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

smacl

Idleater wrote: »

Re the nsfw question:

Is Facebook browsing appropriate for a workplace in general?

I don't read boards on my work machine. That's what the phone is for.

Workplaces vary hugely but your employer may well monitor any content that arrives on your screen, so better not to have anything on screen that you wouldn't want on screen with your boss looking over your shoulder. If in any doubt, personal content linked to your name, such as FaceBook, personal emails etc... are best avoided if privacy is important to you.

LollipopJimmy

Serious exchange rate today, time to buy on Amazon before prices are jacked up or things stabilise

bp_me

LollipopJimmy wrote: »

Serious exchange rate today, time to buy on Amazon before prices are jacked up or things stabilise

Amazon dont bill you until they ship.

ThisRegard

nee wrote: »

Yeah, and its their athleticism and prowess on the bike that's been celebrated on that page :rolleyes: they're being objectified as objects of sexual predilection, reduced to an image, a one dimensional being, an object. not the talented athletes most of them are, which is pure and utter bullshyte. Awesome :rolleyes:

You could say it irritated me a touch...

There's blokes on the website too.

smacl

LollipopJimmy wrote: »

Serious exchange rate today, time to buy on Amazon before prices are jacked up or things stabilise

Fluctuating a lot this morning, back to just below 80p after being 82p earlier this morning and 76p yesterday. I'm guessing in the short term most of the UK sites will bill you in euros and pocket the difference.

Harrybelafonte

ThisRegard wrote: »

There's blokes on the website too.

The same applies to them.

tomasrojo

cdaly_ wrote: »

You could mount a short length of copper (or Qualpex) pipe end-on on the side of the box and mount the lamp to that. Easy and cheap...

I did do something like this in the end to get an extra front light onto the bakfiets:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=100140509&postcount=110

AstraMonti

Harrybelafonte wrote: »

That's probably worse. Proven athletes, having their accomplishments ignored and being turned into eye candy to titillate men who spend their days behind desks wondering what went wrong with their lives.

Formal fallacy, but each to their own. I shall never again post any more of these atrocities.

magicbastarder

Idleater wrote: »

Re the nsfw question:

Is Facebook browsing appropriate for a workplace in general?

I don't read boards on my work machine. That's what the phone is for.

our CEO has explicitly stated he's not going to 'do' people from browsing facebook.
that said, i'm one of the few people with access to our dev proxy.

magicbastarder

AstraMonti wrote: »

Formal fallacy, but each to their own. I shall never again post any more of these atrocities.

important distinction - the link posted was not intended as a joke. analogy fail.

tomasrojo

tomasrojo wrote: »

Rod brakes I'd heard of. Rod shifters?

http://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.ie/2016/06/lets-just-ease-ourselves-back-into-it.html

Bike Snob NYC gives more details today:

The way it works is this: first, you open the upper quick release lever, which frees the axle in the dropouts (or I guess track ends if you want to get technical). Next, you use the lower lever to manually lift the chain onto another cog--while pedaling backwards of course. Then, once you've got the chain where you want it, you have to weight the saddle in order to tension the chain, then finally you close that upper quick release lever again.

http://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.ie/2016/06/bsnyc-road-jernel-part-iii-last-stop.html

eeeee

AstraMonti wrote: »

<snip>
Formal fallacy, but each to their own. I shall never again post any more of these atrocities

Sexism, yeah hilarious :rolleyes:

Harrybelafonte

AstraMonti wrote: »

Formal fallacy, but each to their own. I shall never again post any more of these atrocities.

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

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

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

manafana

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

Harrybelafonte

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

Lumen

nee wrote: »

Sexism, yeah hilarious :rolleyes:

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

Harrybelafonte

Lumen wrote: »

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

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

Idleater

manafana wrote: »

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

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

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

Lusk_Doyle

Harrybelafonte wrote: »

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

Wow, what a sweeping statement!

AstraMonti

Harrybelafonte wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

Harrybelafonte

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

Wow, what a sweeping statement!

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

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

Harrybelafonte

AstraMonti wrote: »

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

AstraMonti wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

Harrybelafonte

British National ti e trials on Eurosport btw

RobFowl

Lumen wrote: »

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

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

Lusk_Doyle

Harrybelafonte wrote: »

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

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

Lumen

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

eeeee

Lumen wrote: »

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

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

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

Idleater

nee wrote: »

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

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

Lusk_Doyle

Idleater wrote: »

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

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

Idleater

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

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

Whoosh. :thumbsup: :nod: