Trophy Girl (THSCC Facebook drama)

Andrew Jonell · **Joined:** Mon Mar 23, 2009 6:43 pm **Posts:** 1350

Jason Mauldin wrote:

An argument requires two people to engage in a discussion. You don't view yourself in an argument, you view yourself as a professor, who's job is to teach those that aren't as enlightened as you are.

Oh and to censor those that just won't listen to you.

I haven't censored anyone, but hey, keep up the ad homs!

Scott Johnson · **Posted:** Fri Sep 26, 2014 1:29 pm

This thread ceased to be productive about 2 pages ago. There will never be a consensus on this topic. There wasn't back then, and there isn't now.

I'm all for a healthy debate, and I think this forum is the place for it (vs Facebook), but I think everyone should put their keyboards down and revisit this in a day or two once the adrenaline levels have dropped back to normal.

steve remchak · **Posted:** Fri Sep 26, 2014 1:32 pm

Does that mean that we won't be banning AutoX? Damn................. :roll:

JamesMilko · **Posted:** Fri Sep 26, 2014 1:46 pm

steve remchak wrote:

It's the young "enlightened, Blue Ribbon for you jimmy" guys. Act like you have a sack and quit pissing and moaning about how THSCC is objectifying woman.

Since this thread has already gone downhill let me attack this shitty quip.

We weren't the ones that were unable to go home with an unhappy kid and tell them to try harder next time. Your parents were able to tell you to suck it up, but when it came to be your turn you bitched to the organizers and got ribbons from P1 to P10 for 12 entries.

Matt McGrain · **Posted:** Fri Sep 26, 2014 1:55 pm

So, who's in for NCAC?!?!? :twisted:

RodneyWright · **Posted:** Fri Sep 26, 2014 2:10 pm

please put the keyboards down, walk away and go outside and see the sun. This has degraded enough for the day. Come back tomorrow....

Richard Casto · **Posted:** Fri Sep 26, 2014 2:21 pm

Andrew Jonell wrote:

Well several women have come up and have stated that the pictures being posted are offensive to them, and the response has mostly been "shut up and deal with it". I fully realize that the world is full of grey areas and nothing is black and white; however, the response to this whole ordeal has been "shut up and deal with it", especially when it comes to the few women we have in the club.

So I haven't read every single post (many are gone on FB so I can't even look at those) so I can't say exactly what has and hasn't been said. I assume you are generally paraphrasing. I suspect the "shut up" part is likely not correct. I would guess that "deal with it" is a highly crude and likely over the top way of boiling it down. However I wouldn't personally put it that way at all. I think all voices and opinions are welcome, but be prepared for not being in the majority or having a majority agree with you. I hope that doesn't come across as "deal with it". If anything I started this thread so people (for/against) could discuss.

Andrew Jonell wrote:

I think you're coming at this from the wrong angle. You can correct me if I'm wrong, but from my perspective you're trying to assign equal fault to both parties at that the truth is in the middle; which it isn't.

So I appreciate that you ask for clarification and yes you are making the wrong assumption about what I am thinking. I nowhere assigned equal fault. In fact I don't seem to be assigning fault anywhere (other than bitching about censorship which is a side topic). What I tried to communicate is that the photos in question is likely somewhere on a spectrum between acceptable and unacceptable. At the moment I view it as being closer to the acceptable side. I also think that context factors in heavily. We are all clouded by our own personal worldview, but I am trying to say "What would a typical and average person (both male and female) make of this?" I have talked to a few co-workers (male and female) and while I might bias the story upon retelling, so far they are generally puzzled by the level of drama and don't react negatively.

Can the images be taken the wrong way? Could they be used to reinforce misogynistic views? Absolutely. But I also believe just about anything can be used for evil and I also tend to believe that a minority are viewing the images in an overly negative way or making incorrect assumptions as to intent of posting them. I don't discount their opinion, but I also believe the entire thing has been blown way out of proportion. I have my hand in that, but mostly because of how it was handled and less about the actual topic.

Andrew Jonell wrote:

Having those pictures up, which are offensive to a nonzero number of people, creates a hostile environment where not everyone is feeling welcomed. Like I said earlier, it would be one thing if half of the posts weren't "things were way better in the past before all of these uppity PC idiots got all offended", but that's the reality of the situation.

I appreciate the phrase "nonzero number of people" and get where you are going with that. But that argument also means that if anyone finds anything offensive, then it is a real problem and I don't agree with that. This should not be a democracy in which if 51% feel something is OK that it gets approved. There is room for the majority to be wrong here (at least I think there is). But as stated above, I don't think that is the situation here. I could be wrong, and so could you.

I think that regarding "hostile environment" you have to include pervasiveness and strength of the "event". If there a consistent stream of "trophy girl" photos pasted to the FB wall (or here) then it would tilt the scale. Also, if the photos were over the top (i.e. nude, etc.), but a single event, then that also might tilt the scale. But a single and highly innocent post should not be construed as creating a hostile environment.

Scott Johnson wrote:

We should get rid of street tire class.

Thank you for the attempt at lightening the mood. :thumbsup:

Scott Johnson wrote:

This thread ceased to be productive about 2 pages ago. There will never be a consensus on this topic. There wasn't back then, and there isn't now.

I'm all for a healthy debate, and I think this forum is the place for it (vs Facebook), but I think everyone should put their keyboards down and revisit this in a day or two once the adrenaline levels have dropped back to normal.

RodneyWright wrote:

please put the keyboards down, walk away and go outside and see the sun. This has degraded enough for the day. Come back tomorrow....

So I had typed up much of my reply above before Scott and Rodney posted. I don't want to just trash what I typed and I personally don't think this thread should be locked, so I have clearly posted again (you are reading it right now), but I do think some time would help people to cool down. I am not wound up (much

) but in the spirit of taking a break I will try to step away. I likely have had my say anyhow. But feel free to post if you want.

Richard

Ryan Holton · **Posted:** Fri Sep 26, 2014 2:37 pm

Richard Casto wrote:

Andrew Jonell wrote:

Well several women have come up and have stated that the pictures being posted are offensive to them, and the response has mostly been "shut up and deal with it". I fully realize that the world is full of grey areas and nothing is black and white; however, the response to this whole ordeal has been "shut up and deal with it", especially when it comes to the few women we have in the club.

So I haven't read every single post (many are gone on FB so I can't even look at those) so I can't say exactly what has and hasn't been said. I assume you are generally paraphrasing. I suspect the "shut up" part is likely not correct. I would guess that "deal with it" is a highly crude and likely over the top way of boiling it down. However I wouldn't personally put it that way at all. I think all voices and opinions are welcome, but be prepared for not being in the majority or having a majority agree with you. I hope that doesn't come across as "deal with it". If anything I started this thread so people (for/against) could discuss.

Andrew Jonell wrote:

I think you're coming at this from the wrong angle. You can correct me if I'm wrong, but from my perspective you're trying to assign equal fault to both parties at that the truth is in the middle; which it isn't.

So I appreciate that you ask for clarification and yes you are making the wrong assumption about what I am thinking. I nowhere assigned equal fault. In fact I don't seem to be assigning fault anywhere (other than bitching about censorship which is a side topic). What I tried to communicate is that the photos in question is likely somewhere on a spectrum between acceptable and unacceptable. At the moment I view it as being closer to the acceptable side. I also think that context factors in heavily. We are all clouded by our own personal worldview, but I am trying to say "What would a typical and average person (both male and female) make of this?" I have talked to a few co-workers (male and female) and while I might bias the story upon retelling, so far they are generally puzzled by the level of drama and don't react negatively.

Can the images be taken the wrong way? Could they be used to reinforce misogynistic views? Absolutely. But I also believe just about anything can be used for evil and I also tend to believe that a minority are viewing the images in an overly negative way or making incorrect assumptions as to intent of posting them. I don't discount their opinion, but I also believe the entire thing has been blown way out of proportion. I have my hand in that, but mostly because of how it was handled and less about the actual topic.

Andrew Jonell wrote:

Having those pictures up, which are offensive to a nonzero number of people, creates a hostile environment where not everyone is feeling welcomed. Like I said earlier, it would be one thing if half of the posts weren't "things were way better in the past before all of these uppity PC idiots got all offended", but that's the reality of the situation.

I appreciate the phrase "nonzero number of people" and get where you are going with that. But that argument also means that if anyone finds anything offensive, then it is a real problem and I don't agree with that. This should not be a democracy in which if 51% feel something is OK that it gets approved. There is room for the majority to be wrong here (at least I think there is). But as stated above, I don't think that is the situation here. I could be wrong, and so could you.

I think that regarding "hostile environment" you have to include pervasiveness and strength of the "event". If there a consistent stream of "trophy girl" photos pasted to the FB wall (or here) then it would tilt the scale. Also, if the photos were over the top (i.e. nude, etc.), but a single event, then that also might tilt the scale. But a single and highly innocent post should not be construed as creating a hostile environment.

Scott Johnson wrote:

We should get rid of street tire class.

Thank you for the attempt at lightening the mood. :thumbsup:

Scott Johnson wrote:

This thread ceased to be productive about 2 pages ago. There will never be a consensus on this topic. There wasn't back then, and there isn't now.

I'm all for a healthy debate, and I think this forum is the place for it (vs Facebook), but I think everyone should put their keyboards down and revisit this in a day or two once the adrenaline levels have dropped back to normal.

RodneyWright wrote:

please put the keyboards down, walk away and go outside and see the sun. This has degraded enough for the day. Come back tomorrow....

So I had typed up much of my reply above before Scott and Rodney posted. I don't want to just trash what I typed and I personally don't think this thread should be locked, so I have clearly posted again (you are reading it right now), but I do think some time would help people to cool down. I am not wound up (much

) but in the spirit of taking a break I will try to step away. I likely have had my say anyhow. But feel free to post if you want.

Richard

Well said Richard.

If we banned everything a nonzero number of people objected to, we might as well shut this place down and never have an event again.

JamesShort · **Posted:** Fri Sep 26, 2014 2:52 pm

Non-zero population 1: People who feel trophy girls and objectification of women has no place in THSCC

Non-zero population 2: People who feel that pivot cones suck.

Ryan, are you trying to say those two populations/concerns are equivalent? I'd probably say that the latter outnumbers the former by close to an order of magnitude and yet we would be mistaken to ignore the first population (and we clearly ignore the 2nd population

).

TL;DR;

Trying to throw numbers and percentages at this to quantify it and justify it doesn't make sense.

Brett_Murphy · **Joined:** Thu Jan 12, 2012 2:02 pm **Posts:** 355

Can I present a slightly different viewpoint?

I check Facebook at work during lunch sometimes. I'd prefer our feed there not to have scantily clad women in it, simply because outside of the debate about the legitimacy of them being in the Facebook feed in the first place, corporate America has a zero tolerance policy to anything remotely offensive to anybody. I've quite looking at Facebook for the time being, simply because I don't want somebody with an axe to grind at work to report me for looking at bikini-babes. Even if I'm doing it on my own personal equipment, it can cause problems if somebody makes a big enough stink about it, might become a problem for me.

There was a hotlink thread on Grassroots Motorsports that had pictures of women in it that were freely available to find with Google Safe Search on, and they were all moved to a different thread, just to prevent that kind of thing. You go to look at pictures of vintage race cars and BAM, bikini babes for two pages. It was easy to start a new thread there so that people who didn't want to see those pictures could simply avoid those threads.

Since we are unable to separate the Facebook news feed into discreet topics, It might be better to just leave the trophy girls out of the picture.

Yes, I know I can just not look at Facebook when I am at work, but I like having something to do while I eat my sandwiches.

Andrew Jonell · **Joined:** Mon Mar 23, 2009 6:43 pm **Posts:** 1350

Richard Casto wrote:

I appreciate the phrase "nonzero number of people" and get where you are going with that. But that argument also means that if anyone finds anything offensive, then it is a real problem and I don't agree with that. This should not be a democracy in which if 51% feel something is OK that it gets approved. There is room for the majority to be wrong here (at least I think there is). But as stated above, I don't think that is the situation here. I could be wrong, and so could you.

What about the ancient Greek/original form of Democracy?

You know, where women couldn't vote and you could own slaves?

Neal Harrington · **Joined:** Thu Sep 04, 2003 4:29 pm **Posts:** 106

I am offended that someone objectified old guys as balding. I may be old, but I still have a lot of hair. Seriously, folks, this "politically correct" BS is tiring. Most of you weren't around when the confedrate battle flag was removed from the logo. Now that was a contentious debate!

Richard Casto · **Posted:** Fri Sep 26, 2014 3:14 pm

JamesShort wrote:

Non-zero population 1: People who feel trophy girls and objectification of women has no place in THSCC

Non-zero population 2: People who feel that pivot cones suck.

Ryan, are you trying to say those two populations/concerns are equivalent? I'd probably say that the latter outnumbers the former by close to an order of magnitude and yet we would be mistaken to ignore the first population (and we clearly ignore the 2nd population

).

TL;DR;

Trying to throw numbers and percentages at this to quantify it and justify it doesn't make sense.

I said I would stay away, but I can't ignore good and non-offensive posts.

You asked Ryan the question, but I would rephrase one of your statements...

Quote:

That the latter outnumbers the former by close to an order of magnitude and yet we could be mistaken to ignore the first population (and we clearly ignore the 2nd population).

"could" vs. "would". I don't think this as an absolute. But there are two other key points to make. "nonzero" is very vague. One person, 50% of the people, all of the people? We have no measure and even if we did, it would just be a data point to consider. Each "issue" needs to be addressed case by case. But regardless, yes, the topic of things that turn women away is likely more important than pivot cones. Still not convinced that photos of grid girls from awhile back bubbles up to that level.

By the way, I kind of like pivot cones.

Richard

Richard Casto · **Posted:** Fri Sep 26, 2014 3:16 pm

Andrew Jonell wrote:

Richard Casto wrote:

I appreciate the phrase "nonzero number of people" and get where you are going with that. But that argument also means that if anyone finds anything offensive, then it is a real problem and I don't agree with that. This should not be a democracy in which if 51% feel something is OK that it gets approved. There is room for the majority to be wrong here (at least I think there is). But as stated above, I don't think that is the situation here. I could be wrong, and so could you.

What about the ancient Greek/original form of Democracy?

You know, where women couldn't vote and you could own slaves?

So no... I also likely look bad in a toga. I am also sure that in 50-100 years we will be viewed the same way (really screwed up and uninformed and that includes things that might be PC today, but not tomorrow, so you are screwed no matter how good of a world citizen you think you are).

Richard

JamesShort · **Posted:** Fri Sep 26, 2014 3:17 pm

Richard Casto wrote:

JamesShort wrote:

Non-zero population 1: People who feel trophy girls and objectification of women has no place in THSCC

Non-zero population 2: People who feel that pivot cones suck.

Ryan, are you trying to say those two populations/concerns are equivalent? I'd probably say that the latter outnumbers the former by close to an order of magnitude and yet we would be mistaken to ignore the first population (and we clearly ignore the 2nd population

).

TL;DR;

Trying to throw numbers and percentages at this to quantify it and justify it doesn't make sense.

I said I would stay away, but I can't ignore good and non-offensive posts.

You asked Ryan the question, but I would rephrase one of your statements...

Quote:

That the latter outnumbers the former by close to an order of magnitude and yet we could be mistaken to ignore the first population (and we clearly ignore the 2nd population).

"could" vs. "would". I don't that this as an absolute. But there are two other key points to make. "nonzero" is very vague. One person, 50% of the people, all of the people? We have no measure and even if we did, it would just be a data point to consider. Each "issue" needs to be addressed case by case. But regardless, yes, the topic of things that turn women away is likely more important than pivot cones. Still not convinced that photos of grid girls from awhile back bubbles up to that level.

By the way, I kind of like pivot cones.

Richard

Richard, I'm not caving: would.

THSCC Forums

Trophy Girl (THSCC Facebook drama)

Who is online