This is topic This Website Speaks To Me (warning, potentially offensive to super-prudes) in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.
[ April 22, 2008, 02:57 PM: Message edited by: Reshpeckobiggle ]
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Yes... yes it would.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
And what little respect I had for Resh before has now all vanished. Wait, I didn't have any respect for Resh, never mind.
Debating whether or not that's worth a whistle. It's pretty offensive... but I don't know if it's whistle worthy.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I'm not gonna click, and just the url is now making me wash my mind. Whether it's stories or pictures, it can't be great. And that's assuming the second part of the url refers to guys, not objects... I doubt this is an appropriate link for this forum.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Some of the writing is actually pretty funny. At the very least, the guy doesn't seem to repeat himself, which could happen so, so easily.
EDIT - I'm not sure what the fuss is. In terms of offensiveness it's no worse than your average South Park episode, artistic merits aside.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
The average South Park episode would violate the terms of this forum.
Posted by EmpSquared (Member # 10890) on :
I thought some of it was funny. Of course, when I first I saw the url my mind went... elsewhere.
But Resh, next time you feel the need to share a somewhat offensive website, remember: somebody's respect for you might completely vanish!
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
It's actually not that bad a site - basically just pictures of attractive girls who greatly outclass the guys pictured with them. Like Juxtapose, I'd say it's no worse (probably better) than South Park, and pretty amusing.
quote:Originally posted by EmpSquared: I thought some of it was funny. Of course, when I first I saw the url my mind went... elsewhere.
But Resh, next time you feel the need to share a somewhat offensive website, remember: somebody's respect for you might completely vanish!
I was wondering what it was that would do it.
Your mind went elsewhere... jeez, what kind of website would that be, and why on earth would I link to it?
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
That's actually an award winning photo on the website. Or it might have been a runner-up.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
To me, the most offensive thing was the warning "potentially offensive to super-prudes".
Really Resh, you can warn sensitive people without insulting them.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
But that wasn't a warning to sensitive people. It was a warning to super-prudes. Put words in my mouth, will ya?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I don't see the problem - if you're not a super-prude, it doesn't apply, and if you are a super-prude, you should own it! Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Well, to be honest, I was making a small jab at ketchupqueen and Alcon.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Originally posted by Corwin: The average South Park episode would violate the terms of this forum.
I'm not sure that's true. Certain episodes definitely would, but I'm quite certain that it would be possible to link to clips (copyright issues aside) that would not.
I'm pretty sure the author of the site doesn't even cuss (though, as usual, comment-leavers do for sure).
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Resh, anyone who knows me knows darn well that I am anything but a prude. I found that website offensive on many levels, none of them having anything to do with being a prude.
It's possible that crude humor just doesn't tickle my funny bone, because I don't find South Park particularly funny either. Though South Park at least I can recognize contains biting, brutal social commentary.
This site? What, you're going to tell me that there's biting social commentary in posting pictures (from god knows where) of supposedly attractive women with men who, what? Break some social norm? Go over the top on some fashion statement? It's immature, stupid, not even at the level of bathroom humor. It's like the worst of high school, "did you hear who he was with at the dance last weekend? Did you see what he was wearing?" Give me a break.
Admittedly, I was debating whether to whistle it or not after only a cursory glance over the page and it was mostly based on the url of the link and what it brought to mind. The page is probably not whistle worthy, which is why I didn't whistle it.
But it's not really worthy of being posted either. It's pure, unadulteratedly drivel. Humor for the lowest common denominator.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Far be it for me to accuse you of being a pompous ass, but why don't you get off your high horse? I think it's funny, several other people on this thread think it's funny, a bunch of other people who I sent the link to found it hilarious, but we're just don't have good standards I guess. The New Yorker, that's real humor, right?
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Monty Python, that's real humor.
No, it's not just that's it's crude humor that I take issue with. Or even that it's pointless crude humor. It's the immature high schoolish mindset that it reveals that finds that sorta thing funny that I take issue with.
Posted by luthe (Member # 1601) on :
Ah yes, of course the denizens of hatrack are of the highest denominator, consumers of only the most high brow humor.
If you want to pile on Reshpeckobiggle, pile on for the obvious bait in the thread title, If you dislike his taste in humor, just ignore it, as it will fall of the front page soon enough.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Okay, maybe I'm the only one who finds issue in a website that encourages people to post pictures of (their friends? people they just stumble across on facebook?) in order to laugh at them, call them assholes and assess the hotness of the girls they're with. Never mind that it's posting pictures of people with out their consent on the greater internet with the purpose of laughing at them. Never mind that it completely and unashamedly objectifies women, noting that the guys they have chosen to associate with are unworthy of their hotness.
Maybe that sort of thing's gotten some common in our society these days that most people are completely numb to it. Maybe I'm just behind the times. It's what I get for avoiding television aside from PBS and the Sci-Fi channel.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Alcon, you're not the only one.
(And now look what you did! You made me post in this thread! Unclean! Unclean!)
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I think it sounds/looks funny at first glance, but haven't had a chance to peruse yet...it's a bit risque for work based on my first glance. Not in the "get me fired" kind of way but in the "might get me a talking to" kind of way.
I guess it's immature to make fun of guys who seem to be wrapped up in their own imagined coolness, or unaware of how they look, but sometimes even immature humor can be a vehicle for impressive cleverness. It's possible to use base humor and still make it smart. Not sure whether this site does that...i'll look later.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I agree, Alcon.
And I'm NOT a super-prude. Ask anyone who's been around me at about 1:30 in the morning when I start in on the innuendo! I just think it's entirely tasteless and disrespectful to do what this website apparently does, and don't think it's appropriate to link to it on a website frequented by young people.
Posted by luthe (Member # 1601) on :
You know I can recall a time when hatrack had a thread about onanism, and there was only one person really freaked about it.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
God I hate northern New Jersey.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
Alcon is not a prude or anywhere close.
I felt the need as someone who knows him to post.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
luthe, I should say that I didn't include the warning until after the first few responses.
And I believe you guys aren't prudes. But you obviously don't have a sense of humor, especially about yourselves. You're trying to cover up your lack with arrogant self-importance, but you just come across as boring. Live a little! Laugh at a fart, or a douchebag. Life becomes so much more tolerable. If you guys would stop taking yourselves so seriously, you might find yourselves laughing at me, even!
And before you criticize my taste in humor anymore, let me inform you that I think the funniest show that has ever existed is Arrested Development. It doesn't get more intellectually low-brow than that.
Michael: "Gob, get rid of the Seaward." Gangee: "I'll leave when I'm good and ready."
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I don't have a sense of humor? You don't have a sense of what is and is not appropriate behavior, obviously.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Resh, you are completely and utterly missing what I take offense to in the website. It's not the crudeness.
I laugh at farts and burps all the time. I'm known at home and school for shunning many of the rules of polite society as silly and unnecessary. Guess it doesn't really come across in a forum where the goal is to intelligently and thoughtfully discuss life, the universe, and everything. With the occasional silly fluff.
What I take issue with is two fold: the clear and utter objectification of women on that site and the fact that the whole purpose of the site is to make fun of people who are probably unaware that they are being made fun of, and wouldn't be terribly happy about it if they discovered it. And who have done nothing other than have pictures of them taken and posted in which they look rather silly.
That's what I take issue with. Not the fact that it is crude humor that uses the word 'douchebag' or 'hot chick'. If you've ever watched Monty Python, it can get pretty crude too. Monty Python's The Meaning of Life anyone? Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
If it matters to you Alcon, he explicitly states that he will remove pictures as requested.
"Monty Python's The Meaning of Life anyone? " Yes, please.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
If those guys don't want their picture laughed at, they really shouldn't dress like that.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Indeed.
Ok Alcon, I can see that. When you expressed your opinion that
quote:it's immature, stupid, not even at the level of bathroom humor... pure, unadulteratedly drivel. Humor for the lowest common denominator...
and then that
quote:it's not just that's it's crude humor that I take issue with. Or even that it's pointless crude humor. It's the immature high schoolish mindset that it reveals that finds that sorta thing funny that I take issue with
what you really meant was what you only started saying in your fourth post, after you were called on the elitist nature of your posts. Yeah, I was "completely and utterly missing" the reason why you were offended by the link.
I don't suppose you appreciate sarcasm either, do you.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: If it matters to you Alcon, he explicitly states that he will remove pictures as requested.
It bother's me that people get amusement out of making fun of other people. It's mean and I object to mean. And its not as if the harm can be undone by removing the picture from the site. The insult has already been thrown and the injury already incurred.
Imagine how you'd feel if you were scrolling down that site and found your picture?
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I'd likely ask him to remove it, though more because the author has a book he's marketing. I can take a joke at my expense, but I would mind him profiting off of it.
That issue aside, it'd depend in large part on what I thought of the accompanying text. If the jokes were clever, that'd go a long way to making me feel okay about it.
Do you think making fun of others is inherently mean, Rabbit?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Do you think making fun of others is inherently mean, Rabbit?
I think there is a difference between making fun of public figures (Politicians, movie stars . . .), making fun of strangers and making fun of people we know personally.
I think making fun of those we know personally is almost always mean. There is a certain kind of teasing banter that I find fun and acceptable within some social situations like what is going on in the Scott Pot thread. By and large however, I think that when we direct sarcasm at a personal friend or acquaintance, jokingly call them "super-prudes" or mock the way they dress and act -- its mean.
Making fun of individuals who we don't know personally and who aren't public figures, like what's on that website, is almost without exception mean spirited. I think that kind of sense of humor is a character flaw.
Making fun of public figures seems fair game as long as those attacks aren't highly personal in nature. So for example, I would consider making fun of Senator Clinton's ankles to be mean. Making fun of her bright colored suits -- fair game. Making fun of GW Bush for being inarticulate -- fair game, making fun of the way his ears poke out - mean.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
I want to play on Alcon's side of the sandbox.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I think we draw our differences down opposite lines, interestingly enough. I can see the sense in distinguishing between factors in the target's control, like clothing or hairstyle, and factors the target couldn't be expected to reasonably control, like facial characteristics. I would consider it mean to make fun of someone for not getting plastic surgery or something. Articulateness is actually borderline for me.
I'm a little fuzzier on why celebrities or politicians should be fair game for mockery, and not private individuals. In the moral sense, of course, and not legal. Because of their professional choices, it's okay to treat them in ways you would otherwise consider cruel?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I agree with Rabbit's assessment of degrees of meanness.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Well here's a good test of your mean-ness/humor index: Democrat Smackdown! Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
That was worth a chuckle, if only for the concept. I feel like the non-sequitur of the Samoan dude coming out SHOULD be funny, but I'd like a bit more abruptness in the execution.
In case it wasn't clear before, I don't have a problem with poking fun at public figures. I just don't see why anyone else should have a free pass. I do think there are general boundaries that should apply to everyone though.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
It was funny, until the big dude came in. It was a little bit out there, but I laughed.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
It was funny but the first half was a lot funnier than the second half. The action was a lot funnier than the commentary.
There were a couple point that I thought crossed the line like "Don't touch her, she hasn't be touched by a man in so many years." I think that this kind of criticism of Hillary is genuinely mean spirited and unfounded.
I was more ambivalent about the comments on Obama's ears. I found the caricature funny, but the repeated comments got tedious.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I'm a little fuzzier on why celebrities or politicians should be fair game for mockery, and not private individuals. In the moral sense, of course, and not legal. Because of their professional choices, it's okay to treat them in ways you would otherwise consider cruel?
I can think of a couple of reasons. In one sense, poking fun at the famous is like roasting an honored guest. I've been to numerous events where tribute is being made to an esteemed senior colleague. Mixed in with the legitimate praise, are the funny photos of them wearing love beads in the 60s, the jokes about their well known foibles, maybe even an imitation of their speaking style or their funny mannerisms. And I don't see anything mean about that. Its part of an American tradition of egalitarianism. Its a way of saying, we respect you and your accomplishments but we also consider you to be one of us. . You are gathered to honor this person, legitimate heart felt praise is being given along with the jokes. The context is important.
If on the other hand, there was a retirement dinner for someone who no one respected or really liked and people got up and started making jokes about them -- that would be mean. Context is everything.
On another level, politicians and performers have chosen a career that requires seeking public approval. That choice makes them fair game for criticism, or at least for criticism that is relevant to the job they are seeking. They are trying to sell themselves to us and that context makes a difference. If you give me some of your home made cookies, it would be mean spirited of me to say they tasted bad or looked funny. On the other hand, those things would be perfectly legitimate if you were trying to sell me the cookies.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I would bet that any of those guys in the pictures would love to know that he's on a website, and that further he would think, "Haha, stupid internet dweebs making fun of me, while I'm out with these fine ladies! Who is the loser?"
Then he'd pop his collar and pound a beer. No harm, no foul.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I think there are pretty clear differences between most cases of constructive criticism, as in the case of the cookies, judgment of suitability for a position, as in the case of politicians, and straight up mockery.
All of which have their place.
You raise a good point about the tradition of roasting, though. The context is important. However, I don't think most of the mockery of celebrities in the US would fit that context. It's also not clear to me that the context of the website is mean-spirited, though as I noted earlier, many of the comments are. It is questionable enough though, that I can understand why Alcon or KQ might not like it.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I think Alcorn and KQ are just jealous because they don't have 4 popped collars Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I would bet that any of those guys in the pictures would love to know that he's on a website, and that further he would think, "Haha, stupid internet dweebs making fun of me, while I'm out with these fine ladies! Who is the loser?"
Then he'd pop his collar and pound a beer. No harm, no foul.
Funny and probably true.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:I would bet that any of those guys in the pictures would love to know that he's on a website, and that further he would think, "Haha, stupid internet dweebs making fun of me, while I'm out with these fine ladies! Who is the loser?"
Then he'd pop his collar and pound a beer. No harm, no foul.
*chuckle* Amusingly put, but still that very assumption is one of the things I find offensive about the whole site. That just cause the people in the pictures are clearly out partying, and the guys in particular look pretty dumb, that therefor they must be jerks and worthy of the mockery. And that they'd not mind it.
Honestly though, I think the thing that most bothers me about the whole site is the publicness of it. The fact that it's posted on the internet for all to see. And the fact that the poster doesn't even know and hasn't even interacted with the people he's shredding. Those people might not be worthy of the shredding at all. Heck those picture's could be completely self mocking. The poster doesn't know. He doesn't care. He's just looking to profit off making fun of random other people who are unaware they are being made fun of.
I mean if I were sitting with a friend, and someone like the people in those pictures walked by clearly drunk and acting like a jerk, and my friend turned to me with commentary similar to that on the website, I'd probably find it not nearly as offensive, if only mildly amusing.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I think Alcorn and KQ are just jealous because they don't have 4 popped collars
Nah, I'm jealous 'cause I'm not a hot chick. Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote: think there are pretty clear differences between most cases of constructive criticism, as in the case of the cookies, judgment of suitability for a position, as in the case of politicians, and straight up mockery.
If someone is my student or my friend, I try to limit myself to constructive criticism. If someone is trying to sell me something, I feel no such obligation. If I pay for a cookie and it sucks, I'd see no problem mocking the cookie or the baking skills of the person who made it. That's not about constructive criticism. Its the flip side of word of mouth advertising.
If a paid performer expects applause or accolades for a good performance, they have no right to complain about boo's or mockery for a poor performance. They are too sides of the same coin.
Same with political figures. If they expect accolades for their strengths, then mockery for their weaknesses is fair game. My relationship to them isn't a personal one. I am their target audience, the consumer of their product. They are trying to sell me something.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Honestly though, I think the thing that most bothers me about the whole site is the publicness of it. The fact that it's posted on the internet for all to see. And the fact that the poster doesn't even know and hasn't even interacted with the people he's shredding.
Exactly. When you are teasing a friend, there is a line between laughing with them and laughing at them. As long as the teasing stays within the space where your friend is able to laugh with you -- it can be funny. When you cross the line to laughing at a friend its mean.
On this website, there is no doubt what side of the line we are on. We are expected to laugh at this people not with them. I think that's true whenever we poke fun at strangers.
Posted by Sergeant (Member # 8749) on :
If I'm not mistaket there is a tort that covers the appropriation of one's image for commercial purposes. Both the website and any book would likely create liability for the author.
Now I should mention I didn't read the second page of posts because I really don't care that much and this particular tort isn't one that we studied in class so if Dag already commented all the better
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)