Offensive Avatars

Sorry, I just cannot comprehend why we cater to nannyism. Is is sciforums or nannyforums?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

rendering an animated 4d toothbrush mustache would be a pain in the butt :/

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Should we call it the Kaikoura Effect?

Well, there are also the dimensions of this issue that you and I—and other moderators—see, but the general membership doesn't have access to. I think the path this issue is following probably looks a lot different from the membership's perspective; they don't necessarily know where else the train has stopped, so to speak. One might calculate an expectation of the Picton-Christchurch line, but fail to account for the stops at Blenheim and Kaikoura. Or something like that.

 

The strangeness of it all

What strikes me about it, though, is not so much the proposition that the mooner might complain about sexual harassment if someone says something about his ass, but that anyone else would take him seriously. In and of itself, it's a curious and even perplexing phenomenon. With enough repetition, though, I do confess it can become quite annoying.

 

Of course it's legitimate. Just as a black president in effigy isn't inherently racist, neither is a political caricature or defacement illegitimate.
Many politicians have been forced to bear Hitlerian upper lip hair. Why is this one character always have to be different?

Putting that kind of facial hair on a well-known politician is fair game.
Yes, it might offend some people. So?
We can't always tiptoe around people's emotions regarding their deep-seated political ideologies.
As far as my comment to a certain somebody: if he can get angry enough about a descriptor of a politician to challenge me to a formal debate about it (the thread was eventually locked), I figure it's all good.
Goading that member was not my intention behind the avatar. It was a lucky coincidence.

Amen to that. There are apparently some level heads there.

Amen! Sometimes I wonder just that thing.

 

Wrong.

Wrong.
I wasn't crying into my teacup because I haven't been banned. What the hell are you inventing?

I just happened to hear some rumors about it, and wanted to know what the big idea is behind it.
I think that big idea is misguided.
And then I heard a rumor that I could take my "chances" if I keep it, but I would risk looking like a racist birther.

Isn't THAT refreshing?!?!? It's ridiculous "advice" like that which causes me to question the legitimacy of those opposed to my avatar. Seems more like a personal grudge driving the potential for censorship.

I'd love to see some of the commentary in the mod forum. I can only imagine. I guess that's the real point of this thread.
You have a chance to say it to my face. Or my avatar.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I wasn't being terribly serious, and I don't care all that much.
But going by the standards I see in moderating around here sometimes, the "ass eating" and "shit on your lip" comment seems like a comment that would at least get a warning. Don't you think?
Not an even and consistent enforcement of what constitutes a personal insult, perhaps. I was just mentioning it sarcastically, not crying, like Trippy seems to think.

I wouldn't make a very good censor I'm afraid. Not petty enough.

 

And everywhere that Mary went ....

Apparently, some people were, and do.

Why? Because it has naughty words in it?

Trippy is considering a broader range of issues and events than you. And no, that's not a hit, Giambattista. As he and I discussed earlier, there are additional dimensions to the situation that are not publicly available.

Setting aside the question of how you can think an idea is misguided if you have no idea what the idea is, what rumors did you hear?

Indeed, that answer could be quite revealing. There are many appearances about the situation, and the answer to that question could actually help cut away extraneous considerations.

 

Excellent.

 

not petty enough?
what if you had the confirmed information that would enable humans an unlimited lifetime.
would you:
1. destroy it
2. keep it for yourself.
3. release it to the world.

so, how petty are you?

 

And who would those people be?

Because it could be construed as a personal insult of a sexual nature, I suppose. Though it was in the form of a question, it had certain implications of a sexual nature.
That would depend on who you ask.

A little bird told me that there was an issue about my avatar is all.
And I inquired of an administrator.
That's about it.

Feel free to expound, if you choose, in this thread.

 

Uhhhhhhhhhh....... DUDE! What has that got to do with this conversation?
There's off-topic. And then there's WAAAY off-topic.

 

Too bad you can't give us anything useful to work with

Well, unfortunately, anyone falling into that category might be protected by the confidentiality of the back room.

Pretend I'm asking you, since I already did.

Interesting.

Well, either you or someone else is being exploited as a tool of some ultimately silly scheme to ... um ... er ... well, I'm not sure what it's intended to accomplish.

The way I see it, your avatar and motto have a functional purpose; as a walking violation of the most famous corollary of Godwin's Law, you pretty much forfeit at the outset any debate regarding American politics you might choose to engage in.

 

Your avatar is beautiful.

Keep it around awhile.

 

you stated you weren't "petty enough" to be a censor.
i posed a question that would allow you to see just how "petty" censorship can be.

 

I was referring to your comment about myself. That my "Sexual assault" comment wasn't all that serious. Are we talking about the same thing?

Eh? What's the problem?

Right. Sure. Affirmative. A-OK good buddy.

I don't recognize anything called Godwin's Law. Pretending that it's akin to some universal force is bogus.

 

I suppose.

I don't think that situation would be petty.

Is this a real life scenario?
Some have alleged such things.