Memorial Vs. Stratford

[editor]

The only one I've been arguing against is the misogynistic argument, and I think I've very effectively shown that the issue is at least morally ambiguous and at most an indication of thoroughly-entrenched female empowerment.

You're not the only person participating in this discussion.

Now that you bring it up, I also question the notion that the shirt's depiction or message is a violation of human dignity. A Google search for "human dignity" turned up a lot of hits referencing the Christian church. Legal interpretation--not surprisingly--seem to come from countries with a traditionally Christian population. It also seems to pervade socialist thinking; something along the lines of that someone who doesn't have access to the same material resources as someone else is being done an injustice. On the face of it, I don't think you're going to get me to admit that there is a human dignity issue because I tend not to believe in what I understand to be human dignity or the underlying philisophical principles.

Off topic.

I'm on board with the thing about restricting teens from depicting obscene, profane, threatening, or personally insulting material on their clothing (and in general). At a certain level, it can be distracting or hurtful to others. In general, though, I think that a lot of the effect of obscenity is diluted when society no longer considers it obscene. So I do think that there's a happy medium that could be reached, but I also think that we're presently too uptight about most things.

Off topic.

Where were the parents? Don't know. Good question.

You think that the teens that came up with this idea thought it was OK? Well obviously they know it's not going to be viewed in a positive light by most people. That's probably why they did it, and why it was so effective as propaganda. It's all about shock.

If you think "most" people are OK with this, you really need to hang out with a better crowd. If "most" people were fine with it, then the teens should have no problem coming forward and claiming responsibility. I don't see that happening.

[AtticaFlinch]

Uhh...yes they would.

You think? Or, maybe they'd try to replicate it because they saw it in all the porn they regularly watch, and they thought it looked like fun. Teenagers aren't the innocent doe-eyed cherubs many people here seem to think they are.

I'm pretty sure, for 99.9% of teens, this t-shirt isn't likely to be the first time they've seen this act portrayed. And likely, the other times they'd seen it probably had better artistry.

[TheNiche]

You're not the only person participating in this discussion.

That's not a purposeful response to the points I've raised.

Off topic.

Off topic.

Each paragraph of my response was chronologically paired to a statement you made in your previous post. If my responses were off topic, then so were your points. Care to make any retractions?

If you think "most" people are OK with this, you really need to hang out with a better crowd. If "most" people were fine with it, then the teens should have no problem coming forward and claiming responsibility. I don't see that happening.

That's not what I meant at all.

It isn't that the kids that did this did not know it was deemed wrong by the majority population of squares that comprise society. It isn't that they weren't aware of the possibility of consequences. It's that the t-shirt is made all that much more funny because it is considered so despicably bad by the square majority.

If I were at that high school and had been involved in the creation of that t-shirt, it'd be especially funny to see how dramatically the story has blown up and how many uptight squares reacted negatively to it. ...of course, if I had been involved, it would've been only peripherally (knowing myself, probably in the concept phase) because I would've understood that the consequences of being a figurehead in the case would not have been good. My buddies would probably get themselves expelled and it'd still be something I bragged incessantly about being involved in and getting away with.

[TJones]

You know why Memorial had to change the football field from grass to Astroturf ?

It was to keep THEIR cheerleaders from grazing at halftime.

The shirt in question is most asurdedly NOT being worn around school. It all boils down to who IS wearing the shirt, and if it IS someone's precious little minor cupcake, then where is the parenting involved there?

[AtticaFlinch]

UH's "underground" t-shirt for their next game:

I gotz mad 'Shop skillz.

[hadooga]

The only one I've been arguing against is the misogynistic argument, and I think I've very effectively shown that the issue is at least morally ambiguous and at most an indication of thoroughly-entrenched female empowerment.

I can't believe that this is seriously being argued, but directly from the Facebook group for these shirts: "This year's Underground Shirt is titled "Memorial Toweres Over Stratford" featuring two of our most prominent stallions with an unfortunate Stratford cheerleader." I think that if they felt she was empowered, they probably wouldn't refer to her as unfortunate.

You think? Or, maybe they'd try to replicate it because they saw it in all the porn they regularly watch, and they thought it looked like fun. Teenagers aren't the innocent doe-eyed cherubs many people here seem to think they are.

I'm pretty sure, for 99.9% of teens, this t-shirt isn't likely to be the first time they've seen this act portrayed. And likely, the other times they'd seen it probably had better artistry.

Which goes back to what I tried to address earlier - that they will see it, along with all of the other repulsive & sexist crap that's around them every day, and that ultimately results in more of the same.

[AtticaFlinch]

I can't believe that this is seriously being argued, but directly from the Facebook group for these shirts: "This year's Underground Shirt is titled "Memorial Toweres Over Stratford" featuring two of our most prominent stallions with an unfortunate Stratford cheerleader." I think that if they felt she was empowered, they probably wouldn't refer to her as unfortunate.

Well see, had they intended for the square adult population to see the t-shirts, they'd have started a Myspace group instead of a Facebook group. You committed the internet equivalent of walking into a lion's den, and now you're wondering why the beasts are mauling you. You've just stepped into the mind of a teenager, so don't be surprised if you step on a pile of crap or two.

Maybe I have to be the first to say this, because nobody seems to want to broach this...

Look, there is absolutely nothing pure or noble working in the mind of the average teen boy. When he's not popping his pimples, he's imagining every lurid and depraved sex act possible, probably even things not available on the net. This shirt perpetuates nothing. It reinforces nothing. Trust me, if these teens are anything like I and every other male were back then, they've already imagined every Stratford cheerleader in that position, along with every girl they go to class with, their teachers, the friends' mothers, every actress on TV, the Sears catalog lingerie models, etc ad infinitum. This shirt isn't titillating to these hormone-laden dorks, this shirt is the product of their already active imaginations. The depravity is already there, and whether or not the t-shirts were ever made or sold, these kids would still be thinking about two horses defiling an "unfortunate" Stratford cheerleader. If you'd like, I'll open Pandora's box a bit more for you, but I promise the contents are ugly.

Also, don't read too much into the words utilized by kids. I doubt the author of the passage you quoted can breathe with his mouth closed, let alone understand the subtleties of the English language.

Which goes back to what I tried to address earlier - that they will see it, along with all of the other repulsive & sexist crap that's around them every day, and that ultimately results in more of the same.

Good thing these kids haven't seen this variant of the "underground" shirt for this Saturday's UH football game. Who knows what they'd do then?

Actually, they'd probably yawn and say, "Lame."

[names]

I loathe rich kids. Some people can't die fast enough.

[AtticaFlinch]

I loathe rich kids. Some people can't die fast enough.

Wow. You are a ray of sunshine on a gloomy day.

[AtticaFlinch]

If you think "most" people are OK with this, you really need to hang out with a better crowd. If "most" people were fine with it, then the teens should have no problem coming forward and claiming responsibility. I don't see that happening.

Thanks to Hadooga's sleuthing, I don't think it'll be too difficult to uncover the culprit... He/She didn't hide his/her tracks too well. Contact info is cconroy92@gmail.com. I'm no Columbo, but I'm pretty confident the kid's last name is Conroy, and I'll take it a step further and guess the kid was born in 1992. I don't think it'll be too difficult for the school to narrow down their search from there. While it's no clear admission of guilt, it's not exactly the I-am-Spartacus ambiguity you may have supposed.

Anyhow, I think Hadooga may have uncovered the real culprit with this link:

Shirts for sale next week

$20 for Upperclassmen (11th-12th)

$30 for Underclassmen (9th-10th)

Yeah, unfettered capitalism is to blame. Look at the prices for those t-shirts! This is one enterprising entrepreneur. And look at all the free ad space he/she got from those local news programs and the Press! My god, he/she's probably made more money than I did in the last week, especially considering the group has 223 members. If only half of them bought a shirt, and they all paid the paltry upperclassmen price, then this kid grossed a minimum of $2200 in a week. If this kid gets caught, he/she needs to be given an automatic A in economics.

[TheNiche]

I can't believe that this is seriously being argued, but directly from the Facebook group for these shirts: "This year's Underground Shirt is titled "Memorial Toweres Over Stratford" featuring two of our most prominent stallions with an unfortunate Stratford cheerleader." I think that if they felt she was empowered, they probably wouldn't refer to her as unfortunate.

As this thread and your example each demonstrate, the meaning is open to interpretation. Whatever the intent of the creator was, it has been warped beyond all recognition by the vast majority of people...even those that are sympathetic.

Which goes back to what I tried to address earlier - that they will see it, along with all of the other repulsive & sexist crap that's around them every day, and that ultimately results in more of the same.

See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil, eh?

Seems to me as though most people see in the shirt what they want to see so that ultimately the shirt (like so many other forms of media) is simply a reflection upon but not a contribution to society in one way or the other.

[porTENT]

Thanks to Hadooga's sleuthing, I don't think it'll be too difficult to uncover the culprit... He/She didn't hide his/her tracks too well. Contact info is cconroy92@gmail.com. I'm no Columbo, but I'm pretty confident the kid's last name is Conroy, and I'll take it a step further and guess the kid was born in 1992. I don't think it'll be too difficult for the school to narrow down their search from there. While it's no clear admission of guilt, it's not exactly the I-am-Spartacus ambiguity you may have supposed.

Anyhow, I think Hadooga may have uncovered the real culprit with this link:

Shirts for sale next week

$20 for Upperclassmen (11th-12th)

$30 for Underclassmen (9th-10th)

Yeah, unfettered capitalism is to blame. Look at the prices for those t-shirts! This is one enterprising entrepreneur. And look at all the free ad space he/she got from those local news programs and the Press! My god, he/she's probably made more money than I did in the last week, especially considering the group has 223 members. If only half of them bought a shirt, and they all paid the paltry upperclassmen price, then this kid grossed a minimum of $2200 in a week. If this kid gets caught, he/she needs to be given an automatic A in economics.

I could find out who it is, but the more important question is "What crime did he commit?"

[AtticaFlinch]

I could find out who it is, but the more important question is "What crime did he commit?"

Aggravated assault with a tasteless joke.

Anybody want to hear a joke? It's called "The Aristocrats."

[hadooga]

Well see, had they intended for the square adult population to see the t-shirts, they'd have started a Myspace group instead of a Facebook group. You committed the internet equivalent of walking into a lion's den, and now you're wondering why the beasts are mauling you. You've just stepped into the mind of a teenager, so don't be surprised if you step on a pile of crap or two.

Yes, I'm a square because misogyny is so cool. Sexism, too. I've committed the internet equivalent of walking into a lion's den and wondering why they're mauling me ... same as when I walk out the door every day? Is walking around as a female blameworthy, too? How dare I?! I know full well the mind of a teenager as I was one once, too. Not a male one, mind you, so my opinions probably don't matter. I don't know how I would have reacted to this as a teenager. What I do know is that crap like this has always bothered me, but it took much growing up, and growing really freaking tired of it before I could begin to articulate why.

Maybe I have to be the first to say this, because nobody seems to want to broach this...

Look, there is absolutely nothing pure or noble working in the mind of the average teen boy. When he's not popping his pimples, he's imagining every lurid and depraved sex act possible, probably even things not available on the net. This shirt perpetuates nothing. It reinforces nothing. Trust me, if these teens are anything like I and every other male were back then, they've already imagined every Stratford cheerleader in that position, along with every girl they go to class with, their teachers, the friends' mothers, every actress on TV, the Sears catalog lingerie models, etc ad infinitum. This shirt isn't titillating to these hormone-laden dorks, this shirt is the product of their already active imaginations. The depravity is already there, and whether or not the t-shirts were ever made or sold, these kids would still be thinking about two horses defiling an "unfortunate" Stratford cheerleader. If you'd like, I'll open Pandora's box a bit more for you, but I promise the contents are ugly.

Again, goes right back to the point I keep trying to make but apparently am not making very well. This kind of crap coming from a 17 year old is remotely understandable as they are a teenager. When adults defend it, though, it's infuriating. Why is the depravity already there? Is it there when they're 5? Not sexual urges or wishes or wants; the depravity. Where does that depravity come from? Your post comes off like we should just write off all boys because they're just incapable of growing into decent human beings, though I really doubt that's what you were trying to say.

[AtticaFlinch]

Your post comes off like we should just write off all boys because they're just incapable of growing into decent human beings, though I really doubt that's what you were trying to say.

It's not at all what I was trying to say. I had two points, really. 1) Kids are kids, and kids will do what kids do. Trying to force teenage boys to think like eunuchs is as pointless a waste of time as trying to push the tide back out with your bare hands. Don't blame me for this, blame a billion years of evolution. If this sexual desire didn't exist, life on earth would have ended long, long ago. 2) I've said several times I don't condone the shirt, but also that I'm not condemning it either. I'm not defending the shirt per se, I'm defending the kids' rights to create it, to wear it and to think the dirty thoughts expressed on it. I think the shirt's in bad taste, but I can also see the humor in it. Lenny Bruce is rolling over in his grave right now with this talk of censoring humor. You don't agree with the joke, you don't get the joke, fine, but don't think because of that you have the right to stop people from telling the joke. And, it's telling that you're infuriated because I'm not offended by this shirt. I've yet to hear one solid reason why I should be offended that a teenager told a bad joke. Keep in mind you weren't the intended audience for the joke. I don't ever wish to see Dane Cook or Carlos Mencia live in concert because unless I start sniffing glue, I won't ever be the intended audience of their jokes. Even though I'm not dumb enough to pay money to see them tell jokes, I don't get offended that they tell them.

Or, perhaps we should all just move into Hadooga's perfect utopia where sex, sexual organs and teenagers don't exist. It's a perfect world where, like Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeron, any variances from the norm are handicapped.

[kylejack]

It's not at all what I was trying to say. I had two points, really. 1) Kids are kids, and kids will do what kids do. Trying to force teenage boys to think like eunuchs is as pointless a waste of time as trying to push the tide back out with your bare hands. Don't blame me for this, blame a billion years of evolution. If this sexual desire didn't exist, life on earth would have ended long, long ago. 2) I've said several times I don't condone the shirt, but also that I'm not condemning it either. I'm not defending the shirt per se, I'm defending the kids' rights to create it, to wear it and to think the dirty thoughts expressed on it. I think the shirt's in bad taste, but I can also see the humor in it. Lenny Bruce is rolling over in his grave right now with this talk of censoring humor. You don't agree with the joke, you don't get the joke, fine, but don't think because of that you have the right to stop people from telling the joke.

Who is talking about censorship? Speaking for myself, I'm just saying its shameful and misogynistic. I'm using my own freedom of speech to condemn it.

[AtticaFlinch]

Who is talking about censorship? Speaking for myself, I'm just saying its shameful and misogynistic. I'm using my own freedom of speech to condemn it.

Censorship's the next obvious step in reactionary politics. First, you've got to find something to get pissed about. Second, you've got to get others passionate about it too. Third, ban it, punish it. Otherwise, what's the point? Is self-righteous indignation the end game?

[kylejack]

Censorship's the next obvious step in reactionary politics. First, you've got to find something to get pissed about. Second, you've got to get others passionate about it too. Third, ban it, punish it. Otherwise, what's the point? Is self-righteous indignation the end game?

Getting outraged about things is sufficient to try and marginalize them. If I see someone drop an N-bomb I'm going to get in their face and ask them what their problem is. We can only curtail bigotry and misogyny by condemning them when we encounter them. People should be ashamed of acting like this, and I'm more than willing to try and shame them.

"Upon the altar of God I pledge eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

-Thomas Jefferson

[sheeats]

Or, perhaps we should all just move into Hadooga's perfect utopia where sex, sexual organs and teenagers don't exist. It's a perfect world where, like Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeron, any variances from the norm are handicapped.

I feel like there should be a Bergeronian version of Godwin's Law, where "As a discussion about society grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Vonnegut or Harrison Bergeron approaches 1."

[AtticaFlinch]

Getting outraged about things is sufficient to try and marginalize them. If I see someone drop an N-bomb I'm going to get in their face and ask them what their problem is. We can only curtail bigotry and misogyny by condemning them when we encounter them. People should be ashamed of acting like this, and I'm more than willing to try and shame them.

"Upon the altar of God I pledge eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

-Thomas Jefferson

I wouldn't call a crudely drawn caricature of a couple horses eiffeling a cheerleader tyranny. That's hyperbole at its most hyperbolic zenith.

You know, by getting in people's faces every time your delicate sensibilities have been inflamed, you've just self-appointed yourself the arbiter of morals, ethics and taste. This isn't the most effective way to influence people's thought processes.

[AtticaFlinch]

I feel like there should be a Bergeronian version of Godwin's Law, where "As a discussion about society grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Vonnegut or Harrison Bergeron approaches 1."

On any other board, a Nazi comparison would have occurred by at least page two.

[kylejack]

I wouldn't call a crudely drawn caricature of a couple horses eiffeling a cheerleader tyranny. That's hyperbole at its most hyperbolic zenith.

And two horses sexing a cheerleader is what, reasoned discourse?

You know, by getting in people's faces every time your delicate sensibilities have been inflamed, you've just self-appointed yourself the arbiter of morals, ethics and taste. This isn't the most effective way to influence people's thought processes.

In my experience it is, ymmv.

[arisegundo]

You know, by getting in people's faces every time your delicate sensibilities have been inflamed, you've just self-appointed yourself the arbiter of morals, ethics and taste. This isn't the most effective way to influence people's thought processes.

What then, is the nuanced, persuasive reaction to an N-bomb? a high-five?

[AtticaFlinch]

And two horses sexing a cheerleader is what, reasoned discourse?

No! That's the point, it's a joke! It's not intended to be reasoned discourse. It's not intended to be a statement of fact. It's not intended to be anything other than funny. The fact you don't find it funny means the joke missed its mark with its unintended audience.

In my experience it is, ymmv.

In my experience, getting the topic out there and discussing it not so freakin' seriously is the best way to bring people around. Conversations are far better than presentations, especially when those presentations are actually public shamings.

[kylejack]

In my experience, getting the topic out there and discussing it not so freakin' seriously is the best way to bring people around. Conversations are far better than presentations, especially when those presentations are actually public shamings.

People should already know better than to call people the N-word and if they do so they need to be smacked on the nose with a newspaper, figuratively-speaking.

[AtticaFlinch]

What then, is the nuanced, persuasive reaction to an N-bomb? a high-five?

What? I didn't take this down the N-bomb highway. KyleJack did. I responded to the idea of getting in people's faces when his tail feathers got ruffled. Also, comparing a furry menage a trois to outright bigotry is presumptive. This still can't be labeled misogyny any more than a black person dropping the N-bomb can be labeled bigotry. Both can be labeled tasteless, but we have no right to impose our personal tastes and preferences on others. And frankly, if an AWP or anyone else does drop an N-bomb, it's their right to do so. There is no law against it, but it does highlight their ignorance just as well as the t-shirt highlights those teenager's teenagerness.

Let me turn the table here, what's your reaction to the N-bomb? Do you get all up in their grill? Do you spread your righteous retribution evenly, or do you merely limit it to those people who are smaller than you? If you don't get pissy with everybody and everything, getting up in everybody's faces every time they offend you, then you send the mixed message that sometimes you agree with them. In which case, you send the message that you're a hypocrite. Just sayin'.

[AtticaFlinch]

People should already know better than to call people the N-word and if they do so they need to be smacked on the nose with a newspaper, figuratively-speaking.

What if they were unfortunate enough to be raised that way?

To say they should already know better and are therefore deserving of punishment isn't logically sound.

[20thStDad]

Crude humor has its place..not sure if that place is the West Loop/Galleria section. This particular instance I do not find to be funny at all.

[kylejack]

What if they were unfortunate enough to be raised that way?

To say they should already know better and are therefore deserving of punishment isn't logically sound.

I don't really encounter people that ignorant, people who have never been told that its wrong to use racist terms, thus anyone who uses it does it despite being told not to.

[AtticaFlinch]

I don't really encounter people that ignorant, people who have never been told that its wrong to use racist terms, thus anyone who uses it does it despite being told not to.

Since we've enjoyed playing so many "what if" games thus far, let's rephrase the question that way so as to allow yourself to speculate about your possible reaction.

What if you just so happened to find yourself outside the loop in Houston, in a place like Vidor, where racism is rampant and not only accepted, but the norm. Let's just suppose you were there and maybe even in a bar. Let's say you were enjoying yourself, completely oblivious to the fact everybody in the bar already wants to kick your ass because you're drinking pussified, yuppie beer, and someone tells an off-color joke. What do you do? Do you really make a scene about it? Do you really?

I think your response would be the only correct response in dealing with things that offend you. You ignore it. You walk away from it. You don't get up in faces for every slight or offense, or you'd be in more faces than that one horse's wiener.