planetf1.com

It is currently Wed Jan 17, 2018 12:57 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2014 1:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:53 am
Posts: 3226
Location: Somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert
Covalent wrote:
What was the original tweet?

Image
Credit Lotus originally, obviously, via Twitter. Image posted by and taken from The Curious Cat on wordpress.

This is what Genii and Lotus felt they needed to apologise for. If they were running a football or cricket team Lotus would be staring down the barrel of a ferocious assault from the populist media. Unfortunately another story about faceless billionaires from a minority sport being morally backwards just isn't going to get the public blood up in the same way.

_________________
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

-Epicurus


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2014 7:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 11:36 am
Posts: 2812
MY EYES.

_________________
Warning: The above post may contain sarcasm.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12558
Balibari wrote:
Covalent wrote:
What was the original tweet?

Image
Credit Lotus originally, obviously, via Twitter. Image posted by and taken from The Curious Cat on wordpress.

This is what Genii and Lotus felt they needed to apologise for. If they were running a football or cricket team Lotus would be staring down the barrel of a ferocious assault from the populist media. Unfortunately another story about faceless billionaires from a minority sport being morally backwards just isn't going to get the public blood up in the same way.


F1 is a bigger sport than cricket in the UK and worldwide.

Sadly if the choice is apologise or go out of business then you would be an irresponsible fool to choose the latter option. I'm sure most sensible people would realise that regardless of the sport.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2014 11:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2008 9:59 pm
Posts: 2825
Location: Round the Bend
Billy wrote:
Guia wrote:
It will take a concerted effort to educate the ignorant ... .

The sanctimony is strong with this one.

The ignorant simply don't know any better. What's your excuse?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2014 1:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2013 11:32 am
Posts: 132
Balibari wrote:
chaz986 wrote:
you cant expect everyone to have the same moral code

No we can't. But that explains why someone might be offended by the tweet, it's not a justification for removing and apologising for it.


Lots of people might be offended by racist words... by your reasoning that's no justification for removing and apologising right??

Oh but no, people are only ALLOWED to be offended by what the moral majority/PC brigade deem acceptable things to be offended by...

Please.

I don't really give a toss one way or the other. My waiter last night was clearly gay and it did not bother me at all, he was a really nice guy and made great conversation. He got a great tip for his awesome service. I once had my birthday ruined by a total donkey headgear of a gay guy who kept hitting on me despite my clearly telling him to leave me alone and even insisting to my friends he could tell I was gay. If the guy had pushed it a bit further I probably would have hit him, but my friends and I decided to leave the place instead.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2014 1:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 1:59 pm
Posts: 5066
mikeyg123 wrote:
Balibari wrote:
Covalent wrote:
What was the original tweet?

Image
Credit Lotus originally, obviously, via Twitter. Image posted by and taken from The Curious Cat on wordpress.

This is what Genii and Lotus felt they needed to apologise for. If they were running a football or cricket team Lotus would be staring down the barrel of a ferocious assault from the populist media. Unfortunately another story about faceless billionaires from a minority sport being morally backwards just isn't going to get the public blood up in the same way.


F1 is a bigger sport than cricket in the UK and worldwide.

Sadly if the choice is apologise or go out of business then you would be an irresponsible fool to choose the latter option. I'm sure most sensible people would realise that regardless of the sport.

couple of things here:

@mikeyg123 - Cricket may not be as popular as F1 in the UK, but it is the second most viewed sport worldwide after football (soccer).

@balibari's post of the tweet that I hadn't seen before it deleted - I can understand the reasoning behind it, but the picture really hasn't got anything to do with the winter olympics! I don't like the fact that they apologized for it how they did, but if they had apologized for it not being a relevant picture, that may have been understandable (even if it was not true, which the reason they gave of an intern probably wasn't either!). Which leaves me to think that their giving a poor reason for posting it in the first place is their way of protesting about taking it down, letting everyone who is bothered know it was not their choice!

_________________
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals that Chuck Norris allows to live.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2014 2:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2012 7:11 pm
Posts: 742
MacKinnon wrote:
Balibari wrote:
chaz986 wrote:
you cant expect everyone to have the same moral code

No we can't. But that explains why someone might be offended by the tweet, it's not a justification for removing and apologising for it.


Lots of people might be offended by racist words... by your reasoning that's no justification for removing and apologising right??

Quote:
Oh but no, people are only ALLOWED to be offended by what the moral majority/PC brigade deem acceptable things to be offended by...


His point was not that you're not allowed to be offended by something, it was that being someone being 'offended' is no reason for anyone to care nor take notice of that. Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right or that I should give a sh*t.

Quote:
I don't really give a toss one way or the other. My waiter last night was clearly gay and it did not bother me at all, he was a really nice guy and made great conversation. He got a great tip for his awesome service. I once had my birthday ruined by a total donkey headgear of a gay guy who kept hitting on me despite my clearly telling him to leave me alone and even insisting to my friends he could tell I was gay. If the guy had pushed it a bit further I probably would have hit him, but my friends and I decided to leave the place instead.


lol, you sound like a barrell of laughs.

_________________
Schumacher was better than Senna.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2014 2:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 3:56 am
Posts: 8767
Location: London
This isn't about F1 really is it?

_________________
1994 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Get well soon Schumi.

No one call anyone a moo-pickle...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2014 2:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 4:46 am
Posts: 412
Guia wrote:
Billy wrote:
Guia wrote:
It will take a concerted effort to educate the ignorant ... .

The sanctimony is strong with this one.

The ignorant simply don't know any better. What's your excuse?

You deem it necessary for me to find an excuse for myself? I guess I was wrong; you are NOT a sanctimonious bloviating little Cockster.

- J.C. ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2014 2:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2012 7:11 pm
Posts: 742
Laura23 wrote:
This isn't about F1 really is it?


It has Lotus in the title.

_________________
Schumacher was better than Senna.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2014 4:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 3:56 am
Posts: 8767
Location: London
Beschy wrote:
Laura23 wrote:
This isn't about F1 really is it?


It has Lotus in the title.

Yeah but this isn't about F1. F1 hasn't been mentioned in most of the posts in this thread. Just think it's more off topic than on topic as far as the forum goes. It's turned into a debate about a tolerance/intolerance of gay people.

_________________
1994 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Get well soon Schumi.

No one call anyone a moo-pickle...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2014 7:54 am 
Online

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21094
minchy wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Balibari wrote:
Covalent wrote:
What was the original tweet?

Image
Credit Lotus originally, obviously, via Twitter. Image posted by and taken from The Curious Cat on wordpress.

This is what Genii and Lotus felt they needed to apologise for. If they were running a football or cricket team Lotus would be staring down the barrel of a ferocious assault from the populist media. Unfortunately another story about faceless billionaires from a minority sport being morally backwards just isn't going to get the public blood up in the same way.


F1 is a bigger sport than cricket in the UK and worldwide.

Sadly if the choice is apologise or go out of business then you would be an irresponsible fool to choose the latter option. I'm sure most sensible people would realise that regardless of the sport.

couple of things here:

@mikeyg123 - Cricket may not be as popular as F1 in the UK, but it is the second most viewed sport worldwide after football (soccer).

@balibari's post of the tweet that I hadn't seen before it deleted - I can understand the reasoning behind it, but the picture really hasn't got anything to do with the winter olympics! I don't like the fact that they apologized for it how they did, but if they had apologized for it not being a relevant picture, that may have been understandable (even if it was not true, which the reason they gave of an intern probably wasn't either!). Which leaves me to think that their giving a poor reason for posting it in the first place is their way of protesting about taking it down, letting everyone who is bothered know it was not their choice!

Having seen the picture I'm inclined to agree with both mikeyg123 and minchy here. mikeyg123 for choosing to apologise rather than risk going out of business, and minchy for the fact that the post was deliberately provocative and had absolutely nothing to do with the Olympics in the first place.

To explain: a picture of two guys kissing should, generally speaking, not be an issue. However, you have to ask what the motive of this particular picture was and, given the political hot potato about gay rights in Russia at the moment, coupled with the fact that there is nothing remotely related to the Olympics in the picture anyway, I'd have to say it was only there to stick two fingers up at Putin. It was probably not the expedient thing to do given their Russian backers and I can understand why they then subsequently took it down. It's not really about gay rights. It's about having a dig at the Russian authorities.

edit: and it's not about F1 either! :-P


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2014 8:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:53 pm
Posts: 1098
Location: Ireland
Having seen the picture the cynic in me is saying that it was a cheap publicity stunt deflecting from their own problems.
If Lotus believe that as a sporting organization they have a duty to take moral stances (nothing wrong with that) they can prove me wrong. They can do this by giving us their views on issues in countries where F1 is visiting this year.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2014 11:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:53 am
Posts: 3226
Location: Somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert
MacKinnon wrote:
Balibari wrote:
chaz986 wrote:
you cant expect everyone to have the same moral code

No we can't. But that explains why someone might be offended by the tweet, it's not a justification for removing and apologising for it.


Lots of people might be offended by racist words... by your reasoning that's no justification for removing and apologising right??

Oh but no, people are only ALLOWED to be offended by what the moral majority/PC brigade deem acceptable things to be offended by...

Please.

I don't really give a toss one way or the other. My waiter last night was clearly gay and it did not bother me at all, he was a really nice guy and made great conversation. He got a great tip for his awesome service. I once had my birthday ruined by a total donkey headgear of a gay guy who kept hitting on me despite my clearly telling him to leave me alone and even insisting to my friends he could tell I was gay. If the guy had pushed it a bit further I probably would have hit him, but my friends and I decided to leave the place instead.

Racism has clearly been demonstrated to do harm. Pictures of men kissing haven't. There's a difference between things that do harm and things that don't, and you don't have to be part of the moral majority to grasp that. Good argument though.

My post aimed to expose the poor arguments of chaz986, but you have responded to what you presume my beliefs to be. I say let people say what they want and do what they want, but that they will ultimately be judged by those actions. I say that Genii have every right to have the picture removed, but that by apologising for it being posted in the first place (for upsetting their homophobic partners) they are themselves being homophobic. They have every right to be homophobic and I have every right think less of them for it, should I choose to.

You finish with one of the most comically parochial paragraphs I've ever seen. You don't have to justify your position by trying to explain you're not homophobic. I don't care. But if you feel the need then describing how you once tipped a gay waiter is on a par with justifying not being racist by claiming to have 'a black friend'.

_________________
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

-Epicurus


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2014 11:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:53 am
Posts: 3226
Location: Somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert
mikeyg123 wrote:
Balibari wrote:
Covalent wrote:
What was the original tweet?

Image
Credit Lotus originally, obviously, via Twitter. Image posted by and taken from The Curious Cat on wordpress.

This is what Genii and Lotus felt they needed to apologise for. If they were running a football or cricket team Lotus would be staring down the barrel of a ferocious assault from the populist media. Unfortunately another story about faceless billionaires from a minority sport being morally backwards just isn't going to get the public blood up in the same way.


F1 is a bigger sport than cricket in the UK and worldwide.

Sadly if the choice is apologise or go out of business then you would be an irresponsible fool to choose the latter option. I'm sure most sensible people would realise that regardless of the sport.

I was considering domestic media attention, hence cricket controversy far more likely to generate media attention.

I think it's overemphasising the importance of a picture in the grand scheme of a massively complicated multimillion £ deal to say it was make or break. But it doesn't matter. I'm not saying Genii made a poor business decision in apologising, whether or not it means the team stay afloat. I'm saying they are capitulating to homophobia. Removing it might have made them look a bit corporate. Apologising for it makes them socially backwards by the standard of the times.

_________________
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

-Epicurus


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2014 11:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2012 2:54 pm
Posts: 953
Dalemac wrote:
What an utter farce.

I'm not gay, but I have friends who are - they are much better human beings than the low life scum posting anti gay remarks.

When will people realise they should just get on with their own lives as they choose, and allow others to do the same.

Humanity is doomed by its own prejudices.

I would be careful what you say, you branding people just as much as those who don't like gay people.

It's a much more bigger issue then what people realise.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2014 11:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:53 am
Posts: 3226
Location: Somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert
Zoue wrote:
minchy wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Balibari wrote:
Covalent wrote:
What was the original tweet?

Image
Credit Lotus originally, obviously, via Twitter. Image posted by and taken from The Curious Cat on wordpress.

This is what Genii and Lotus felt they needed to apologise for. If they were running a football or cricket team Lotus would be staring down the barrel of a ferocious assault from the populist media. Unfortunately another story about faceless billionaires from a minority sport being morally backwards just isn't going to get the public blood up in the same way.


F1 is a bigger sport than cricket in the UK and worldwide.

Sadly if the choice is apologise or go out of business then you would be an irresponsible fool to choose the latter option. I'm sure most sensible people would realise that regardless of the sport.

couple of things here:

@mikeyg123 - Cricket may not be as popular as F1 in the UK, but it is the second most viewed sport worldwide after football (soccer).

@balibari's post of the tweet that I hadn't seen before it deleted - I can understand the reasoning behind it, but the picture really hasn't got anything to do with the winter olympics! I don't like the fact that they apologized for it how they did, but if they had apologized for it not being a relevant picture, that may have been understandable (even if it was not true, which the reason they gave of an intern probably wasn't either!). Which leaves me to think that their giving a poor reason for posting it in the first place is their way of protesting about taking it down, letting everyone who is bothered know it was not their choice!

Having seen the picture I'm inclined to agree with both mikeyg123 and minchy here. mikeyg123 for choosing to apologise rather than risk going out of business, and minchy for the fact that the post was deliberately provocative and had absolutely nothing to do with the Olympics in the first place.

To explain: a picture of two guys kissing should, generally speaking, not be an issue. However, you have to ask what the motive of this particular picture was and, given the political hot potato about gay rights in Russia at the moment, coupled with the fact that there is nothing remotely related to the Olympics in the picture anyway, I'd have to say it was only there to stick two fingers up at Putin. It was probably not the expedient thing to do given their Russian backers and I can understand why they then subsequently took it down. It's not really about gay rights. It's about having a dig at the Russian authorities.

edit: and it's not about F1 either! :-P

Clearly the guy who posted it was making a point. It's not about F1, no. But in the context of the Lotus twitter feed that's not unusual, they're always trying to be amusing in a mildly provocative way and don't confine themselves purely to F1. So I don't agree it's somehow invalid because it isn't about F1.

I find this issue very interesting. Allow me a comparison, please tell me if you think it's not fair because I've missed something.

What if this whole episode went down in exactly the same way, but instead of an image representing homosexuality, they had posted this image:

Image

And instead of chasing money from a homophobic organisation they were chasing money from a racist one. If Genii/Lotus had to apologise for appearing to endorse Asians (by showing us a cheery, non-threatening Asian man), would it be seen differently? Would it be morally different?

I'm interested to know if it's the fact the men were kissing specifically, or whether we're more comfortable with homohobia than racism, or whether it's something else. Would it have been different if it were a picture of really camp guys dressed in YMCA costumes? (i.e. a picture of homosexuals that homophobes might find less challenging.)

_________________
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

-Epicurus


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2014 12:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2012 4:12 pm
Posts: 81
This has gone on long enough and has strayed far enough away from motorsport. If you guys and gals want to talk about homophobia/racism, there's an off-topic section for that.

Locked.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2014 2:20 pm 
Online

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21094
Balibari wrote:
Clearly the guy who posted it was making a point. It's not about F1, no. But in the context of the Lotus twitter feed that's not unusual, they're always trying to be amusing in a mildly provocative way and don't confine themselves purely to F1. So I don't agree it's somehow invalid because it isn't about F1.

I find this issue very interesting. Allow me a comparison, please tell me if you think it's not fair because I've missed something.

What if this whole episode went down in exactly the same way, but instead of an image representing homosexuality, they had posted this image:

Image

And instead of chasing money from a homophobic organisation they were chasing money from a racist one. If Genii/Lotus had to apologise for appearing to endorse Asians (by showing us a cheery, non-threatening Asian man), would it be seen differently? Would it be morally different?

I'm interested to know if it's the fact the men were kissing specifically, or whether we're more comfortable with homohobia than racism, or whether it's something else. Would it have been different if it were a picture of really camp guys dressed in YMCA costumes? (i.e. a picture of homosexuals that homophobes might find less challenging.)

I don't think the two examples are the same, no, largely because I simply couldn't envisage that happening. I can't think of anywhere in the world where a picture of an Asian man such as you've posted would be considered provocative or offensive, so in the context of the above I don't see Lotus posting such a tweet in the first place.

How about another example? If Lotus posted a picture of two bikini clad women pouring champagne over themselves while kissing at the Summer Olympics in Saudi Arabia, before retracting it with an apology, would you consider them to be misogynistic, or would you consider the original tweet to be in poor taste because of the known Saudi attitude to a) scantily clad women, b) kissing in public, c) lesbianism and d) alcohol?

Lotus only posted that picture to get a reaction. There is no possible connection to be made from that image and the Olympics. If they'd posted it before the London Olympics people would have been scratching their heads as to what the link was, not demanding it be taken down. So it becomes less a gay rights issue and more a political statement, and a provocative one at that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2014 2:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2013 11:32 am
Posts: 132
Balibari wrote:

You finish with one of the most comically parochial paragraphs I've ever seen. You don't have to justify your position by trying to explain you're not homophobic. I don't care. But if you feel the need then describing how you once tipped a gay waiter is on a par with justifying not being racist by claiming to have 'a black friend'.




I literally ate at an Italian restaurant and had an excellent server who was clearly gay the night before my post so it was a perfectly suitable example at the time. I didn't "once tip a gay waiter", I live in Florida, where probably 1/4 of the male serving staff are gay, so I've tipped gay servers many many dozens of times I'm sure.

Servers here are paid much less than minimum wage, the difference is made up with tips. http://www.dol.gov/whd/state/tipped.htm (servers in FL get £2.98/hour )
So it's not a matter of a few 20p pieces; they rely on tips just to make a decent wage, (generally 20% is the norm for good service). My point being that it's pretty easy for homophobic people to ruin a servers night by simply not tipping (religious people here regularly refuse to tip gay servers).

I understand it's probably just ignorance of how things work here, but your post sounded like a deliberate attempt to be a jerk to fit your agenda.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2014 4:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:53 am
Posts: 3226
Location: Somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert
Zoue wrote:
Balibari wrote:
Clearly the guy who posted it was making a point. It's not about F1, no. But in the context of the Lotus twitter feed that's not unusual, they're always trying to be amusing in a mildly provocative way and don't confine themselves purely to F1. So I don't agree it's somehow invalid because it isn't about F1.

I find this issue very interesting. Allow me a comparison, please tell me if you think it's not fair because I've missed something.

What if this whole episode went down in exactly the same way, but instead of an image representing homosexuality, they had posted this image:

Image

And instead of chasing money from a homophobic organisation they were chasing money from a racist one. If Genii/Lotus had to apologise for appearing to endorse Asians (by showing us a cheery, non-threatening Asian man), would it be seen differently? Would it be morally different?

I'm interested to know if it's the fact the men were kissing specifically, or whether we're more comfortable with homohobia than racism, or whether it's something else. Would it have been different if it were a picture of really camp guys dressed in YMCA costumes? (i.e. a picture of homosexuals that homophobes might find less challenging.)

I don't think the two examples are the same, no, largely because I simply couldn't envisage that happening. I can't think of anywhere in the world where a picture of an Asian man such as you've posted would be considered provocative or offensive, so in the context of the above I don't see Lotus posting such a tweet in the first place.

Yes, fair enough. That's not a good example because racism towards Asian men is perhaps not as widespread and identifiable a form of intolerance as homophobia. But I'd still be interested to hear you address the point I was driving at. Perhaps a clearer example would be a picture of an interracial couple, let's say a black man and a woman of apparent middle eastern ethnicity. This is a relationship some in the middle east would have a very serious problem with. If someone chose to protest the racism at the heart of that view by posting such a picture, and Lotus apologised for fear it would upset potential middle Eastern investors, would it be different?

Zoue wrote:
How about another example? If Lotus posted a picture of two bikini clad women pouring champagne over themselves while kissing at the Summer Olympics in Saudi Arabia, before retracting it with an apology, would you consider them to be misogynistic, or would you consider the original tweet to be in poor taste because of the known Saudi attitude to a) scantily clad women, b) kissing in public, c) lesbianism and d) alcohol?

First of all I'd consider myself misogynistic for inevitably enjoying the picture. But taking your clothes off and drinking are things one can make a decision whether to do or not. Are drinkers oppressed in Saudi? Maybe, technically, but as one can simply choose not to drink, and drinking can hardly be considered essential to happiness and wellbeing (though I sometimes think it is to mine), it's hardly a social injustice on the same level as effectively criminalising homosexuality. Drinkers and nudists can choose. Homosexuals cannot.

There are other issues. The picture you describe would be interpreted as exploitative rather than as a protest, the meaning is crucial to determining whether it's justified. It addresses multiple issues at once, some resulting from religious dogma, some from ingrained social prejudice, and so evaluating whether and how it is in poor taste is complicated. The Lotus picture addresses one very specific set of new laws.

Zoue wrote:

Lotus only posted that picture to get a reaction. There is no possible connection to be made from that image and the Olympics. If they'd posted it before the London Olympics people would have been scratching their heads as to what the link was, not demanding it be taken down. So it becomes less a gay rights issue and more a political statement, and a provocative one at that.

I don't really understand this point. You say Lotus only posted the picture to get a reaction, do you mean they did it to wind up Putin or to get some cheap publicity? It seems unlikely any important Russian official would see or care about the picture, and the only publicity they're getting is from the withdrawal and apology, which can't possibly have been the plan all along. Surely this is just some Lotus media monkey making a statement on the new laws, showing some solidarity with Russia's oppressed homosexuals...? I don't know whether the aim was to associate the brand with the trendy cause of the moment or whether it was because he has some heartfelt beliefs on the subject. The connection to the Olympics is obviously that there has been a lot of talk about competitors and fans being subject to such controversial laws, that they can be arrested for doing something as harmless as what's shown in that picture. It's a gay rights issue and a political statement, and what's wrong with that?

_________________
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

-Epicurus


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2014 4:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:53 am
Posts: 3226
Location: Somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert
MacKinnon wrote:
Balibari wrote:

You finish with one of the most comically parochial paragraphs I've ever seen. You don't have to justify your position by trying to explain you're not homophobic. I don't care. But if you feel the need then describing how you once tipped a gay waiter is on a par with justifying not being racist by claiming to have 'a black friend'.




I literally ate at an Italian restaurant and had an excellent server who was clearly gay the night before my post so it was a perfectly suitable example at the time. I didn't "once tip a gay waiter", I live in Florida, where probably 1/4 of the male serving staff are gay, so I've tipped gay servers many many dozens of times I'm sure.

Servers here are paid much less than minimum wage, the difference is made up with tips. http://www.dol.gov/whd/state/tipped.htm (servers in FL get £2.98/hour )
So it's not a matter of a few 20p pieces; they rely on tips just to make a decent wage, (generally 20% is the norm for good service). My point being that it's pretty easy for homophobic people to ruin a servers night by simply not tipping (religious people here regularly refuse to tip gay servers).

I understand it's probably just ignorance of how things work here, but your post sounded like a deliberate attempt to be a jerk to fit your agenda.

Thanks, I understand how tipping works, and even in America.

The only reason to say what you said appeared to be to show you aren't homophobic. I didn't and don't assume you are. My point was that what you said doesn't show you aren't, it's a meaningless cliche. Like an old lady saying she isn't racist because she talks to that nice Mr. Patel in the corner shop. It doesn't make me think she's racist, but it is a funny cliche that doesn't mean a thing.

_________________
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

-Epicurus


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2014 4:57 pm 
Online

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21094
Balibari wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I don't think the two examples are the same, no, largely because I simply couldn't envisage that happening. I can't think of anywhere in the world where a picture of an Asian man such as you've posted would be considered provocative or offensive, so in the context of the above I don't see Lotus posting such a tweet in the first place.

Yes, fair enough. That's not a good example because racism towards Asian men is perhaps not as widespread and identifiable a form of intolerance as homophobia. But I'd still be interested to hear you address the point I was driving at. Perhaps a clearer example would be a picture of an interracial couple, let's say a black man and a woman of apparent middle eastern ethnicity. This is a relationship some in the middle east would have a very serious problem with. If someone chose to protest the racism at the heart of that view by posting such a picture, and Lotus apologised for fear it would upset potential middle Eastern investors, would it be different?

Zoue wrote:
How about another example? If Lotus posted a picture of two bikini clad women pouring champagne over themselves while kissing at the Summer Olympics in Saudi Arabia, before retracting it with an apology, would you consider them to be misogynistic, or would you consider the original tweet to be in poor taste because of the known Saudi attitude to a) scantily clad women, b) kissing in public, c) lesbianism and d) alcohol?

First of all I'd consider myself misogynistic for inevitably enjoying the picture. But taking your clothes off and drinking are things one can make a decision whether to do or not. Are drinkers oppressed in Saudi? Maybe, technically, but as one can simply choose not to drink, and drinking can hardly be considered essential to happiness and wellbeing (though I sometimes think it is to mine), it's hardly a social injustice on the same level as effectively criminalising homosexuality. Drinkers and nudists can choose. Homosexuals cannot.

There are other issues. The picture you describe would be interpreted as exploitative rather than as a protest, the meaning is crucial to determining whether it's justified. It addresses multiple issues at once, some resulting from religious dogma, some from ingrained social prejudice, and so evaluating whether and how it is in poor taste is complicated. The Lotus picture addresses one very specific set of new laws.
Actually I think it would be a bit of both but I think that's also true of the Lotus tweet, too. It was purely exploitative and designed to get people talking...about Lotus. I see no difference between that and the women drinking example I gave above, since it wouldn't be about a cause, just about free publicity. In that respect I agree with you that the meaning is crucial.
Zoue wrote:

Lotus only posted that picture to get a reaction. There is no possible connection to be made from that image and the Olympics. If they'd posted it before the London Olympics people would have been scratching their heads as to what the link was, not demanding it be taken down. So it becomes less a gay rights issue and more a political statement, and a provocative one at that.

I don't really understand this point. You say Lotus only posted the picture to get a reaction, do you mean they did it to wind up Putin or to get some cheap publicity? It seems unlikely any important Russian official would see or care about the picture, and the only publicity they're getting is from the withdrawal and apology, which can't possibly have been the plan all along. Surely this is just some Lotus media monkey making a statement on the new laws, showing some solidarity with Russia's oppressed homosexuals...? I don't know whether the aim was to associate the brand with the trendy cause of the moment or whether it was because he has some heartfelt beliefs on the subject. The connection to the Olympics is obviously that there has been a lot of talk about competitors and fans being subject to such controversial laws, that they can be arrested for doing something as harmless as what's shown in that picture. It's a gay rights issue and a political statement, and what's wrong with that?

They received plenty of publicity before the retraction, which arguably led to the retraction anyway.

Lotus isn't known for being a champion of gay rights, so I'd argue that they did it both to wind up Putin and the government and to get some cheap publicity. Tweets they've made in the past have invariably been to poke fun at others in a irreverent way(remember the rabbit tweet when Kimi left, or the Fifty Shades of Grey one when EB departed from the team?) so I'm inclined to take this latest tweet in the same vein. I could be wrong but I doubt it's a solidarity thing, not based on past experience anyway. I think they just saw an opportunity and went for it.

I think the outrage is a little much, on both sides of the fence. I think it's achieved its intended result though, which was to get people talking about Lotus, not the human rights situation in Russia. There's enough publicity about the Russian anti-gay stance at the Olympics and that hasn't moved Putin to change his tune one little bit. I don't think the Lotus' tweet has contributed to the situation at all and won't have the slightest impact upon attitudes both there or abroad. In my mind it was definite publicity stunt designed purely to benefit Lotus, which makes it exploitative, not a gay rights issue.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 12, 2014 3:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2013 11:32 am
Posts: 132
Balibari wrote:
MacKinnon wrote:
Balibari wrote:

You finish with one of the most comically parochial paragraphs I've ever seen. You don't have to justify your position by trying to explain you're not homophobic. I don't care. But if you feel the need then describing how you once tipped a gay waiter is on a par with justifying not being racist by claiming to have 'a black friend'.




I literally ate at an Italian restaurant and had an excellent server who was clearly gay the night before my post so it was a perfectly suitable example at the time. I didn't "once tip a gay waiter", I live in Florida, where probably 1/4 of the male serving staff are gay, so I've tipped gay servers many many dozens of times I'm sure.

Servers here are paid much less than minimum wage, the difference is made up with tips. http://www.dol.gov/whd/state/tipped.htm (servers in FL get £2.98/hour )
So it's not a matter of a few 20p pieces; they rely on tips just to make a decent wage, (generally 20% is the norm for good service). My point being that it's pretty easy for homophobic people to ruin a servers night by simply not tipping (religious people here regularly refuse to tip gay servers).

I understand it's probably just ignorance of how things work here, but your post sounded like a deliberate attempt to be a jerk to fit your agenda.

Thanks, I understand how tipping works, and even in America.

The only reason to say what you said appeared to be to show you aren't homophobic. I didn't and don't assume you are. My point was that what you said doesn't show you aren't, it's a meaningless cliche. Like an old lady saying she isn't racist because she talks to that nice Mr. Patel in the corner shop. It doesn't make me think she's racist, but it is a funny cliche that doesn't mean a thing.



Ah, well I kinda assumed you were in the UK and a lot of Brits visiting FL, don't know about our screwy tip/wages laws.

Looking at your location all I can tell is where you were when the drugs began to take hold... :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 16, 2014 9:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 6:41 pm
Posts: 587
Guys all im trying to get across is forcing or insulting people that are not accepting of peoples diffrences seems at times no more prgressive than them, and just makes them more resistant to accepting .
I allso think if we are ok as in "tolerant" to those about us with such veiws it can incourage the same in them, just think its better to try an elivate people rather than shut them out or insult a strong feeling in them.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 18, 2014 2:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:53 am
Posts: 3226
Location: Somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert
MacKinnon wrote:
Balibari wrote:
MacKinnon wrote:
Balibari wrote:

You finish with one of the most comically parochial paragraphs I've ever seen. You don't have to justify your position by trying to explain you're not homophobic. I don't care. But if you feel the need then describing how you once tipped a gay waiter is on a par with justifying not being racist by claiming to have 'a black friend'.




I literally ate at an Italian restaurant and had an excellent server who was clearly gay the night before my post so it was a perfectly suitable example at the time. I didn't "once tip a gay waiter", I live in Florida, where probably 1/4 of the male serving staff are gay, so I've tipped gay servers many many dozens of times I'm sure.

Servers here are paid much less than minimum wage, the difference is made up with tips. http://www.dol.gov/whd/state/tipped.htm (servers in FL get £2.98/hour )
So it's not a matter of a few 20p pieces; they rely on tips just to make a decent wage, (generally 20% is the norm for good service). My point being that it's pretty easy for homophobic people to ruin a servers night by simply not tipping (religious people here regularly refuse to tip gay servers).

I understand it's probably just ignorance of how things work here, but your post sounded like a deliberate attempt to be a jerk to fit your agenda.

Thanks, I understand how tipping works, and even in America.

The only reason to say what you said appeared to be to show you aren't homophobic. I didn't and don't assume you are. My point was that what you said doesn't show you aren't, it's a meaningless cliche. Like an old lady saying she isn't racist because she talks to that nice Mr. Patel in the corner shop. It doesn't make me think she's racist, but it is a funny cliche that doesn't mean a thing.



Ah, well I kinda assumed you were in the UK and a lot of Brits visiting FL, don't know about our screwy tip/wages laws.

Looking at your location all I can tell is where you were when the drugs began to take hold... :)

:lol: :)

_________________
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

-Epicurus


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 18, 2014 2:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:53 am
Posts: 3226
Location: Somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert
Zoue wrote:
Balibari wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I don't think the two examples are the same, no, largely because I simply couldn't envisage that happening. I can't think of anywhere in the world where a picture of an Asian man such as you've posted would be considered provocative or offensive, so in the context of the above I don't see Lotus posting such a tweet in the first place.

Yes, fair enough. That's not a good example because racism towards Asian men is perhaps not as widespread and identifiable a form of intolerance as homophobia. But I'd still be interested to hear you address the point I was driving at. Perhaps a clearer example would be a picture of an interracial couple, let's say a black man and a woman of apparent middle eastern ethnicity. This is a relationship some in the middle east would have a very serious problem with. If someone chose to protest the racism at the heart of that view by posting such a picture, and Lotus apologised for fear it would upset potential middle Eastern investors, would it be different?

Zoue wrote:
How about another example? If Lotus posted a picture of two bikini clad women pouring champagne over themselves while kissing at the Summer Olympics in Saudi Arabia, before retracting it with an apology, would you consider them to be misogynistic, or would you consider the original tweet to be in poor taste because of the known Saudi attitude to a) scantily clad women, b) kissing in public, c) lesbianism and d) alcohol?

First of all I'd consider myself misogynistic for inevitably enjoying the picture. But taking your clothes off and drinking are things one can make a decision whether to do or not. Are drinkers oppressed in Saudi? Maybe, technically, but as one can simply choose not to drink, and drinking can hardly be considered essential to happiness and wellbeing (though I sometimes think it is to mine), it's hardly a social injustice on the same level as effectively criminalising homosexuality. Drinkers and nudists can choose. Homosexuals cannot.

There are other issues. The picture you describe would be interpreted as exploitative rather than as a protest, the meaning is crucial to determining whether it's justified. It addresses multiple issues at once, some resulting from religious dogma, some from ingrained social prejudice, and so evaluating whether and how it is in poor taste is complicated. The Lotus picture addresses one very specific set of new laws.
Actually I think it would be a bit of both but I think that's also true of the Lotus tweet, too. It was purely exploitative and designed to get people talking...about Lotus. I see no difference between that and the women drinking example I gave above, since it wouldn't be about a cause, just about free publicity. In that respect I agree with you that the meaning is crucial.
Zoue wrote:

Lotus only posted that picture to get a reaction. There is no possible connection to be made from that image and the Olympics. If they'd posted it before the London Olympics people would have been scratching their heads as to what the link was, not demanding it be taken down. So it becomes less a gay rights issue and more a political statement, and a provocative one at that.

I don't really understand this point. You say Lotus only posted the picture to get a reaction, do you mean they did it to wind up Putin or to get some cheap publicity? It seems unlikely any important Russian official would see or care about the picture, and the only publicity they're getting is from the withdrawal and apology, which can't possibly have been the plan all along. Surely this is just some Lotus media monkey making a statement on the new laws, showing some solidarity with Russia's oppressed homosexuals...? I don't know whether the aim was to associate the brand with the trendy cause of the moment or whether it was because he has some heartfelt beliefs on the subject. The connection to the Olympics is obviously that there has been a lot of talk about competitors and fans being subject to such controversial laws, that they can be arrested for doing something as harmless as what's shown in that picture. It's a gay rights issue and a political statement, and what's wrong with that?

They received plenty of publicity before the retraction, which arguably led to the retraction anyway.

Lotus isn't known for being a champion of gay rights, so I'd argue that they did it both to wind up Putin and the government and to get some cheap publicity. Tweets they've made in the past have invariably been to poke fun at others in a irreverent way(remember the rabbit tweet when Kimi left, or the Fifty Shades of Grey one when EB departed from the team?) so I'm inclined to take this latest tweet in the same vein. I could be wrong but I doubt it's a solidarity thing, not based on past experience anyway. I think they just saw an opportunity and went for it.

I think the outrage is a little much, on both sides of the fence. I think it's achieved its intended result though, which was to get people talking about Lotus, not the human rights situation in Russia. There's enough publicity about the Russian anti-gay stance at the Olympics and that hasn't moved Putin to change his tune one little bit. I don't think the Lotus' tweet has contributed to the situation at all and won't have the slightest impact upon attitudes both there or abroad. In my mind it was definite publicity stunt designed purely to benefit Lotus, which makes it exploitative, not a gay rights issue.

As a confirmed cynic it's not often I get to say things like this... but I see it as a sort of throwaway, passing, but genuine protest rather than a purely commercial move. It wasn't so much a ribbing of Putin as a punch in the face, not a smart corporate move. Who knows though, I'm not saying you're wrong and the guy was definitely coming from the heart.

:)

_________________
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

-Epicurus


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 23, 2014 12:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2013 10:31 am
Posts: 78
Inappropriate post removed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 23, 2014 2:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 10:12 am
Posts: 580
Irish-F1 wrote:
Inappropriate post removed.


Do you really want to go down the 'unnatural' debate. I can find a a load of scientific studies about homosexuality in other species.

I get why Lotus apologised. They have sponsors to think of etc but I think they are deliberately aiming for the best of both worlds by making the post and then withdrawing it.

Just a starter for ten so to speak. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals 102 citations in the wiki article there. Some of them from very respectable sources.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group