Offensive Avatars

Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by Giambattista, Apr 5, 2011.

  1. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Here's my Quandry.
    25 hours after you complained in the thread about S.A.M's avatar, we have Enmos making this comment:
    http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1795700&postcount=190
    Two minutes later with have Shorty 37 making this comment:
    http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1795703&postcount=192
    Which suggests that at this stage S.A.M hasn't changed her Avatar.

    Then we have this comment from Enmos:
    http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1795705&postcount=193
    From which the only reasonable thing I, personally, can infer is that he's listing alternatives to whatever S.A.M. has her avatar at this point which suggests to me anyway that Enmos is querying what in addition, or as an alternative to whatever it is that S.A.M. has as her avatar, which, in turn suggests to me that the Swastika isn't visible in S.A.M's avatar. In other words, it comes accross as (to me at any rate) a side discussion about what other avatar's might or might not be acceptable, and just how far one might be able to take freedom of speech before one got the proverbial rap over the knuckles.

    And no, I don't believe that a Bobblehead would genuinely upset you, however, given the tone of the thread at that point, and the tone of some of the other posts you made at around that time, and others (for example, (Q)) made at around the same time, I, likewise, do not believe that you had to be genuinely upset at the time to make the comment that you did - especially when one considers some of the frankly sociopathic stalking behaviour that some of the atheists on this forum display when dealing with anybody who dears to exercise their right to religous freedom (some of which, I have had the misfortune of moderating).

    My position seems to be strengthened by the fact that in the intervening pages, I can not find one single comment that indicates that S.A.M changed her Avatar between the side-discussion about the swastika, and the comments about bobbleheads. Moreover, there are comments that come after the discussion that suggest that S.A.M's avatar may not been changed at this point. For example, this one from Enmos:
    http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1796600&postcount=280
    Suggests (to me at least) that she still has the same avatar up that Enmos asked her to take down.

    Also, based on what I have observed of S.A.M, I do not believe that she would not take it down so quickly - especially if she had a point to make, I believe the more likely scenario would be that she would procrastinate about taking the avatar down, going as far as engaging James in an extended PM debate, perhaps expressing her exasperation in the Mod forum (which I can find no evidence of), and then logging off for 12 hours and changing it when she logged back on. I do not believe that the time between your complaint in the thread, and the discussion of bobbleheads is sufficient for this to have occured.
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Correct - for example, when Bells stepped down recently, she changed her avatar back to (presumably) what it was, and has since becoming a mod, changed it away from that (again).

    Lateral thinking, it's a gift, and it's a curse. Some times I overlook the obvious in favour of the obscure, but I have since learned to reign that in, of neccessity (if it helps, I started from Phlogisticians comments in this thread, and searched the post histories of the beligerints in this conversation).

    However, my gift for lateral thinking, as useful as it might be in the work place has seen me in no end of strife on this forum as I point out aspects of peoples arguments they for the first had not considered, and for the second are incapable of considering as a logical consequence of their statements. Often I lack the time or the patience to try and step them through the logic to arrive at the same conclusion, and they lack the capacity to consider a point of view they have convinced themselves as being wrong.

    As often though, I will admit, my petty vindictive streak enjoys watching people flail like fish on a line as they struggle to comprehend what I'm actually saying (as opposed to what they think I mean).
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Trippy, for what it's worth, at the time of those posts of me you quoted, SAM had the bobblehead as an avatar.
    However, Phlog claimed that SAM had the other one right before the bobblehead. I can vaguely remember that she did switch from a worse-than-the-bobblehead-avatar to the bobblehead one but I can't remember what it depicted.
    But in all honesty, my memory on this point could be deceiving me. It could be that this vague memory stems from another point in time.

    Also, SAM was a moderator at that time.
    And she did take it down under pressure.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Odd. This standard of yours seems to come up a lot; disagree, end up under a damnable definition. I presume this came about from the Obama-toothbrush moustache avatar?

    Yes.
     
  8. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575

    lets give phlog some closure
    describe or post the pic if possible
     
  9. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,318
    Reading the thread is always a good start

    Geoff says so, and that's that.

    See? It's a lot easier, isn't it?

    I mean, even though your insensate expression of an issue is absolutely irrelevant to the situation at hand, and thus constitutes more random, stupid belligerence on your part, it's a lot easier to just shrug and acknowledge that, hey, Geoff says so, and that's that.

    After all, there is no alternate configuration. Right?

    Sure, but you don't actually have to presume. Rather, you could read the thread. You know. Just maybe?

    "I was told by James R in PM that I could keep the avatar if I wished to look like a "racist birther" but that it may at some point be removed."

    (Giambattista, #165)
     
  10. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    ...and petulance a bad end.

    Aw: that's kind of you to say. Thanks, Tiassa.

    God, if only any of that stood up to the facts, right? I mean: if only it was so. If only - let's imagine for a second here - every time I didn't bring up an issue with you it didn't descend immediately into baiting, whining and - kind of unbelievably - this new line of complaint that I won't let you just label me so you can dismiss the discussion. Imagine such a world. It's hard, though, isn't it?

    What's the matter now? Jesus: it takes two to tango, but anyone can assert. Right?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Gee: ask a question, get a frothing. Less on the face and more in the latte if you don't mind: I don't follow the minutiae of everyone's discussions as a rule. I suppose I disagree with James here, then. I don't know - or much care - whether Gia is a birther or not. I expect you think that he is, and that he's a racist/etc, but the problem is that it's hard to believe you given your history. I see it a lot for all kinds of discussions you get into, and I know that in at least one case it's a farce.

    I'll let you have your field now. Happy tilling.
     
  11. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Which is precisely what I stated, and was asserting, but building from that and making the point that in the intervening 25 hours there is no evidence in that thread (or any other that I have found) that she had changed it - IE I'm making the point that the available evidence suggests the Phlog was objecting to the bobblehead avatar.

    Which is the claim that I was specifically addressing - based on the information that I have been able to find, without relying on what any individual now has to say on the matter, this seems increasingly unlikely to me.

    I work in law enforcement (albeit enviornmental law enforcement). Two or three of my colleagues are former police officers, one of the cases I have recently been peripherally involved in was one that has been ongoing for four years. I would go as far as suggesting that I am intimately familiar with the vagaries of relying on eyewitness memory over time.

    Moreover, very recently, there has been a case involving a police officer killing someone in a MVA. The cop, as it happens, unintentionally purjored himself. He was convinced he was telling the truth, however, as it turns out, his recollection was wrong - it turns out that the events he recalled were, in essence, the events how he wanted them to happen, or wished they had happened - with culpability for the accident resting on the other driver, rather than him, when it was actually the police officer that had caused the accident. It wasn't about deliberate deception, but self preservation. A consequence of this is that when you're interviewing an alleged offender about an incident, the first things they say to you, the first version they give you, will be the most accurate. Subsequent revisions will be varied to cast the alleged offender in an increasingly innocent light. It's not neccessarily about deliberate deception, and nor should anyone assume I'm accusing Phlogistician of deliberate deception. I'm not, and to assume I am is to completely misrepresent what I have said.

    The worst I'm accusing Phlog of is being human. Memory is, by it's nature, revisionist.

    I'm aware of that, hence some of the comments that I've made - like pointing out the tone of the thread that Phlog was involved in at the time, for example.

    I didn't suggest otherwise, did I?
     
  12. chimpkin C'mon, get happy! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,416
    ok...I think I shall look for an avatar that will offend everybody equally...
    edited:
    found...
    Yep, that's just a gross toenail!
     
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2011
  13. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,824
    I am willing to admit that I might have done that - if then, it would really be out of character for me to take phlog's feelings into consideration!

    But yeah, its possible and if it was a short enough time i.e. if I took it down immediately after putting it up - I might not have saved it to my avatar folder [sometimes I do this after the fact]

    But I honestly cannot recall doing this - I may not have paid too much attention.

    So, it is possible phlog is right and I have simply erased that memory in favour of later more exciting moments.

    Plus the whole unreliability of eyewitness testimony. Yeah, and extending benefit of the doubt. If phlog remembers it and it strikes a memory in Enmos - it could be true. I don't remember it.

    Personally speaking, I don't know why one depiction of Hitler is "more" offensive than another. But I've been told its all in the eye of the beholder

    I already posted it and when it was removed from the imageshack server following some complaint, I reposted it on the sciforums server

    Once more:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2011
  14. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    bah
    there you go, phlog
    a tentative vindication

    bummer

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    so ahh
    no one objects to hitler bobbleheads or whatever that crap is?
    i'll make it mine

    my very first avatar!

    /eek
     
  16. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,824
    Well the way I see it, its obviously very important to him and its not at all important to me :shrug:

    Plus astonishing as the notion may seem, I am not infallible.

    Actually, this is the one I took down under duress. I posted it in response to Q's moans and bitches on my poor moderation [and intellectual dishonesty of course] i.e. Nazi mod with the "freedom" to post her opinions. But the entire debate shifted over to the avatar itself. Some days, you just can't win [and we all know how that debate concluded, in any case Caesar's wife et al]
     
  17. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    my avatar element is disabled so......
    how do i look?
    is it there?

    /excited
     
  18. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    for fuck sake sam
    is it there?
     
  19. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,824
    Yeah it is there and it looks what its meant to, frivolous.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    vat!
    you shticken ze tonguen outen aten me?
     
  21. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,824
    You bet

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Damn you get the feeling that we engage a lot in belabouring the point these days?
     
  22. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    you manage to stay focused more than most so....... who really gives a shit
     
  23. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,824
    Yeah well, I'm a great believer in recording.

    Which reminds me, even though it didn't start that way, this thread now qualifies for Threads about S.A.M.
     

Share This Page