Bicycling Magazine Loss of Values

[worriesnot]

Nice one Uni, and here a lesson to all: NEVER overlook the fine-print...

[Kranswurm]

I nominate his letter to the editor will be letter of the month

[Allrounder]

should terms like  "bike porn" be banned as well - have the magazines sealed in plastic like the good old days. 

Yes I cant open those freds at work.......

[Allrounder]

AND

 

Who still buys print??? Do you not love nature? We are only  borrowing the planet from our kids!! 

what about the poor trees??

[Long Wheel Base]

I don’t really care that much about this, glass houses and stuff. Since Kittel and Swift Have rocked up, i have had to start watching my language and now they getting older, the actual things I say...

 

At the moment, unless Thomas the tank or the paw patrol drops an F bomb my kids wouldn’t know.

Do Kittel and Swifty watch Blaze or Rusty Rivets? Groenewagen loves Blaze(Paw Patrol is a close second). But Blaze and Rusty drive like maniacs, I hope he doesn't pick up on that in 16 years time.

[Long Wheel Base]

Ok, UNI wins the internet for the day.

[PygaSchmyga]

Subject: Loss of Values Bicycling magazine September 2018 issue

 

Dear Editor

 

With the moral fabric of our society daily under attack with everything from foul language, lies, corruption, violence, disrespect etc, I have to strongly object to your magazine, supposedly a family magazine, now having stooped rather low with your article in the September 2018 issue, head lined “Totally Bogan!” On page 76 “Charlie” throws down the “F” bomb and on page 77, you`ve got a black and white picture of a bearded guy throwing double middle fingers!

 

Now this is not the type of behaviour I would like a primary school kid to mimic, so this issue of Bicycling will have to be removed from the other magazines on the coffee table!

 

Suppose your wife is was on the receiving end of filthy sign language like that from a strange man like that! It can by no stretch of the imagination be “cool”, “in” or part of the general cycling fraternity`s  etiquette!

 

I think you need to clean up your act and print an apology.

 

Disappointingly yours

 

Jan Koekemoer

Ridgeworth

Cape Town

 

I am attaching the content of an email I sent to the editor of Bicycling Magazine about their poor judgement in placing a picture of a guy throwing double middle fingers and the use of the "F" word in the content, but although I followed up with another email on Friday, did not get a response from them.

 

Dear lord, the utter k@k we can "debate" on the hub is legendary, so F-it - I'll throw in as well.

 

The ability of people to get offended these days is extraordinary, when one considers all the other options available such as avoiding the offending material by not buying, not watching, not listening, not reading, etc.  Everyone has different tolerance levels for different things, and has every right to avoid the things that they do not care for.  These options do not seem to be enough for the delicate sensibilities that tend to pervade all around us.

 

Where I DO depart, however, is the galactic arrogance in EXPECTING/DEMANDING a response from an offending agent, such as  the magazine in question.  To think that they OWE  one a response, and then whingeing when one is not forthcoming - what planet?  Everyone is entitled to an opinion, sure, but sorry chap, that's where it ends.  One is not even entitled to have their  opinion respected - as people way well conclude that it is a rubbish opinion, as is THEIR right.

 

Many comments above lament the moral decay of modern society, but what about the explosion of self-entitled, self-important tantrum-throwing brats that are the product of indulgent parenting?  These failed experiments of cr@p parenting are being unleashed on the world, and lead to Moerig Monday threads like this.

[Allrounder]

Question to the OP,

 

Do you monitor what your kids do and look at on their phones? 

[Eldron]

Dear lord, the utter k@k we can "debate" on the hub is legendary, so F-it - I'll throw in as well.

 

The ability of people to get offended these days is extraordinary, when one considers all the other options available such as avoiding the offending material by not buying, not watching, not listening, not reading, etc. Everyone has different tolerance levels for different things, and has every right to avoid the things that they do not care for. These options do not seem to be enough for the delicate sensibilities that tend to pervade all around us.

 

Where I DO depart, however, is the galactic arrogance in EXPECTING/DEMANDING a response from an offending agent, such as the magazine in question. To think that they OWE one a response, and then whingeing when one is not forthcoming - what planet? Everyone is entitled to an opinion, sure, but sorry chap, that's where it ends. One is not even entitled to have their opinion respected - as people way well conclude that it is a rubbish opinion, as is THEIR right.

 

Many comments above lament the moral decay of modern society, but what about the explosion of self-entitled, self-important tantrum-throwing brats that are the product of indulgent parenting? These failed experiments of cr@p parenting are being unleashed on the world, and lead to Moerig Monday threads like this.

To be fair - if we took your "different tolerance levels" approach to your self entitled children example nothing would be done about it. People would heed your advice and avoid them or look the other way.

 

Where people feel (rightfully) wronged they should be free to air their views and have other people view their grievances rationally.

 

If we all avoid/choose to look the other way/have different tolerance levels there would be no resistance to poor language, entitled people, moral decay etc.

[jandemoerin]

Dear lord, the utter k@k we can "debate" on the hub is legendary, so F-it - I'll throw in as well.

 

The ability of people to get offended these days is extraordinary, when one considers all the other options available such as avoiding the offending material by not buying, not watching, not listening, not reading, etc.  Everyone has different tolerance levels for different things, and has every right to avoid the things that they do not care for.  These options do not seem to be enough for the delicate sensibilities that tend to pervade all around us.

 

Where I DO depart, however, is the galactic arrogance in EXPECTING/DEMANDING a response from an offending agent, such as  the magazine in question.  To think that they OWE  one a response, and then whingeing when one is not forthcoming - what planet?  Everyone is entitled to an opinion, sure, but sorry chap, that's where it ends.  One is not even entitled to have their  opinion respected - as people way well conclude that it is a rubbish opinion, as is THEIR right.

 

Many comments above lament the moral decay of modern society, but what about the explosion of self-entitled, self-important tantrum-throwing brats that are the product of indulgent parenting?  These failed experiments of cr@p parenting are being unleashed on the world, and lead to Moerig Monday threads like this.

I am subscribed, so did not actively go and buy the magazine. In a client centric environment it makes good sense to respond to client feedback. Very few clients takes the time and makes the effort to complain, even fewer compliment. This "issue" could easily have been turned positive with a sympathetic response, whether sincere or not. But ignoring creates a "do not care" perception.

[PygaSchmyga]

To be fair - if we took your "different tolerance levels" approach to your self entitled children example nothing would be done about it. People would heed your advice and avoid them or look the other way.

 

Where people feel (rightfully) wronged they should be free to air their views and have other people view their grievances rationally.

 

If we all avoid/choose to look the other way/have different tolerance levels there would be no resistance to poor language, entitled people, moral decay etc.

I support free market principles - if something is generally offending (like a magazine, TV show etc), and people avoid it to the point that it is no longer economically sustainable, then it will die off on its own.  Economics are brutal, and the "customers vote with their  feet" adage in describing retails forces is still valid. 

 

But even this aside, I am not arguing with the right of people to have an opinion about something they feel objectionable - by all means, and we all do this every day in some form. 

 

What you are NOT entitled to is a response.  This is pure arrogance, and presupposes your opinion is the moral authority on a matter.  I would never presume that my opinion is more valuable than yours.  I could only hope that you would consider my point of view.  If you think I am talking BS, fair enough, but I have no right to demand a response from you.

[Gen]

I am subscribed, so did not actively go and buy the magazine. In a client centric environment it makes good sense to respond to client feedback. Very few clients takes the time and makes the effort to complain, even fewer compliment. This "issue" could easily have been turned positive with a sympathetic response, whether sincere or not. But ignoring creates a "do not care" perception.

So are you more upset about them not replying to you or the use of the f bomb and zap pic eventough as it turns out they did put a warning on the issue that you did not see?

[jandemoerin]

Question to the OP,

 

Do you monitor what your kids do and look at on their phones? 

Yes, within reason. The point being that you would expect distasteful content in certain magazines and programs, but Bicycling Magazine, previously "clean" have now made a turn that is not suitable for readers who still try to keep a modicum of decency in their everyday lives.

[jandemoerin]

So are you more upset about them not replying to you or the use of the f bomb and zap pic eventough as it turns out they did put a warning on the issue that you did not see?

Hi Gen. The content caused offence.

[PygaSchmyga]

I am subscribed, so did not actively go and buy the magazine. In a client centric environment it makes good sense to respond to client feedback. Very few clients takes the time and makes the effort to complain, even fewer compliment. This "issue" could easily have been turned positive with a sympathetic response, whether sincere or not. But ignoring creates a "do not care" perception.

It's their choice to respond to you or not.  If its bad business for them to ignore you, then that's their business.  You comment in several places in this thread about being miffed about not having a response - I hardly doubt you were  motivated by a genuine concern for their business model.  Rather dial back the entitlement - we have enough of this (in my opinion) in SA!

[Eldron]

I support free market principles - if something is generally offending (like a magazine, TV show etc), and people avoid it to the point that it is no longer economically sustainable, then it will die off on its own.  Economics are brutal, and the "customers vote with their  feet" adage in describing retails forces is still valid. 

 

But even this aside, I am not arguing with the right of people to have an opinion about something they feel objectionable - by all means, and we all do this every day in some form. 

 

What you are NOT entitled to is a response.  This is pure arrogance, and presupposes your opinion is the moral authority on a matter.  I would never presume that my opinion is more valuable than yours.  I could only hope that you would consider my point of view.  If you think I am talking BS, fair enough, but I have no right to demand a response from you.

 

Mostly I agree with you.

 

Moerigejan's example is a bit more complicated - he bought a subscription based on the fact that there weren't any swear words/profanity/naughty pics - the magazine then changed the game on him. In that instance I reckon he deserves some kind of response as he is invested in the next few issues.

 

Also - one man's "you deserve no response" is another man's "they should be held to account".

 

Also also - in terms of the broader "protection of morals" issue we/society in general have a responsibility to protect future generations from what we consider unacceptable. Having an opinion but thinking it deserves no response will never create change.

 

But mostly I agree with you :-)