Jan and Klodi's Party Bus - part II off topic discussion

Harrybelafonte · 25-06-2016 06:54AM

No longer work in an office but are you more likely to get caught out if looking at phone in work? I know thyleyre less likely to see what you're looking at, but surely it's a more obvious work distraction to the passerby?

Lumen · 25-06-2016 07:15AM

nee wrote: »

Sexism, yeah hilarious :rolleyes:

I only scanned it briefly to calibrate my offence meter, but IIRC there were pictures of men on that Facebook page albeit a minority and possibly for cover; the crime here is objectification. As for sexism, it was Harry that assumed it was for titillation of men. Do gay women not get titillated?

Harrybelafonte · 25-06-2016 07:44AM

Lumen wrote: »

I only scanned it briefly to calibrate my offence meter, but IIRC there were pictures of men on that Facebook page albeit a minority and possibly for cover; the crime here is objectification. As for sexism, it was Harry that assumed it was for titillation of men. Do gay women not get titillated?

They possibly do. Are you taking offence at my failure to include and sexual orientations in my sarcasm? I apologise if so.

Idleater · 25-06-2016 09:34AM

manafana wrote: »

Hate that don't use your work pc to look up something but do it on your phone instead. no difference your in work.

I presume that you realise the difference in whose equipment is being used for what purpose. I'm guessing that if a SaaS platform bandwidth decreases due to Spotify streaming for 200 people for hypothetical example?

Each workplace is different, and mine included don't police to a net-nanny level, more relying on evident work being delivered.

Lusk_Doyle · 25-06-2016 10:02AM

Harrybelafonte wrote: »

men who spend their days behind desks wondering what went wrong with their lives.

Wow, what a sweeping statement!

AstraMonti · 25-06-2016 10:19AM

Harrybelafonte wrote: »

Ah, did we stop you having your little bit of sexist fun?! God, we're soooo PC it's disgusting. Men sure have it tough these days not being allowed ogle women in peace anymore.

Does your little comic imply that you feel aggrieved that you're also not free to make fun of minorities and religions? I'm not sure I get it.

As for the "formal fallacy" statement, I'd be delighted to hear how an exaggerated, sarcastic scenario was in anyway an attempt at logic, let alone some construed logical fallacy.

Sexist fun, wow, if you pull it a bit more it will reach Australia. I don't condone sexism and this was not a sexist post, not even by the definition of sexism. You are trying too hard to make it something, that it wasn't.

At what point exactly, does being portrayed in such way stops beings the personal choice of the athlete (male or female)? Why do you automatically strip their credentials because they are being shown in a different way? I don't remember you complaining when that nude photo of Armstrong on the bike was making the rounds around here.

And if that was sarcasm, then maybe my sarcasm meter is broken.

Harrybelafonte · 25-06-2016 10:23AM

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

Wow, what a sweeping statement!

Yes, it was, made in a little too nuanced a sarcastic tone. I'm sure grown men (or others of similar sexuality, such as homosexual women) who get off on looking through sites such as the one posted have many different life issues, of varying seriousness, I just chose the one I felt covered people I know who seem to need to get a little thrill out of similar. Phnarr, phnarr, look at this, I'm a sexually driven man (or lesbian, Lumen), beats chest and looks around for approval.

Listen, overall, whatever, do what you want, I've been more offended by some of the reader's wives in the "Images of beauty" thread, but casual sexism is one of the neat indicators of an old mindset that I don't particularly like to see sprouting up, there's enough divisive carp on here as it is. At this stage, I'm not sure if the greater offensive was taken by the likes of myself, or by those being called out for it

Harrybelafonte · 25-06-2016 10:36AM

AstraMonti wrote: »

I suddenly became a fan of this fb page. (mildly NSFW)

AstraMonti wrote: »

Sexist fun, wow, if you pull it a bit more it will reach Australia. I don't condone sexism and this was not a sexist post, not even by the definition of sexism. You are trying too hard to make it something, that it wasn't.

At what point exactly, does being portrayed in such way stops beings the personal choice of the athlete (male or female)? Why do you automatically strip their credentials because they are being shown in a different way? I don't remember you complaining when that nude photo of Armstrong on the bike was making the rounds around here.

And if that was sarcasm, then maybe my sarcasm meter is broken.

Ok, benefit of the doubt, why don't you explain to me why you're "suddenly a fan" of a page that includes as you put it yourself "mildly NSFW" images of women (there are other SFW images of both men and women there, I realise).

I have no idea how you could remember whether I complained about the Lance Armstrong image, I have no memory of ever seeing it on this site. As far as stripping credentials, context is key. I believe Victoria Pendleton took part in a similar photoshoot which was then attached to an interview about her season, training, etc. thereby connecting the photograph to concepts of professional sports. Take the same photoshoot and add it to a thread mixed in with women posing prostrate semi-naked on the floor with a bike somehow randomly connected to the scene, women in cycling gear opened so that their breasts are exposed and the context changes completely?

I have been pulled up the whole sarcasm thing here before by Lumen and Lusk-Doyle, I believe. Obviously, I haven't learned my lesson.

Harrybelafonte · 25-06-2016 11:27AM

British National ti e trials on Eurosport btw

RobFowl · 25-06-2016 11:35AM

Lumen wrote: »

I only scanned it briefly to calibrate my offence meter, but IIRC there were pictures of men on that Facebook page albeit a minority and possibly for cover; the crime here is objectification. As for sexism, it was Harry that assumed it was for titillation of men. Do gay women not get titillated?

I am aware that at least 2 of the women shown are gay fwiw

Lusk_Doyle · 25-06-2016 11:40AM

Harrybelafonte wrote: »

I have been pulled up the whole sarcasm thing here before by Lumen and Lusk-Doyle, I believe. Obviously, I haven't learned my lesson.

Sarcasm can be hard to interpret when reading on a page. In relation to the subject matter at hand, I'd say there are very few who would understand the post(s) to have been sarcastic, due to the nature of the subject. Nothing wrong with that or your position of course.

Lumen · 25-06-2016 11:58AM

Harry, I think I just opined that your sarcasm/irony wasn't obvious to me without the emoticons we hate :-)

eeeee · 25-06-2016 01:42PM

Lumen wrote: »

I only scanned it briefly to calibrate my offence meter, but IIRC there were pictures of men on that Facebook page albeit a minority and possibly for cover; the crime here is objectification. As for sexism, it was Harry that assumed it was for titillation of men. Do gay women not get titillated?

Whether they're men or women it doesn't matter, sexism can happen to both. That Facebook page is not a celebration of athletic prowess, and the overwhelming majority of images were of women, you have to really look to find guys. It (the page) is not a 50-50 level playing field. The ratio of female : male is way off on that page, it's hardly even near equal.
I agree that it's an objectification issue, but the ratio makes it a sexist one too. The sexuality of the objectifier does not mitigate the objectification!

ETA, The original post containing the link reeked of causal sexism and objectification. It wasn't, as I said, put up to celebrate athletes athletic achievement. It's not justified in my book.

Idleater · 25-06-2016 02:14PM

nee wrote: »

ETA, The original post containing the link reeked of causal sexism and objectification. It wasn't, as I said, put up to celebrate athletes athletic achievement. It's not justified in my book.

Funny thing how different people see different things. I'm "friends" with some people on the fbmachine who post deliberate page shares that are as you say. This one that Aatramonti posted seems to me more like normal female cyclists that anyone can see on a club spin. It has that Dove realistic objectification as opposed to some random clickbait pics previously mentioned. I'm also looking at the pictures of the Nationals where similar images can be found albeit eclipsed by the majority male competitors.

Lusk_Doyle · 25-06-2016 03:48PM

Idleater wrote: »

Funny thing how different people see different things. I'm "friends" with some people on the fbmachine who post deliberate page shares that are as you say. This one that Aatramonti posted seems to me more like normal female cyclists that anyone can see on a club spin. It has that Dove realistic objectification as opposed to some random clickbait pics previously mentioned. I'm also looking at the pictures of the Nationals where similar images can be found albeit eclipsed by the majority male competitors.

Ah here. Anyone who thinks that page is not about "hot chicks" needs talking too. Simple.

Idleater · 25-06-2016 04:34PM

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

Ah here. Anyone who thinks that page is not about "hot chicks" needs talking too. Simple.

Whoosh. :thumbsup: :nod:

Raam · 25-06-2016 09:12PM

Pippo can solve this. NSFW and NSFP.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BHE6MrngFIj/

Harrybelafonte · 25-06-2016 09:16PM

Raam wrote: »

Pippo can solve this. NSFW and NSFP.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BHE6MrngFIj/

Some great tattoos there.

LollipopJimmy · 25-06-2016 10:01PM

Harrybelafonte wrote: »

Some great tattoos there.

Serious quads...

Lusk_Doyle · 25-06-2016 10:12PM

LollipopJimmy wrote: »

Serious quads...

"Pro cyclist in serious quads shocker"

"You won't believe what happened when he put his leg down."

Click, click, clickitty, click.

traprunner · 25-06-2016 10:51PM

Came across this Raleigh RM1 today at Elfin Windmill in Roscommon. Interesting to see two chains. One for the motor the other for pedalling.

LollipopJimmy · 25-06-2016 11:03PM

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

"Pro cyclist in serious quads shocker"

"You won't believe what happened when he put his leg down."

Click, click, clickitty, click.

Who's shocked? I was just commenting, and a little envious

Lusk_Doyle · 26-06-2016 09:00AM

LollipopJimmy wrote: »

Who's shocked? I was just commenting, and a little envious

Nobody probably but sensationalism sells.

Thud · 26-06-2016 10:52AM

All gone a little bit tense in here lately

Luxman · 26-06-2016 11:01AM

Thud wrote: »

All gone a little bit tense in here lately

A good ride fixes everything

Alek · 26-06-2016 11:29AM

A good ride

Me gusta :pac:

Eamonnator · 26-06-2016 11:41AM

traprunner wrote: »

Came across this Raleigh RM1 today at Elfin Windmill in Roscommon. Interesting to see two chains. One for the motor the other for pedalling.

Tax is out of date by a month or two!

rollingscone · 26-06-2016 07:28PM

Another "Thanks cycling!" moment.

On my way back from my folks house with a bag full of clothes that stopped fitting me 7 years ago.

No need to waste bicycle money on new work shirts now!

#cycleoflife

magicbastarder · 26-06-2016 11:11PM

how do people deal with sweaty eyewear on cycles?
i've a cheapo pair of glasses and i find that after a while, the insides get covered in sweat. do i just take my top off to cool down and lessen the sweat?

Alek · 26-06-2016 11:29PM

On my way back from my folks house with a bag full of clothes that stopped fitting me 7 years ago.

I'd need to do the same if I stop cycling... :pac:

Jan and Klodi's Party Bus - part II **off topic discussion**

Comments

Jan and Klodi's Party Bus - part II off topic discussion