crass
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| azerthoth Oct 04, 2009 10:47 PM EDT |
I thought maybe the blatant idiocy wrt to gender would have been fairly hammered flat. This is an piece that could have used a quick review before passing on to the news wire. It offers nothing new to anything other than a borderline not safe for work on the first image. p.s. to the author ... way to think ahead yogi. |
| Sander_Marechal Oct 05, 2009 6:51 AM EDT |
You're right of course. I've deleted the article. |
| hkwint Oct 05, 2009 9:41 AM EDT |
I'm sorry, I saw it but thought readers could "decide for their own" (editors post more articles they don't like, normally we don't want to decide what's ok and what's not) and posted anyway. So we did review it, but I made the wrong decision. I already thought the first one could cause problems, but I thought the other themes may have been nice maybe. |
| Sander_Marechal Oct 05, 2009 10:09 AM EDT |
The really sad thing is that it was entirely avoidable. I mean, pictures of scantly clad women don't have anything to do with the Gnome themes. Why did the author include them in the screenshots? |
| caitlyn Oct 05, 2009 12:12 PM EDT |
I'm with Sander on this one. The article could have been good, but... |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 05, 2009 12:30 PM EDT |
Agreed. That picture of an idyllic waterfall was just too much of an "appeal to nature" to be sensitive to the sensibilities of city dwellers. Objectifying Mother Earth for personal purposes. How unfeeling! The really sad thing is that it was entirely avoidable. As if plants and water have anything to do with Gnome themes. Why did the author include them in the screen shots? And the site itself! UnixMen.com? Sexist! |
| nicsmr Oct 05, 2009 2:57 PM EDT |
You "guys" have to get a life... All this for a picture, sorry 2 identical pictures of a woman, in a kinda sorta maybe erotic pose? Come on Please...I've seen worse (comics as well as "live") on some of my kids' magazines. |
| jdixon Oct 05, 2009 3:05 PM EDT |
> You "guys" have to get a life... Recent problems have sensitized management somewhat nicsmr. Yes, they may be overreacting, but that's understandable given events. |
| azerthoth Oct 05, 2009 3:07 PM EDT |
hmm, no way that I can think of to respond to that nic, every way I can think of is either fairly insulting to you as a person or calls into question your judgement in several areas. Take it as said that your response is closed minded and fosters tolerance of the intolerable. Play 'You Jane, me raging troglodyte' somewhere where logic is not needed. |
| nicsmr Oct 05, 2009 4:10 PM EDT |
@azerthoth, I inspect very carefully what my kids watch on tv, read in magazines and especially do on the internet. There is nothing sexual whatsoever in what I let them see in the way of partial nudity in their magazines books etc... I'm not the most popular parent in the house when it comes to that. Take it or leave it. Your opinion of me really doesn't bother me. |
| azerthoth Oct 05, 2009 4:47 PM EDT |
Interesting that you took that as meaning parenting skills, of the things that I was trying to avoid commenting on, that wasn't in the list, no need to get all spun up on that one. I apologize if thats the way you interpreted it, as much of an *** as I am, family is definitely not something that anyone should go after in these discussions. |
| nicsmr Oct 05, 2009 5:19 PM EDT |
@azerthoth Apology accepted. I still don't see anything wrong with the pictures. To be honest all I did was go to the site to see what all the brouhaha was about and did not read the article. I just admired the pictures for what they were screen shots for gnome. I personally liked the waterfall one. |
| hkwint Oct 05, 2009 5:50 PM EDT |
Quoting:The really sad thing is that it was entirely avoidable. Exactly that was my first thought. But I couldn't edit the original article. And yes, I've seen plenty 'a worse too, but that doesn't mean it belongs on LXer. I guess when showing Gnome it would be a good idea to choose windows in such a manner that nobody is offended. |
| jdixon Oct 05, 2009 5:55 PM EDT |
> it would be a good idea to choose windows in such a manner that nobody is offended. Well, as already noted on other threads, that's pretty much impossible. Someone can always find something over which to be offended. :( |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 05, 2009 6:01 PM EDT |
> Someone can always find something over which to be offended. :( That comment is offensive too. Think about it, it means that everyone is intolerant, and there are some people who cannot stand to be told that they are intolerant about something. They just won't put up with it! Might as well be the definition of "irony". |
| hkwint Oct 06, 2009 4:23 AM EDT |
Hmm, it may be impossible, but the other screenshots (except whe first) were absolutely OK though, and on the first it was only one window out of 6 or so. |
| jacog Oct 06, 2009 4:32 AM EDT |
And while we're at being offensive... most of you are assuming that men are the only demographic that might take an interest in seeing scantily-clad women. Non-heterosexual women might take offense. :P Seriously though, the best solution is to just separate one's sexmongering from one's tech. Well, unless you are in the "toy" business, but that's a whole other topic. |
| Sander_Marechal Oct 06, 2009 5:10 AM EDT |
Quoting:I guess when showing Gnome it would be a good idea to choose windows in such a manner that nobody is offended. Better. There's a special application for that. It's called the widget factory. It pops up a large window that contains all the different GTK widgets like buttons, scrollbars, tabs, textareas, etcetera, etcetera. It is made especially for showing off Gnome/GTK themes. |
| tracyanne Oct 06, 2009 4:54 PM EDT |
Oh dear, the PC brigade at it again. Maybe that photo is of his/her girlfriend. No body would have complained if it had been a beef cake photo instead of the cheesecake photo that it is. And who knows the beef cake photo might also have been of his/her boyfriend. |
| montezuma Oct 06, 2009 5:10 PM EDT |
Bloody Queenslanders can't take them anywhere! (PC enough Trace? ;-)) |
| techiem2 Oct 06, 2009 5:21 PM EDT |
If you look at the whole screenshot at the proper size, you can see that the photo is apparently opened in an image viewer and his console has the text "Who is she?", indicating that this particular screenshot was likely taken to submit to some forum for the purpose of finding out who the girl is (although why one would submit a full screenshot rather than simply the photo is beyond me).
Not that it matters much to this discussion, but that's what my (sometimes overly) analytical mind noticed.
:P |
| tracyanne Oct 06, 2009 5:29 PM EDT |
@montezuma that's "take them anywhere twice, second time to apologise" |
| bigg Oct 06, 2009 5:33 PM EDT |
> Oh dear, the PC brigade at it again. Well, someone's at it again. |
| tracyanne Oct 06, 2009 5:45 PM EDT |
Quoting:No body would have complained if it had been a beef cake photo instead of the cheesecake photo that it is. |
| caitlyn Oct 06, 2009 5:54 PM EDT |
I dsagree with the last statement. |
| caitlyn Oct 06, 2009 5:56 PM EDT |
I'm also sick and tired of complaints about being "PC" used to justify all sorts of bad behavior. The whole idea of political correctness is simply not going out of our way to offend people and to be conscious of other people's sensitivites. IMHO, being PC is a VERY good thing. |
| tracyanne Oct 06, 2009 6:18 PM EDT |
So you would have complained about the article, and asked for it to be removed had it been a glamour shot of a well developed male in swim gear or the usual garb that such Glamour photography uses as a device in magazines like Cosmopolitan or on calanders aimed at Heterosexual Women and Homosexal men. If that is really the case then top marks for not being a hypocrite. zero for being PC. |
| tracyanne Oct 06, 2009 6:23 PM EDT |
BTW caitlyn Quoting:political correctness is simply not going out of our way to offend people and to be conscious of other people's sensitivites Except you always end up insulting or offending someone,and I am offended every time one of you PCers wants something innocuous, like this blokes photo, taken down, taken off, taken away, buried, burned, dismembered, or in some way hidden lest it offend. But, of course, by the lights of the PCers it doesn't matter that you offend some people, so long as you don't offend those with a prissy, pluck out my eye lest it offend me view of the world. |
| tracyanne Oct 06, 2009 6:27 PM EDT |
I just showed the photo to my work mates, one of whom is a Mormon. None of them were in the least offended by the photo of the girl. They were all in agreement that the background was pretty offensive though. |
| caitlyn Oct 06, 2009 6:51 PM EDT |
Quoting:They were all in agreement that the background was pretty offensive though. Which means that Sander acted correctly, which is all I had to say at first. As far as the rest of your accusations and assumptions about my beliefs, well... I have also noticed that you are incredibly intolerant of any religious beliefs and don't care how many religious people you offend. In fact, you are downright preachy about your atheism and do all you can to offend those who aren't atheist so your attacks on political correctness are par for the course. |
| nicsmr Oct 06, 2009 7:30 PM EDT |
Please people. Give it a rest... |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 06, 2009 7:41 PM EDT |
> I have also noticed that you are incredibly intolerant of... "Well, so are you!" Great argument. Golly, Caitlyn, it must be so hard being surrounded by atheists and anarchists and people who don't mind seeing the female form. Has anyone mentioned guns yet? Being "Politically Correct" has nothing to do with respecting other people. "Political Correctness" is all about using every method short of actual reason to shout down anyone with which you disagree. Someone who actually respected the opinions of others might have "tisk tisk"ed the original article's picture, but they would have then JUST MOVED ON. The problem here isn't the picture, it's the over-reaction of a few extremely intolerant people. |
| tracyanne Oct 06, 2009 7:51 PM EDT |
yes that icky shade of green in the leaves was really offensive. |
| tracyanne Oct 06, 2009 8:55 PM EDT |
Quoting:I have also noticed that you are incredibly intolerant of any religious beliefs and don't care how many religious people you offend. No I don't, but I am quite happy to live and let live, so long as they don't try to force their faith based value system upon me, or try to convince me that their imaginary friend should be be my imaginary friend. I work with a Mormon, we get on quite well, he doesn't bore me with his faith based sillyness and I don't bore him with all teh reasons why it's silly. i swear he doesn't, and we get along famously. |
| azerthoth Oct 06, 2009 10:12 PM EDT |
resisting the urge ... |
| nicsmr Oct 06, 2009 10:47 PM EDT |
@azerthoth... Steady bud, you can do it. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!