1176
Re: "Trigger" images - what is offensive?
« Reply #113 on: July 11, 2019, 12:54:05 PM »
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.

BlueHouse

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3236
  • Location: WDC
Re: "Trigger" images - what is offensive?
« Reply #114 on: July 12, 2019, 12:44:35 PM »
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.   


BudgetSlasher

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 736
Re: "Trigger" images - what is offensive?
« Reply #115 on: July 13, 2019, 06:50:20 AM »
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.

FIREstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 640
Re: "Trigger" images - what is offensive?
« Reply #116 on: July 13, 2019, 08:44:15 AM »
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.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2191
Re: "Trigger" images - what is offensive?
« Reply #117 on: July 13, 2019, 09:47:14 AM »
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!

FIREstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 640
Re: "Trigger" images - what is offensive?
« Reply #118 on: July 13, 2019, 10:14:48 AM »
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.

BlueHouse

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3236
  • Location: WDC
Re: "Trigger" images - what is offensive?
« Reply #119 on: July 13, 2019, 10:28:14 AM »
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.     


BlueHouse

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3236
  • Location: WDC
Re: "Trigger" images - what is offensive?
« Reply #120 on: July 13, 2019, 10:39:29 AM »

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. 


MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2191
Re: "Trigger" images - what is offensive?
« Reply #121 on: July 13, 2019, 10:58:52 AM »
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

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14326
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: "Trigger" images - what is offensive?
« Reply #122 on: July 13, 2019, 01:52:51 PM »
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:


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.

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8838
  • Registered member
Re: "Trigger" images - what is offensive?
« Reply #123 on: July 13, 2019, 02:05:11 PM »
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

Ann

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 277
Re: "Trigger" images - what is offensive?
« Reply #124 on: July 13, 2019, 07:49:41 PM »
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:


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!

shuffler

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 329
Re: "Trigger" images - what is offensive?
« Reply #125 on: July 13, 2019, 09:28:19 PM »

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2020
Re: "Trigger" images - what is offensive?
« Reply #126 on: July 13, 2019, 11:04:49 PM »
How about this?  COEXIST.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11124
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: "Trigger" images - what is offensive?
« Reply #127 on: July 14, 2019, 05:39:22 AM »
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.

BudgetSlasher

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 736
Re: "Trigger" images - what is offensive?
« Reply #128 on: July 14, 2019, 07:00:42 AM »
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:


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.




GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14326
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: "Trigger" images - what is offensive?
« Reply #129 on: July 14, 2019, 07:51:16 AM »
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.

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2020
Re: "Trigger" images - what is offensive?
« Reply #130 on: July 14, 2019, 09:01:21 AM »
I think the way you coexist with jerks, or jerk behavior, is to give them space.

FIREstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 640
Re: "Trigger" images - what is offensive?
« Reply #131 on: July 14, 2019, 12:59:08 PM »
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.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14326
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: "Trigger" images - what is offensive?
« Reply #132 on: July 14, 2019, 01:22:28 PM »
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.

Davnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2119
Re: "Trigger" images - what is offensive?
« Reply #133 on: July 14, 2019, 01:52:30 PM »
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.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14326
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: "Trigger" images - what is offensive?
« Reply #134 on: July 14, 2019, 03:24:51 PM »
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.

Ann

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 277
Re: "Trigger" images - what is offensive?
« Reply #135 on: July 15, 2019, 02:01:57 AM »
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.

« Last Edit: July 15, 2019, 05:50:01 AM by Ann »

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2020
Re: "Trigger" images - what is offensive?
« Reply #136 on: July 15, 2019, 03:50:43 AM »

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.

BudgetSlasher

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 736
Re: "Trigger" images - what is offensive?
« Reply #137 on: July 15, 2019, 03:49:11 PM »
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).
« Last Edit: July 15, 2019, 03:58:07 PM by BudgetSlasher »

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8838
  • Registered member
Re: "Trigger" images - what is offensive?
« Reply #138 on: July 15, 2019, 08:17:27 PM »

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. 
« Last Edit: July 15, 2019, 08:19:02 PM by dragoncar »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14326
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: "Trigger" images - what is offensive?
« Reply #139 on: July 16, 2019, 07:12:06 AM »
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.