Poll: Should the Babes on Bike thread have been removed?

[Hugh Januss]

Re:

I voted No. This is a very absurd argument and shows that as cultured and intelligent and sophisticated as we all think we are. We have learned very little about the world we are busy verbosely pontificating about, at philosophical lengths. There are 100's, if not 1000's of threads in this forum. If a handful have been offended, SO WHAT??!! But if 4.5 million have casually browsed through the BoB's many pages, they all become irrelevant because a few feel that the credibility of the sites forums, maybe even it's overall credibility will be destroyed because some feel that women aren't being included, considered, pandered to. In the Western world which takes such overblown pride in FREEDOM, we have choices we can make. If you don't like the thread, if it offends you. Exercise your freedom of choice.....Don't visit that thread. But don't whine endlessly about how you are offended. I'm offended that the whiners think they are going to change the ways of the world by whining louder and louder til they get what they want, when they are in a distinct minority.
Let me give you an example of choices. I have Cable TV in the hundreds of channels I have FOX News is one of them. That channel offended the heck out of me (and I'm being incredibly polite). I don't call or email my cable provider screeching about how much I'm offended by that station, and that, that station should be taken out of the list of channels that the provider telecasts. I simply choose to never go onto that channel. Now, that's what happens in a free society. I've posted hundreds of shots on BoB. Some are sexy, some have been playful, some are of deadly serious competitive female riders. The whole gamut. I have presented women on bikes in ways that we see them, in ways that photographers have chosen to juxtapose sophisticated, beautiful models with sophisticated, beautiful bikes we all love and desire. I have presented women and bikes in ways that we fantasize about them. There has not been raunchy or sleazy intent involved to any extent. As I said on one of the ther threads about this topic. If it's gone, it's gone. But it didn't need to be played this way. It wasn't filled with the venom that some other threads in this forum are rife with. But if the "suits", "owners" want to play it this way, Hey, it's their product now. They just ought to know that they have changed NOTHING in the world. They simply terminated a thoroughly harmless thread.

+1 Well except for the posting 100s of photos. In fact I am not sure I ever posted one, and I hardly ever visit the thread. The point is...well, everything else that you said. Choices are good, if you like something, linger, if not move on.

 

[Martin]

Well if you opted for "Remove it", I hope you'd be against "Nice men on bike" thread too. And against pictures of nice men and women elsewhere.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re:

Way too deep for me, I'm afraid.

Thats why I'm the "deep thinker" here.

Weird what auto correct does on a android phone. I need to make sure not to post while using the phone.

 

[sniper]

Re:

Well if you opted for "Remove it", I hope you'd be against "Nice men on bike" thread too. And against pictures of nice men and women elsewhere.

I 'd be surprised if this answer is getting much votes.
From what I can tell, very few think it "should be removed", although some/many/most(?) do seem to understand/accept/respect that it was removed.
From what i understood (irondan's post earlier), there was no more and no less than one formal complaint about the thread.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Am I a man or am I a muppet?
(Am I a muppet?)
If I'm a muppet then I'm a very manly muppet.
(a very manly muppet)
Am I a muppet (muppet) or am I a man? (Am I a man?)
If I'm a man that makes me a muppet of a man.
(a muppet of a man)

 

[Merckx index]

Given that there's a male equivalent, no. Seems really wrong to ban one and not ban the other.

If you’re referring to Men on Machines, that isn’t the male equivalent, any more than a man hit by a woman feels the same as a woman hit by a man. What offends or threatens women is not necessarily the same thing that offends or threatens men.

Then we come to a component of our biology for a majority, people are attracted to beauty and often of the opposite sex. MotoGP,NFL,NBA and as we saw at this year's first Gran tour, beautiful women display and present the jerseys for the different categories.

Just because “everybody else does it” doesn’t mean CN can’t make a stand based on what they think is right, rather than on what they think is permitted. In the U.S., millions of people apparently think it’s fine for a Presidential candidate to insult other people, too. It’s not forbidden by law. That doesn’t mean we all have to join the bandwagon and allow threads in which we insult other people.

There are 100's, if not 1000's of threads in this forum. If a handful have been offended, SO WHAT??!! But if 4.5 million have casually browsed through the BoB's many pages, they all become irrelevant because a few feel that the credibility of the sites forums, maybe even it's overall credibility will be destroyed because some feel that women aren't being included, considered, pandered to.

If 4.5 million have browsed this thread, why have only thirteen thus far voted that the thread should not have been removed? You seem to have it backwards. There are hundreds if not thousands of people who browse these forums, but it seems that only a very small minority of them object to the thread’s being removed. I’d guess that the vast majority weren’t even aware of the thread, and probably couldn’t care less about it. The 4.5 million hits therefore is most likely the result of a few men each browsing that thread thousands of times. You’re basically trying to leverage the voices of a few dozen frustrated men into millions of votes.

In the Western world which takes such overblown pride in FREEDOM, we have choices we can make. If you don't like the thread, if it offends you. Exercise your freedom of choice.....Don't visit that thread. But don't whine endlessly about how you are offended.

By this logic, if someone posted a racist thread, it should be allowed. You need to distinguish between individuals being offended for reasons more or less particular to themselves—someone doesn’t like Contador, or drinking beer, or certain kinds of music--and an entire class of people, the largest “minority” on the planet, actually, being offended for reasons that strike at the core of their identity in this class.

I'm offended that the whiners think they are going to change the ways of the world by whining louder and louder til they get what they want, when they have twisted the intent of their target, and they are in a distinct minority.

I’ve already pointed out that the poll results, so far, indicate that you’re the one in the minority. But if you feel so strongly about this, why don’t you exercise your freedom, and sue CN?

Let me give you an example of choices: I have Cable TV and of the hundreds of channels, FOX News is one of them. That channel offends the heck out of me (and I'm being incredibly polite). But I don't call or email my cable provider screeching about how much I'm offended by that station, and that, that station should be taken out of the list of channels that the provider broadcasts. I simply choose to never go onto that channel. Now, that's what happens in a free society. You exercise your freedom of choice, plain and simple!

In case you haven’t noticed, FOX takes just as much care to avoid being sexist as any other channel. There are laws regarding sexism, there are no laws regarding generally conservative, right-wing views. The idea is to protect people from criticism or discrimination based on inborn characteristics, not always and necessarily to protect them against criticism or discrimination based on what they believe.

 

[BigMac]

Yes, CN did the right thing. Porn stars on bikes doing provocative poses only discredits women's cycling. To claim otherwise is disingenuous.

The site owners couldn't possibly let that thread go on if they truly aim to promote the ladies, it wouldn't make sense. It's not about political correctness, it's about acting according to one's word.

 

[jmdirt]

Re:

Yes, CN did the right thing. Porn stars on bikes doing provocative poses only discredits women's cycling. To claim otherwise is disingenuous.

The site owners couldn't possibly let that thread go on if they truly aim to promote the ladies, it wouldn't make sense. It's not about political correctness, it's about acting according to one's word.

OK, get rid of the models, but shouldn't the photos of actual woman racers (not including Tammy Thomas) be left alone then?

 

[Maaaaaaaarten]

Re: Re:

OK, get rid of the models, but shouldn't the photos of actual woman racers (not including Tammy Thomas) be left alone then?

I'm pretty sure the primary concern wasn't so much the pictures, but the thread in general.

I don't think anybody will object if you make a thread for posting pictures of women's racing.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Re:

Yes, CN did the right thing. Porn stars on bikes doing provocative poses only discredits women's cycling. To claim otherwise is disingenuous.

The site owners couldn't possibly let that thread go on if they truly aim to promote the ladies, it wouldn't make sense. It's not about political correctness, it's about acting according to one's word.

What's disingenuous is suggesting the thread was made up of porn stars on bikes posing provocatively.

The site owners couldn't possibly let that thread go on if they truly aim to promote the ladies, it wouldn't make sense. It's not about political correctness, it's about acting according to one's word.

If the thread was as you inaccurately describe then you'd have a point. Make no mistake, this was a PC move.

If the site owners were truly interested in promoting women's cycling they would likely devote much more resources to it. It's not at all expensive to delete the babes thread. Maybe a dedicated site would be a good start.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Re:

Given that there's a male equivalent, no. Seems really wrong to ban one and not ban the other.

If you’re referring to Men on Machines, that isn’t the male equivalent, any more than a man hit by a woman feels the same as a woman hit by a man. What offends or threatens women is not necessarily the same thing that offends or threatens men.

Then we come to a component of our biology for a majority, people are attracted to beauty and often of the opposite sex. MotoGP,NFL,NBA and as we saw at this year's first Gran tour, beautiful women display and present the jerseys for the different categories.

Just because “everybody else does it” doesn’t mean CN can’t make a stand based on what they think is right, rather than on what they think is permitted. In the U.S., millions of people apparently think it’s fine for a Presidential candidate to insult other people, too. It’s not forbidden by law. That doesn’t mean we all have to join the bandwagon and allow threads in which we insult other people.

There are 100's, if not 1000's of threads in this forum. If a handful have been offended, SO WHAT??!! But if 4.5 million have casually browsed through the BoB's many pages, they all become irrelevant because a few feel that the credibility of the sites forums, maybe even it's overall credibility will be destroyed because some feel that women aren't being included, considered, pandered to.

If 4.5 million have browsed this thread, why have only thirteen thus far voted that the thread should not have been removed? You seem to have it backwards. There are hundreds if not thousands of people who browse these forums, but it seems that only a very small minority of them object to the thread’s being removed. I’d guess that the vast majority weren’t even aware of the thread, and probably couldn’t care less about it. The 4.5 million hits therefore is most likely the result of a few men each browsing that thread thousands of times. You’re basically trying to leverage the voices of a few dozen frustrated men into millions of votes.

In the Western world which takes such overblown pride in FREEDOM, we have choices we can make. If you don't like the thread, if it offends you. Exercise your freedom of choice.....Don't visit that thread. But don't whine endlessly about how you are offended.

By this logic, if someone posted a racist thread, it should be allowed. You need to distinguish between individuals being offended for reasons more or less particular to themselves—someone doesn’t like Contador, or drinking beer, or certain kinds of music--and an entire class of people, the largest “minority” on the planet, actually, being offended for reasons that strike at the core of their identity in this class.

I'm offended that the whiners think they are going to change the ways of the world by whining louder and louder til they get what they want, when they have twisted the intent of their target, and they are in a distinct minority.

I’ve already pointed out that the poll results, so far, indicate that you’re the one in the minority. But if you feel so strongly about this, why don’t you exercise your freedom, and sue CN?

Let me give you an example of choices: I have Cable TV and of the hundreds of channels, FOX News is one of them. That channel offends the heck out of me (and I'm being incredibly polite). But I don't call or email my cable provider screeching about how much I'm offended by that station, and that, that station should be taken out of the list of channels that the provider broadcasts. I simply choose to never go onto that channel. Now, that's what happens in a free society. You exercise your freedom of choice, plain and simple!

In case you haven’t noticed, FOX takes just as much care to avoid being sexist as any other channel. There are laws regarding sexism, there are no laws regarding generally conservative, right-wing views. The idea is to protect people from criticism or discrimination based on inborn characteristics, not always and necessarily to protect them against criticism or discrimination based on what they believe.

What offends or threatens women is not necessarily the same thing that offends or threatens men.

By that standard then the thread should have remained. What appeals to a man is different than what appeals to a woman. Perhaps on of your poll questions should have been "did you feel threatened by the babes thread?"

If 4.5 million have browsed this thread, why have only thirteen thus far voted that the thread should not have been removed? You seem to have it backwards. There are hundreds if not thousands of people who browse these forums, but it seems that only a very small minority of them object to the thread’s being removed. I’d guess that the vast majority weren’t even aware of the thread, and probably couldn’t care less about it.

Lessee, the babes thread was up for about 7 years, give or take. This thread hasn't been up for 7 days.

As for the numbers, If CN shut down the entire forum (for whatever reason) they would only be dealing with a handful of complaints relative to the number of members and posts.

You need to distinguish between individuals being offended for reasons more or less particular to themselves

It's been reported that exactly one email got the thread removed. One email.

I'd say CN should probably take your comment to heart.

I’ve already pointed out that the poll results, so far, indicate that you’re the one in the minority. But if you feel so strongly about this, why don’t you exercise your freedom, and sue CN?

That's disappointing.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Re: Re:

I voted No. This is a very absurd argument and shows that as cultured and intelligent and sophisticated as we all think we are. We have learned very little about the world we are busy verbosely pontificating about, at philosophical lengths. There are 100's, if not 1000's of threads in this forum. If a handful have been offended, SO WHAT??!! But if 4.5 million have casually browsed through the BoB's many pages, they all become irrelevant because a few feel that the credibility of the sites forums, maybe even it's overall credibility will be destroyed because some feel that women aren't being included, considered, pandered to. In the Western world which takes such overblown pride in FREEDOM, we have choices we can make. If you don't like the thread, if it offends you. Exercise your freedom of choice.....Don't visit that thread. But don't whine endlessly about how you are offended. I'm offended that the whiners think they are going to change the ways of the world by whining louder and louder til they get what they want, when they are in a distinct minority.
Let me give you an example of choices. I have Cable TV in the hundreds of channels I have FOX News is one of them. That channel offended the heck out of me (and I'm being incredibly polite). I don't call or email my cable provider screeching about how much I'm offended by that station, and that, that station should be taken out of the list of channels that the provider telecasts. I simply choose to never go onto that channel. Now, that's what happens in a free society. I've posted hundreds of shots on BoB. Some are sexy, some have been playful, some are of deadly serious competitive female riders. The whole gamut. I have presented women on bikes in ways that we see them, in ways that photographers have chosen to juxtapose sophisticated, beautiful models with sophisticated, beautiful bikes we all love and desire. I have presented women and bikes in ways that we fantasize about them. There has not been raunchy or sleazy intent involved to any extent. As I said on one of the ther threads about this topic. If it's gone, it's gone. But it didn't need to be played this way. It wasn't filled with the venom that some other threads in this forum are rife with. But if the "suits", "owners" want to play it this way, Hey, it's their product now. They just ought to know that they have changed NOTHING in the world. They simply terminated a thoroughly harmless thread.

+1 Well except for the posting 100s of photos. In fact I am not sure I ever posted one, and I hardly ever visit the thread. The point is...well, everything else that you said. Choices are good, if you like something, linger, if not move on.

It's not like one clicks on "forum" while perusing the site and then is bombarded with those pics. At least some effort was involved... one had to see the thread "babes on bike" then actually click on the link.

Apparently the mere idea of the BoB thread is just too much for some.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re:

Yes, CN did the right thing. Porn stars on bikes doing provocative poses only discredits women's cycling. To claim otherwise is disingenuous.

The site owners couldn't possibly let that thread go on if they truly aim to promote the ladies, it wouldn't make sense. It's not about political correctness, it's about acting according to one's word.

Where were the porn stars?

If I would have known that then the thread would have a lot more views.

 

[Merckx index]

By that standard then the thread should have remained. What appeals to a man is different than what appeals to a woman.

That logic doesn’t work. You can have threads that appeal mostly to men, and threads that appeal mostly to women, only as long as neither type of thread is offensive to the other group. You could say that appeal is a sufficient condition for having the thread, while not being offensive is a necessary one.

Perhaps on of your poll questions should have been "did you feel threatened by the babes thread?"

FFS, I added threatened because I had used the example of hitting someone of the opposite sex. Offends alone works fine for the thread example.

Lessee, the babes thread was up for about 7 years, give or take. This thread hasn't been up for 7 days.

Lessee, 4.5 million divided by 7 years is 1760 hits per day, about one hundred times the number of no votes so far. I also note that CN claims there have been more 90,000 users browsing this forum at some point or another. So sure, let’s give the thread more time, but in my experience, polls like this usually have a lot of responses in the first few days, when most people who come to this forum regularly see it, and much fewer later, when occasional visitors may see it. I’ll be quite surprised if the total number of no votes exceeds a tiny fraction of the total number of posters, but of course I'll accept what the results indicate. One of the reasons I started the poll was to get an idea of how large a fraction it is.

It's been reported that exactly one email got the thread removed. One email.

I'd say CN should probably take your comment to heart.

I’d hope that was because the owners of the site had doubts all along, and this just triggered something they had considered doing, anyway. As I’ve said before—and as I voted in this poll—I didn’t strongly believe the thread should be removed, I never complained about it. I’m just accepting that it has been, and think it’s not a bad idea.

But I note that there are a fair number of yes votes, so at this point it isn’t a single complaint. Democracies--not that this forum is one, nor should it be--are supposed to protect the rights of minorities, which means that if a substantial minority of voters believe the thread should have been removed, then there is a good argument for doing so. Being offended generally counts more than enjoying, in that if one person's pleasure causes another person's offense, the law usually comes down on the side of the person being offended. I know it's more complex than that, there are levels of pleasure and offense, and so on, but the point is that many decisions of this kind are made by society in favor of the minority, so surely a forum can do so.

I’ll also point out that a few years ago, I posted a thread in the Clinic that was taken down. IIRC, it poked fun at LA—no lies, no slander. A mod decided that there had been enough of that. I didn’t complain that my rights had been infringed upon, nor that the decision to remove the thread was probably based on one person’s opinion.

That’s disappointing.

Yes, a lawsuit would presumably go nowhere. But that’s the point, there’s not much freedom being compromised here. As LS and others have pointed out, you’re free to look at all the pictures you want, just not in a dedicated thread at this particular forum. Societies, and groups within them, have a right, and an interest, to regulate public behavior, because it potentially affects all their members. You're free to walk around naked, not just in public.You're free to smoke, just not in a lot of public places. In order to win the right to do certain things in public, you have to make a convincing argument that this right of yours is not infringing in some manner on the rights or well-being of others.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re:

By that standard then the thread should have remained. What appeals to a man is different than what appeals to a woman.

That logic doesn’t work. You can have threads that appeal mostly to men, and threads that appeal mostly to women, only as long as neither type of thread is offensive to the other group. You could say that appeal is a sufficient condition for having the thread, while not being offensive is a necessary one.

Perhaps on of your poll questions should have been "did you feel threatened by the babes thread?"

FFS, I added threatened because I had used the example of hitting someone of the opposite sex. Offends alone works fine for the thread example.

Lessee, the babes thread was up for about 7 years, give or take. This thread hasn't been up for 7 days.

Lessee, 4.5 million divided by 7 years is 1760 hits per day, about one hundred times the number of no votes so far. I also note that CN claims there have been more 90,000 users browsing this forum at some point or another. So sure, let’s give the thread more time, but in my experience, polls like this usually have a lot of responses in the first few days, when most people who come to this forum regularly see it, and much fewer later, when occasional visitors may see it. I’ll be quite surprised if the total number of no votes exceeds a tiny fraction of the total number of posters, but of course I'll accept what the results indicate. One of the reasons I started the poll was to get an idea of how large a fraction it is.

It's been reported that exactly one email got the thread removed. One email.

I'd say CN should probably take your comment to heart.

I’d hope that was because the owners of the site had doubts all along, and this just triggered something they had considered doing, anyway. As I’ve said before—and as I voted in this poll—I didn’t strongly believe the thread should be removed, I never complained about it. I’m just accepting that it has been, and think it’s not a bad idea.

But I note that there are a fair number of yes votes, so at this point it isn’t a single complaint. Democracies--not that this forum is one, nor should it be--are supposed to protect the rights of minorities, which means that if a substantial minority of voters believe the thread should have been removed, then there is a good argument for doing so. Being offended generally counts more than enjoying, in that if one person's pleasure causes another person's offense, the law usually comes down on the side of the person being offended. I know it's more complex than that, there are levels of pleasure and offense, and so on, but the point is that many decisions of this kind are made by society in favor of the minority, so surely a forum can do so.

I’ll also point out that a few years ago, I posted a thread in the Clinic that was taken down. IIRC, it poked fun at LA—no lies, no slander. A mod decided that there had been enough of that. I didn’t complain that my rights had been infringed upon, nor that the decision to remove the thread was probably based on one person’s opinion.

That’s disappointing.

Yes, a lawsuit would presumably go nowhere. But that’s the point, there’s not much freedom being compromised here. As LS and others have pointed out, you’re free to look at all the pictures you want, just not in a dedicated thread at this particular forum. Societies, and groups within them, have a right, and an interest, to regulate public behavior, because it potentially affects all their members. You're free to walk around naked, not just in public.You're free to smoke, just not in a lot of public places. In order to win the right to do certain things in public, you have to make a convincing argument that this right of yours is not infringing in some manner on the rights or well-being of others.

YOU win the interwebs.

Still don't make everyone all warm and fuzzy considering what happened due to 1 email.

 

[Scott SoCal]

@Merckx

only as long as neither type of thread is offensive to the other group.

Really? Then CN really should remove the religion thread. Prolly both political threads too.

One of the reasons I started the poll was to get an idea of how large a fraction it is

It's probably not at all representative of what people who peruse this site think. Of all the hits at this site only a relative handful have an account here, only a handful of those actually post and only a handful of those will argue in favor of a thread where the opposition can lob out terms like "sexist" or "misogynist" or "pornography" to describe content/enjoyment of the female form. What's the upside of engagement? None. Most just walk away realizing it's just another skirmish lost in a raging PC/culture war.

I’m just accepting that it has been, and think it’s not a bad idea.

It's sad commentary in my view. Removal = better position/promotion of womens cycling? Alrighty then.

Being offended generally counts more than enjoying,

Pretty goddam easy to be offended these days. We all need our safe space.

 

[Tricycle Rider]

Don't really care one way or another (last time I checked between my legs I was female), but what must be asked is - did the BoB thread make you buy more bike stuff? Did it turn you off from buying bike stuff?

Just askin', just curious.

 

[Carols]

I never visited the thread, why would I, I'm a heretosexual female. Cycling treats women as sex objects(as does most of the world) no need to continue it on a forum.

I voted Yes (I am a woman)

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Re:

.

Nowhereman - Check your messages, or just send me a PM on how to best contact you. I'm trying to find a new home for these photos. I have saved likely a few hundred, and since most were contributed by yourself, I want your input before I continue.

If others have input on how they may be best displayed (Pinterest? Photobucket? Flicker? Something else?) let me know your thoughts.

 

[Merckx index]

Re:

Really? Then CN really should remove the religion thread. Prolly both political threads too.

I’ve made this point before, but I’ll try again. There’s a difference between a class of people recognized as such because of the way they are born or for other reasons that are basically beyond their control (women, blacks, Mexicans, gays, the handicapped), and people who have beliefs that can and frequently do change throughout life (liberals, conservatives, Christians, Jews, Muslims). Most civilized people accept that you don’t criticize individuals of the first kind simply for being what they are (misogyny, racism, homophobia, etc.). To do so is offensive to them, because a) we don’t believe that the conditions of one’s birth are relevant to judging someone’s character; and b) generally, no one can do anything about one’s conditions of birth, anyway.

Member of the second kind are fair game. I can criticize someone’s political or religious beliefs (and conversely, someone can criticize my views), because a) people are not born with these beliefs, forced to hold them their entire lives, but develop them and can change them; and b) just because they do develop them, their beliefs say something about their character. I may strongly disagree with someone who criticizes my political beliefs, but I don’t find the criticism offensive, unless it wanders into the first group (misogyny, racism, et al.), and conversely, I don’t see why someone should find my criticism offensive. Political and religious beliefs are formed through a process of criticism, so it would be hypocritical to view criticism of them as offensive.

It's probably not at all representative of what people who peruse this site think. Of all the hits at this site only a relative handful have an account here, only a handful of those actually post and only a handful of those will argue in favor of a thread where the opposition can lob out terms like "sexist" or "misogynist" or "pornography" to describe content/enjoyment of the female form. What's the upside of engagement? None. Most just walk away realizing it's just another skirmish lost in a raging PC/culture war.

I’d be interested to see some data backing this up. I’m sure there are people who visit the site and never join as members, but do they really constitute the large majority? If someone spends much time here, has an interest in some of the topics, I’d think sooner or later he or she would want to post something. And if someone doesn’t have that much interest in the site, why would he come here just to browse the BoB thread? Pictures like that are available all over the internet.

As for members being intimidated to join the discussion, well, in the first place, if someone really believes that there’s nothing at all wrong with the thread, why would he be afraid of any criticisms he might get for supporting it? That’s ironic coming from you, Scott, because you as much as maybe anyone here knows what it’s like to bear the brunt of criticism from a majority who don’t agree with your political views, and far from shrinking from the attacks, I’d say you thrive on them. And in the second place, even if some are hesitant to appear as politically incorrect—despite a great deal of support from others on the threads that the BoB removal has spawned--they can vote in the poll without sharing their identity.

It's sad commentary in my view. Removal = better position/promotion of womens cycling? Alrighty then.

I honestly don't know if that will or won't be the case. But again, I've been hoping the poll, along with discussions in other threads, might shed some light on this. As TR points out, this is a question that ought to be answerable.

Pretty goddam easy to be offended these days. We all need our safe space.

LOL, I can't disagree with that. That's why I said it depends on the level of pleasure and offense. But I think a lot of the offense results because people conflate the two groups I distinguished, taking offense from having their political views challenged. This is why I'm often a strong critic of what I regard as PC gone wild on college campuses.

Nowhereman - Check your messages, or just send me a PM on how to best contact you. I'm trying to find a new home for these photos. I have saved likely a few hundred, and since most were contributed by yourself, I want your input before I continue.

If others have input on how they may be best displayed (Pinterest? Photobucket? Flicker? Something else?) let me know your thoughts.

Has it really come to this? I can understand how men would enjoy looking at these pictures, once...but saving them? For what? So you can return and look at them again? Seriously?

I guess I can even understand how a man might like a photo or two like this to look at constantly, just as many like to have a screensaver that shows some beautiful example of wilderness beauty. But hundreds of these pictures? You're really going to browse through them again and again?

Everything passes, and the quickest way to learn this is to break attachments. As another thread, relegated to the dustbin of CN, tried to point out...

 

[kwikki]

What makes you think people are offended? I'm not offended by the sort of stuff in BoB thread, I just think it does its bit to devalue women.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Re: Re:

Really? Then CN really should remove the religion thread. Prolly both political threads too.

I’ve made this point before, but I’ll try again. There’s a difference between a class of people recognized as such because of the way they are born or for other reasons that are basically beyond their control (women, blacks, Mexicans, gays, the handicapped), and people who have beliefs that can and frequently do change throughout life (liberals, conservatives, Christians, Jews, Muslims). Most civilized people accept that you don’t criticize individuals of the first kind simply for being what they are (misogyny, racism, homophobia, etc.). To do so is offensive to them, because a) we don’t believe that the conditions of one’s birth are relevant to judging someone’s character; and b) generally, no one can do anything about one’s conditions of birth, anyway.

Member of the second kind are fair game. I can criticize someone’s political or religious beliefs (and conversely, someone can criticize my views), because a) people are not born with these beliefs, forced to hold them their entire lives, but develop them and can change them; and b) just because they do develop them, their beliefs say something about their character. I may strongly disagree with someone who criticizes my political beliefs, but I don’t find the criticism offensive, unless it wanders into the first group (misogyny, racism, et al.), and conversely, I don’t see why someone should find my criticism offensive. Political and religious beliefs are formed through a process of criticism, so it would be hypocritical to view criticism of them as offensive.

It's probably not at all representative of what people who peruse this site think. Of all the hits at this site only a relative handful have an account here, only a handful of those actually post and only a handful of those will argue in favor of a thread where the opposition can lob out terms like "sexist" or "misogynist" or "pornography" to describe content/enjoyment of the female form. What's the upside of engagement? None. Most just walk away realizing it's just another skirmish lost in a raging PC/culture war.

I’d be interested to see some data backing this up. I’m sure there are people who visit the site and never join as members, but do they really constitute the large majority? If someone spends much time here, has an interest in some of the topics, I’d think sooner or later he or she would want to post something. And if someone doesn’t have that much interest in the site, why would he come here just to browse the BoB thread? Pictures like that are available all over the internet.

As for members being intimidated to join the discussion, well, in the first place, if someone really believes that there’s nothing at all wrong with the thread, why would he be afraid of any criticisms he might get for supporting it? That’s ironic coming from you, Scott, because you as much as maybe anyone here knows what it’s like to bear the brunt of criticism from a majority who don’t agree with your political views, and far from shrinking from the attacks, I’d say you thrive on them. And in the second place, even if some are hesitant to appear as politically incorrect—despite a great deal of support from others on the threads that the BoB removal has spawned--they can vote in the poll without sharing their identity.

It's sad commentary in my view. Removal = better position/promotion of womens cycling? Alrighty then.

I honestly don't know if that will or won't be the case. But again, I've been hoping the poll, along with discussions in other threads, might shed some light on this. As TR points out, this is a question that ought to be answerable.

Pretty goddam easy to be offended these days. We all need our safe space.

LOL, I can't disagree with that. That's why I said it depends on the level of pleasure and offense. But in this particular case, the largest minority group in the world is affected, so if there is offense, that's pretty significant.

I’ve made this point before, but I’ll try again. There’s a difference between a class of people....

No dispute but there was talk in the beginning of the politics thread - just as there was with the babes thread - to not allow it's existence because of the potential for users being offended.

The decision to stop the babes thread was nowhere near as deep as you are suggesting. My opinion.

I’d be interested to see some data backing this up.

Again, my opinion but I'll bet I'm right. The number of views to CN is knowable, as is the number of members and those that post.

As for members being intimidated to join the discussion, well, in the first place, if someone really believes that there’s nothing at all wrong with the thread, why would he be afraid of any criticisms he might get for supporting it? That’s ironic coming from you, Scott,

You really think I'm the only conservative who views CN or these forums (or even the politics thread)? I'm probably the only one (or one of the very few) that's dumb/bored enough to continue posting to that thread. I don't think it's intimidation as much as participation being completely pointless. If there were no entertainment value for me I'd have left the thread a looooong time ago.

But in this particular case, the largest minority group in the world is affected, so if there is offense, that's pretty significant

We already know that not all women were offended by the thread.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Re: Re:

Has it really come to this? I can understand how men would enjoy looking at these pictures, once...but saving them? For what? So you can return and look at them again? Seriously?

I think you have the right idea in regards to screen saving. I do not intend on saving every photo, no. I did however save quite a few from the last several pages in the hope of having a good foundation for the future destination.

Everything passes, and the quickest way to learn this is to break attachments. As another thread, relegated to the dustbin of CN, tried to point out...

I think you're right, but also may be misreading me a little. While I think the decision was a knee-jerk reaction to a nearly non-existent problem, and the decision wasn't well thought out, and will be one that will cost traffic, I'm not implying there should be some sort of revolt and exodus from the site. I'm not implying I'll never visit the site again. And I'm not even saying CN must reverse their decision or we will make them pay. What I'm saying is that there's a place for these photos. If not here, somewhere more receptive. I'd like to find where that place is, place quite a few there for starters, and encourage others to visit that site if they like and spend time there as it's updated in the future, as the content obviously isn't welcome by the powers that be here. I think my actions and decisions here are worthy considering the amount of views and popularity of the thread. If you don't, that's fine.

My actions are basically pragmatic at this point. I think CN won't reverse their decision, which makes the discussion about it a waste of time for the most part. I'm just trying to find the best way to move on.

 

[krebs303]

Re: Re:

Has it really come to this? I can understand how men would enjoy looking at these pictures, once...but saving them? For what? So you can return and look at them again? Seriously?

I think you have the right idea in regards to screen saving. I do not intend on saving every photo, no. I did however save quite a few from the last several pages in the hope of having a good foundation for the future destination.

Everything passes, and the quickest way to learn this is to break attachments. As another thread, relegated to the dustbin of CN, tried to point out...

I think you're right, but also may be misreading me a little. While I think the decision was a knee-jerk reaction to a nearly non-existent problem, and the decision wasn't well thought out, and will be one that will cost traffic, I'm not implying there should be some sort of revolt and exodus from the site. I'm not implying I'll never visit the site again. And I'm not even saying CN must reverse their decision or we will make them pay. What I'm saying is that there's a place for these photos. If not here, somewhere more receptive. I'd like to find where that place is, place quite a few there for starters, and encourage others to visit that site if they like and spend time there as it's updated in the future, as the content obviously isn't welcome by the powers that be here. I think my actions and decisions here are worthy considering the amount of views and popularity of the thread. If you don't, that's fine.

My actions are basically pragmatic at this point. I think CN won't reverse their decision, which makes the discussion about it a waste of time for the most part. I'm just trying to find the best way to move on.

Let me know I have 574 photos from 2010 loaded to the cloud ready to post.

 

[movingtarget]

I was not active on the thread but noticed it again last week and thought that won't last ! i have clicked on it in the past once or twice and saw nothing harmful and no rampant misogyny or such as you see on other sites. In other words I'm not surprised it's gone but it was harmless fun and it looked as though the thread was not used much.