Calm down and take a nap, this is the internet. Let's see what else is on here:
- a video of Ukrainian teens murdering a hobo with a hammer and screwdriver
- a guy shoving a Tom Collins glass up his ass, the glass subsequently breaking and then him dealing with those consequences
- a shitload of racist websites hating every type of person you can think of.
I get that outrage/counter-outrage/chance at zingers gets interest but you are coming off as a bit of a harumphing dowager or worse, a college freshman. You're damaging the legitimacy of your future posts and that makes me cry.
I'm betting everyone that finds this pic offensive and racist - including, ahem, Gawker - were laughing hardest of the images of President Bush comparing his facial expressions to those of a chimp....
@Robs_TX: I have such conflicted feelings about that argument. On the one hand, it's the first thing I always think of, but on the other you have to admit that when you start think about the motivations rather than the output things get a little dicier...
@Robs_TX: The "black people are monkeys" thing has a long, long history as racist insult. So comparing a white person to a monkey is simply not the same as comparing a black person to a monkey. It's an entirely different thing.
If you don't understand why that is on an obvious, gut level ... well, I can't help you figure it out, sorry.
@Phyllis Nefler: When looking at the original site where the pic originated, I think it is safe to assume the motivation is not racist.
@MisterHippity: Again, go to the original site. They make ape faces out of all celebrities - black or white. Not racially motivated in any way. And if you can't figure that one out, then you just are looking for a reason to be offended.
@ModernMindOfM: I think both the pics - the one of Bush, the one of Obama - are funny. Neither offend my race. Neither offend my politics.
There is so much emphasis of being politically nowadays that people can find offense with anything. Lighten up folks, have a little fun...
@FitnessMadeSimple: So you find it "ridiculous" that posting a picture of black woman made to look like a monkey crosses the line into a realm of offensiveness that Gawker wouldn't want to enter?
As compared to, you know, the regular Gawker stuff that you find "offensive"?
It's all just on a par to you, is it? "Black-people-are-monkeys" pictures and standard snarky Gawker fare?
@MisterHippity: I wouldn't call it standard snarky Gawker fare. To be sure, it's more offensive than what's typically posted here.
But it's not as if offensive images haven't been posted here before. Perhaps "ridiculous" was an overstatement on my part. "Surprising" would have been more accurate.
@Pope John Peeps II: No, not something as bad as a black person photoshopped to look like a monkey. Gawker does have some fairly clear lines that it won't cross.
Well ... at least it has does ever since the departure of Owen "Travolta's Rumored Gay Lover Discovered Dead Son" Thomas.
@MisterHippity: After posting the michael jackson death photo, suddenly people start caring? This is arguably more interesting, since it's about racial politics in the US.
Back when I was an idiot wannabe "hacker" my friends and I would do really dumb Googlebombs. I remember we made the phrase "Clam Diving Katie" come up for a few hours and we thought it was the greatest thing ever.
This is offensive but so are the photoshops of Sarah Palin and her baby that has downs syndrome photoshops.
Also, does anyone in France care that it's quite easy to get NUDES of their first lady?
What I'm getting at here, is that the internet is the final frontier. Literally. All of our news, TV and movies are heavily censored and just because one offensive little photoshop got popular does not mean we need to get all PC on the internet.
I mean look, this is a popular photoshop and it is just plain dumb
(but still sort of funny, which is what I find the Michelle Obama to be)
@Airvault: She's NOT beautiful! Be honest. She's fairly plain. Why does everyone fixate on making her beautiful and Obama the paragon of handsomeness? They don't have to be the Kennedys for christ's sake. Just let them be themselves. Jesus.
@Airvault: No.... no she's not. And trying to MAKE her "lovely" or "beautiful" is something that I find actually quite sexist - something that demeans her as an intelligent woman by playing up her sexuality meaninglessly. If you want royalty go back and watch Princess Di's frikkin wedding. If you want a real first lady, just check out M.Obama and her hideous wide-belt selection and advanced education.
@Pope John Peeps II: I guess this gets into the whole beauty= beholder thing, but I do think she is strikingly attractive. I guess if we wanted to be scientifically objective we'd measure her facial symmetry and golden ratio or whatever, but she has a beautiful smile and a strong brow and a kind face, and for me that adds up to beautiful.
I get what you're saying about how meaningless her appearance is to her worth as a human being and first lady, but, well, welcome to lady life.
@Pope John Peeps II: Maybe "elegant" is the better word to describe how people feel about her. I get your point that there is way more to her than just her face and body, given her education, her public service work and her wish to be more than a fashion-plate First Lady, but I think people were searching for a better way to describe her than just "fucking cool," which is the first thing that comes to mind when I think of her.
@Pope John Peeps II: Um, well, what if you actually find her quite pretty? I don't think calling someone beautiful is sexist or even sexual. I'm a straight woman and I think she's attractive. She can be good-looking and also intelligent, and one doesn't detract from the other.
Is she the paragon of beauty? No. Are her wide belts kind of unflattering and strange? Yeah. But she has a great body, beautiful skin, high cheekbones, and a flattering nose. I'd kill to look like her at her age. There are certainly other things I admire about her more -- her intelligence and humor and warmth, for starters -- but I do think she is pretty, both from my perspective and objectively.
@eatsshootsleaves: For instance, I think this picture is a more accurate representation of her looks. And while she doesn't look like a supermodel, she does look pretty and warm and healthy.
Someone, I hope, has already said this, but of course Google should NOT remove the image. No more than they should remove any "offensive" text. I'm sorry, but this shit gets my goat. Access to everything, good and bad, is key to a free society. Duh.
I'm amazed at even the suggestion here that it should be removed, because that is totally assholish and misguided.
Seriously, a balderdash thing to say. I'm disgusted. Chen, you call yourself a writer? I'm sorry, no. You are not allowed to call yourself that. You obviously cannot be trusted to protect what I consider to be the most important freedom we have, therefore I shall lobby that your name never come up in any search result.
You are a bad person. Or, perhaps, a decent person with an inability to make a point without failing badly and being misunderstood. Either way. Not appreciated.
@Senor_Wences: Uh, Chen's response was that it would be better if it was gone. Not that Google should remove it. Here, let me scroll up a whole page length and copy/paste it for you: It's hard not to agree with Google on this: If they start removing every image someone finds offensive then the only results left will be pictures of babies dressed up as flowers. (Although: child labor!) But it's also hard not to really wish that picture was gone.
You know, that sounds just like "Google should remove it", doesn't it?
Talk about trying to make a point and failing badly.
@Go Like Hell Machine: Disagree completely. That was at the end, and weak. The overwhelming flavor of this post is that the image should be removed. #gfail? Please.
But there is no debate. No controversy, even. This is what I meant by failing at making a point. There was not, in fact, any reason to bring the image up. This is the point of the bad stuff. You don't like it, ignore it.
Oh, and go to hell, Go Like Hell, for that last crack of yours there. I'll send the ACLU a couple bucks in your name.
@Go Like Hell Machine: Exactly. I think this post makes it pretty clear that, yes, we would LIKE for images like this to not get pulled up with a Google search. But that is hardly the same thing as advocating that Google take the image down. To the contrary, the post says pretty clearly that Google shouldn't.
It's the distinction between saying the KKK is disgusting and shouldn't exist vs. saying the Government should prohibit the KKK from existing. Big difference--HUGE difference.
@Atilla the Bun: Meanwhile, people are searching this image, a dumb, dopey, inconsequential image, because of this post, and, as Chen points out, helps move it to the top. So, uh, why do it?
There is not a shortage of Obama monkey images. It's neither here nor there, and not worth discussion. It really isn't.
What's worth discussion is the suggestion these images be pulled. I say again, that is the overwhelming flavor of this post. Or, almost as bad, it's "tut tut, this is bad" and leading people to Google image it, which they have now, and it's still, what? Just another Obama monkey thing.
A story might be about who is posting these. A piece about Google refusing to take it down? Makes me mad that it is disappointed they will not. Saying again: #gfail. Failed how? "Racist picture...will live forever..." Well, yeah, that's the idea of a library. Respect the Internet as a library of everything.
I can't believe this is even an issue. No, I can. It's why I'm pissed.
Fiercely protect it, yer stupid freedom of speech, or yer screwed.
@Senor_Wences: You know, as someone mentioned earlier, if this is your first amendment hill to die on, then so be it. But you're seriously, seriously overreacting and intentionally misinterpreting the entire point of the post. #comprehensionfail.
Y'know, Google, this heroic freedom-of-information stance would have a lot more oomph if you weren't such wusses when it came to China. But if THIS is the mountain you want to die on... carry on.
"...like a guy who lives in a compound in Montana and searches the web for tips on cleaning his high powered rifle while muttering misremembered passages of the Declaration of Independence to himself!"
You're hitting a little too close to home there! Cept I don't mutter it, I whisper it. Menacingly.
@CrayonSmoothie: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men were created by God, not evolved from monkeys, that their creator endowed no rights onto illegal inalienables, and among our rights are Life, Liberty, and the Right To Bear Arms. That to secure these rights the Tree of Liberty must be refreshed with the blood of Tyrants. When any form of Government becomes Socialist it is the right of the People to Destroy it and institute a new Republic, for which they stand, one Nation, under God, with Liberty and Justice for all. Amen"
@Lysergic Asset: Nope! Just made it up this morning after I finished laughing at Adrian's "...muttering misremembered passages of the Declaration of Independence to himself!"
But now I am not sure if I should thank you or be a bit concerned that I may be spending too much on Free Republic.
It won't show up on the image search if your SafeSearch is OFF....only when SafeSearch is on Moderate or Strict. Shouldn't it be the other way around, Moderate and Strict protecting us from offensive images. Interesting.
11/25/09
- a video of Ukrainian teens murdering a hobo with a hammer and screwdriver
- a guy shoving a Tom Collins glass up his ass, the glass subsequently breaking and then him dealing with those consequences
- a shitload of racist websites hating every type of person you can think of.
I get that outrage/counter-outrage/chance at zingers gets interest but you are coming off as a bit of a harumphing dowager or worse, a college freshman. You're damaging the legitimacy of your future posts and that makes me cry.
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
If you don't understand why that is on an obvious, gut level ... well, I can't help you figure it out, sorry.
11/25/09
Usually I wouldn't post a comment as pointless as that, but seriously.
11/25/09
@MisterHippity: Again, go to the original site. They make ape faces out of all celebrities - black or white. Not racially motivated in any way. And if you can't figure that one out, then you just are looking for a reason to be offended.
@ModernMindOfM: I think both the pics - the one of Bush, the one of Obama - are funny. Neither offend my race. Neither offend my politics.
There is so much emphasis of being politically nowadays that people can find offense with anything. Lighten up folks, have a little fun...
11/25/09
11/25/09
Oh yeah, good luck with that. The owner of that site is probably located in Russia or the Philippines or something.
11/25/09
#tips
11/25/09
Seriously? I realize Gawker slants left, but that's a bit ridiculous for a blog that has never seemed to mind being offensive to anyone.
11/25/09
As compared to, you know, the regular Gawker stuff that you find "offensive"?
It's all just on a par to you, is it? "Black-people-are-monkeys" pictures and standard snarky Gawker fare?
O-0-oh ka-a-ay ...
11/25/09
But it's not as if offensive images haven't been posted here before. Perhaps "ridiculous" was an overstatement on my part. "Surprising" would have been more accurate.
11/25/09
That history is: they ALWAYS post them.
11/25/09
Well ... at least it has does ever since the departure of Owen "Travolta's Rumored Gay Lover Discovered Dead Son" Thomas.
11/25/09
11/25/09
Ok, maybe Gawker doesn't have any lines they won't cross after all ...
11/25/09
Back when I was an idiot wannabe "hacker" my friends and I would do really dumb Googlebombs. I remember we made the phrase "Clam Diving Katie" come up for a few hours and we thought it was the greatest thing ever.
This is offensive but so are the photoshops of Sarah Palin and her baby that has downs syndrome photoshops.
Also, does anyone in France care that it's quite easy to get NUDES of their first lady?
What I'm getting at here, is that the internet is the final frontier. Literally. All of our news, TV and movies are heavily censored and just because one offensive little photoshop got popular does not mean we need to get all PC on the internet.
I mean look, this is a popular photoshop and it is just plain dumb
(but still sort of funny, which is what I find the Michelle Obama to be)
11/25/09
Do not disparage the name of Raptor Jesus.
He went extinct for our sins.
11/25/09
No. It's France. And she's one of the hottest women in France. It does nothing but add to her reputation.
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
There. Fixed.
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
I get what you're saying about how meaningless her appearance is to her worth as a human being and first lady, but, well, welcome to lady life.
11/25/09
11/25/09
Is she the paragon of beauty? No. Are her wide belts kind of unflattering and strange? Yeah. But she has a great body, beautiful skin, high cheekbones, and a flattering nose. I'd kill to look like her at her age. There are certainly other things I admire about her more -- her intelligence and humor and warmth, for starters -- but I do think she is pretty, both from my perspective and objectively.
11/25/09
@eatsshootsleaves: For instance, I think this picture is a more accurate representation of her looks. And while she doesn't look like a supermodel, she does look pretty and warm and healthy.
11/25/09
I'm amazed at even the suggestion here that it should be removed, because that is totally assholish and misguided.
Seriously, a balderdash thing to say. I'm disgusted. Chen, you call yourself a writer? I'm sorry, no. You are not allowed to call yourself that. You obviously cannot be trusted to protect what I consider to be the most important freedom we have, therefore I shall lobby that your name never come up in any search result.
You are a bad person. Or, perhaps, a decent person with an inability to make a point without failing badly and being misunderstood. Either way. Not appreciated.
11/25/09
You know, that sounds just like "Google should remove it", doesn't it?
Talk about trying to make a point and failing badly.
11/25/09
But there is no debate. No controversy, even. This is what I meant by failing at making a point. There was not, in fact, any reason to bring the image up. This is the point of the bad stuff. You don't like it, ignore it.
Oh, and go to hell, Go Like Hell, for that last crack of yours there. I'll send the ACLU a couple bucks in your name.
11/25/09
It's the distinction between saying the KKK is disgusting and shouldn't exist vs. saying the Government should prohibit the KKK from existing. Big difference--HUGE difference.
11/25/09
There is not a shortage of Obama monkey images. It's neither here nor there, and not worth discussion. It really isn't.
What's worth discussion is the suggestion these images be pulled. I say again, that is the overwhelming flavor of this post. Or, almost as bad, it's "tut tut, this is bad" and leading people to Google image it, which they have now, and it's still, what? Just another Obama monkey thing.
A story might be about who is posting these. A piece about Google refusing to take it down? Makes me mad that it is disappointed they will not. Saying again: #gfail. Failed how? "Racist picture...will live forever..." Well, yeah, that's the idea of a library. Respect the Internet as a library of everything.
I can't believe this is even an issue. No, I can. It's why I'm pissed.
Fiercely protect it, yer stupid freedom of speech, or yer screwed.
11/25/09
11/25/09
How's your head feel this morning? :-)
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
"...like a guy who lives in a compound in Montana and searches the web for tips on cleaning his high powered rifle while muttering misremembered passages of the Declaration of Independence to himself!"
You're hitting a little too close to home there! Cept I don't mutter it, I whisper it. Menacingly.
And I'm not in Montana.
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
But now I am not sure if I should thank you or be a bit concerned that I may be spending too much on Free Republic.
11/25/09
#tips
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
[news.bbc.co.uk]