• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

please explain to me.. what is wrong with this picture?

Well, if a person, or especially a group/class of persons (women, African Americans, Japanese, Inuit, etc) say they are offended by something, I do my best to take their word for it, even if not all of those in that group agree.

I do that because I know that it only seems frivolous to me because I'm not one of them and do not live their lives, just mine, and I am sometimes offended by disparaging references to what I identify as (heterosexual, white, male, older, etc).
 
Frisco said:
Well, if a person, or especially a group/class of persons (women, African Americans, Japanese, Inuit, etc) say they are offended by something, I do my best to take their word for it, even if not all of those in that group agree.

I do that because I know that it only seems frivolous to me because I'm not one of them and do not live their lives, just mine, and I am sometimes offended by disparaging references to what I identify as (heterosexual, white, male, older, etc).
Click to expand...


It's very hard to say if something's offensive/not offensive across a broad spectrum of the world's population. For instance, some people would call for violence if shown a picture of Muhammad or even a cartoon drawing of him.

While I try to respect peoples' sensitivities, I think sometimes we give more power to something innate than we should. I think it probably stems from people boiling over knowing that they should be mad at something, but misdirecting that anger towards something trivial. Sometimes it's easier to get mad at something trivial than to direct your real anger at something that you should truly be angry at, a loved one, a boss, an employee, etc.



And on a side-note, I can't help wonder if the photographer was doing a tribute to his favorite TV show...?!?! Sorry if this offends some.....not really....
th_Smiley-hiding-behind-couch.gif







113566d1299806782t-slicer.jpg
 
The OP notices that some people are more offended than others, and expresses that they should not be that way.

I disagree with that for many reasons, one being that if we were to stop those who feel offended from expressing that, then the OP would not be able to post here, as he seems to feel offended by that quoted/linked story and the sort of people in that story.
 
i was not offended... or was i?

i just find it stupid... silly... that people would make a big deal over something that trivial.

there are a lot of other crappy things that happen every day.. that deserves more attention... not a silly (brown) smiley face was used to cover a child that did not have his permission slip signed.

I agree.. that i dont want other peoples feelings to be discounted.. if they are hurt.. i want them to feel that they can express their concerns.. but there are 2 or even more sides to every issue. this situation.. the photographer was only doing something very simple.. cover up the child that they did not have permission to show. so what if he used a "correct" color smiley face for the child?

i must agree with TXgoat..
some pick the easy/simple issue to attack... afraid of the real conflict.
 
I would be curious to find out what exactly offends the people complaining. Is it that a black Smiley face was used, the fact that the child was in the picture to begin with? I think if it was because a black Smiley face was used, I can't begin to imagine the outrage if a white Smiley face was used. I personally think requiring ANY permission slip to take a class picture is offensive ridiculous. Do the school administrators anticipate using the school pictures to solicit some socially unacceptable event? "Hey Helen, I saw your son Johnny's class picture in my copy of orgy enthusiast monthly. That kid is very photogenic!" I guess that's where we are as aa society...
 
After consulting with Frisco, I've decided to move this to the Politics and Current Affairs forum as I think its better suited here.:)
 
Just my two cents about PhotoShop...

Having used PhotoShop myself, I feel the whole controversy could have been avoided by the photographer coming back out and taking a picture for the same stage empty. Then the photographer could have easly used the touch-up tools and eliminated the child that should not have been in the photo.

Having experience in both digital video editing and digital photograph editing, I have problems believing that the photographer was unable to eliminate the child that should not have been in the photo.

Finally, I agree with Yeahha, that the child should have sat out the picture.
 
We never needed permission slips to be in a photo - but heaven help you if you didn't want to be included.

I think the school got a cut of the "class picture" crap, and if you weren't in the picture, they couldn't sell it.

I never had a pic taken after elementary school.
 
I looked at it and didn't really see anything that I would call offensive. Unless you were one who bought that picture and were seated right next to Johnny Cartoon. Then, of course, no one would ever *really* be looking at your picture...

But seriously, I don't see anything wrong with it. And it seems that the PTO asked them to put a cartoon smiley face over the child, and then were upset with it...? How? Sure, it was disproportionately sized, but I don't think that in and of itself is 'offensive'.


;D
 
Personally I would be furious if I found out my face had been blurred out while the smiley guy got his shown!:p:D

I agree that children who do not have permission should sit out.

As far as removing the child, as was said in the article it is more difficult in this case. There would be serious artifacts since you would not be fully able to match the shapes, clothes, colors, textures, etc. behind the student once removed.

Had he been in the back row it would be a snap.
 
kct1975 said:
Just my two cents about PhotoShop...

Having used PhotoShop myself, I feel the whole controversy could have been avoided by the photographer coming back out and taking a picture for the same stage empty. Then the photographer could have easly used the touch-up tools and eliminated the child that should not have been in the photo.

Having experience in both digital video editing and digital photograph editing, I have problems believing that the photographer was unable to eliminate the child that should not have been in the photo.

Finally, I agree with Yeahha, that the child should have sat out the picture.
Click to expand...

I agree. He should have either just sat out or been photoshopped out. It's easy enough either way. I wouldn't want a cartoon in my class picture, that's for sure.
 
What's this "consent form" for student photos thing about anyway... United States politically correct stuff is it?

We never had anything like that for class photos when I was at school in the UK. AFAIK there's nothing like that for the school I'm at now.

What I don't get is, if they didn't sign this whatever photo consent form, why where they having their photos taken?

Such an amateurish job anyway, should have got someone who actually knew how to use Photoshop. Governments never seem to have a problem erasing undesirable persons from official pictures. News organisations and magazines often do this kind of thing as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom