Offensive Avatars

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

  1. KilljoyKlown Whatever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,493
    @chimpkin

    Love your new avatar. I get the urge to go to the bathroom and sit every time I see it.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    SAM are you aware that there is a potty mouth fetish. Anyway a long time ago I saw some Internet pictures by those involved in that fetish and as you might imagine gross doesn't really begin to describe it.
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,170
    This whole issue is absolutely ridiculous. Short of breaking forum rules, e.g. pornography, child molestation, etc. no avatar should be considered offensive enough to cause censure.

    At worst, they are in poor taste, at best a political or social statement / protest. Isn't this what it's all about? Why else are we even here? Everyone needs to chill out...

    (Recommended protocol: Take two valium and call me in the morning

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    )
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,599
    Wee Who See the Deep

    There would have to be more to it than just the avatar.

    Well, that doesn't help, because the fact that a few people have suddenly decided to decide that the black man doesn't get to be the same as the white man—really, what politician doesn't have an outsize ego?—isn't something people should have to pretend to not notice because some racists are overly sensitive to being identified as racists.

    Well, when you're deliberately trying to goad people, what do you expect?

    "That's their problem!" does not fly around here. It is certainly something to consider, but society just doesn't work that way. Just because we can't virtually kill one another in a duel doesn't mean the disputes don't cause problems.

    A bit provocative a description. I mean, there is a policy in effect in a couple of our subfora that literally says one should not offend the emotional frailty of a racist by suggesting he is a racist. Now, sure, that might make for a good line, right? But it doesn't help resolve the issue of contention. In fact, all it really does is remind my colleague just how goddamn stupid he's being. And that's not going to help, either.

    So it really comes down to why one makes the point. Are we hoping to solve a problem, or are we simply jabbing at people?

    Additionally, we risk creating a sense of disparity. Why should you be allowed to display a picture that is simply intended to goad people's "emotional frailty", while they are prohibited from expressing what they honestly think of that maneuver—prohibited in deference to your own "emotional frailty"?

    In the end, it's more about what is fair.

    But even that invites its own questions. Fair? In what context? There are assertions of fair that simply say, "Might is right, and the moment is now." As such, it wouldn't matter if you inherited your advantage, or if you're a well-armed super-soldier enjoying the benefits of your advantage by cutting through the maternity ward with a flame-thrower. Fair? What business is it of yours that the babies are defenseless?

    And, sure, within the boundaries of demonstrative anarchy, yes, that would be fair.

    But that's not what societies are. Not even virtual communities.

    I'm a long subscriber to the "Intelligent Community". It's an old concept that you might have seen in the first days after your registration. The motto disappeared from the site within a year or two.

    It's not that people can't be emotional. It's not that they can't have their say. But this was supposed to be about people having those things according to a pretense of intelligence. Take, for example, the recent bit with Rep. Michele Bachmann. When ABC's George Stephanopolous put the certificate of live birth in front of her, pointed out what makes it legally binding, the former Minnesota Birther-in-Chief acknowledged that such a document would settle the issue, if only someone would introduce it.

    In other words, if only someone had introduced the document that was introduced over two years ago, she would have been satisfied.

    Now, I know it's not "polite" to call someone stupid or dishonest, but ... really? If one of our members brought that argument here, that if only it didn't take until 2011 to offer up what was offered to the record only two years ago, what deference do you think we owe that member's emotional frailty? Would it be rude to wonder aloud what business that person has asserting any sort of opinion on a matter they are so blatantly ignorant about? When someone objects to the suggestion of ignorance—after all, it's not polite, and since it's, say, a liberal calling a conservative ignorant, there's only one reason for that—is it appropriate to point out the only other alternative is that the argument is a ham-handed attempt to deceive people?

    At what point, then, would the people who are supposed to accept that argument be overly sensitive and emotionally frail if they are offended by the idea that they're supposed to be so stupid as to not see what is flamingly, obviously wrong with it?

    And you can literally spin down the rabbit hole doing that.

    At some point, we have to draw a line. And if that line is that we should be fair in the context of a pretense of intelligence, yeah, sometime it's going to seem unfair to the implication of demonstrative anarchy. Being the biggest brute on the block is not a guaranteed human right here.

    Some. Then again, you might also be overstating the idea that people are offended by the Hitlerizing of Obama in and of itself as they might simply be sick and tired of putting up with the same old stupid statement intended to piss people off that isn't even worth being creative about. Really, you're trying to goad people with a cliché. At some point, they're just going to say, "Oh, for fuck's sake, really? What the fuck is your problem?"

    Some people have more complex views of the circumstances than that.

    Few things are more obnoxious than a joke that's been beaten into the ground.

    The psychology of that proposition is demented.

    The lightest way I can express it is that it reflects the attitudes of many of the complaints we receive in which the end value is that the object of complaint simply succeeded in being more offensive than someone else. Not every ice chip in the snowballs is deliberate. Not every rock in the mud clot is attempted murder.

    As long as it's about individual might, and not the fact that this is, in the first place, a community, we're going to continue to bump up against the issue.

    It's a community. People are expected to behave according to at least a bare outline of civility. Even if everyone agreed to abide by a bare outline of civility, they would still disagree about what it means; regulation is inevitable in any communal function. We continue to lower our standards in this community, and it's never enough. But that constant lowering of the bar is also why these issues arise in the first place.

    Seriously, we have no obligation, in the context of an "Intelligent Community" to entertain birthers, racists, or fanatics of any stripe. But we've seen so many interpretive disputes about what constitutes that bare outline of civility, or any other standard we might invoke, that we keep letting the discussion sink into the mire.

    In the Intelligent Community, Giambattista, you would be allowed to have your avatar without there really being any question. To the other, people would be allowed to laugh and tell you to go fuck yourself. And if you complained about those insults, we would tell you to lump it, because you're smart enough to understand the implications of your juvenile behavior. While there would always be extenuating—especially preexisting—circumstances to consider, you would generally be identified as the epicenter of that particular tremor. In the Intelligent Community, we wouldn't just punish the "fuck yous", we would figure out whether the appearance of incivility was in any relevant and significant way warranted, and deal with that.

    For various reasons, though, we pitched any pretense of intelligence out the window a few years ago. I'm not sure if it was a bizarre numbers game, or what, but in the last few years, the difference between whether something is banworthy bigotry against Americans has often been a question of whether or not an American says it. At least, that's as much as I could figure of the standard applied by one of my international colleagues. And, yes, like "emotional frailty", that is a provocative description° of the problem.

    There is a question of whether accurate criticism is too insulting to be permitted°. Frequent questions of who should be held responsible for illiteracy°.

    But neither is it all the fault of the staff. We've bubblegummed and rubber-banded and scotch-taped the system in order to account for all manner of circumstantial objections, appeals, and special requests. For instance, though it pains me to recall, as I'm done rubbing one of my colleagues' noses in it, we once had a back room question about friendship between moderators and members, and whether that had an undue effect on duty. It was a sometimes intricate discussion, and sometimes it was a spittle-spraying, purple-faced brawl. But all the public saw of it was certain people getting away with murder.

    Of course, getting away with murder is all about perceptions, too. We've never successfully resolved the variances in our perceptions of severity and, in truth, the membership has been exactly no help in this.

    The Intelligent Community, apparently, is a form of tyranny. Of course, I get it. I see where that comes from. Yet even those seem to have limits, and will appeal to us for intervention. Okay, yes, I get it. I see where that comes from, as well. But, in the end, we might phrase it provocatively by saying that all anybody ever wants is their own idyllic tyranny.

    Because we all have limits, right? And there will always be someone out there willing to denounce this or that boundary as tyrannical, or cowardly, or bigoted, or conspiratorial, or fascist, or otherwise worthy of one of those dumb-assed moustaches.

    Few actually want demonstrative anarchy. Not even the capitalists who appeal to the "free market" variation, or the libertarians who would rather enforce the law with their own Smith & Wessons. Everybody, even if pathologically insane, has a limit. Everybody has their tyrannical boundary.

    Or not. It's a matter of how reasonably we define tyranny. What is extremity? What is moral and wise? Well, these, then, are not tyranny. Isn't that how it goes? I mean, whether here at Sciforums, or in cosmopolitan America, or in "real" America°, or anywhere around the world, that's kind of how it seems to go°.

    It's enough to ask everyone else to live according to one's view of the community; it is too much, though, to compromise on that point. Nobody gets their idyll in the Intelligent Community. That is its greatest tyranny.

    Lucky for all of us, perhaps, that it isn't in effect°.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    ° provocative description — cf. The Simpsons, "Last Tap In Springfield" (#BABF15):

    Vicki: Self-tapping shoes? I'm ever so pissed!

    Lisa: I'm sorry, Vicki. I just wanted to be a dancer so badly.

    Vicki: (sighs) I understand. We all do crazy things when we're desperate. I once destroyed Buddy Ebsen's credit rating.

    Lisa: Why?

    Vicki: He knows why.​

    ° accurate criticism is too insulting to be permitted — Yes, provocative; see note above.

    ° who should be held responsible for illiteracy — I think it's obvious what goes here.

    ° "real" America — Some would suggest that my deliberate delivery and timing of this expression is intended to be provocative, and inappropriately so.

    ° kind of how it seems to go — Of course, this is even subject to interpretation. We all assert logic. To wit, given thirty years' consideration of First Amendment consideration in terms of art, generally, on the one hand, and religion, generally, on the other; and after twenty years of attending civil rights questions pertaining to homo- and hetero-sexuality—questions, I might remind, put to me by Christians—I would assert that it is illogical to say that I am a tyrant because I will not censor a library book to meet a specifically religious standard. Yet some would assert that in refusing to allow that person to use his religion as a device to suspend someone else's First Amendment rights, I was being tyrannical, and even persecutory against the religion. So, no, the Christian doesn't get to kick Madeleine L'Engle, or Robert McCammon out of the library because something about their books offends his Christianity. That's my form of tyranny. I won't allow that same Christian to own the legal institution of marriage under civil law. That's my form of persecution. Some would express it differently. But we all have our boundaries. And we all assert our logic. And, yeah, sure, once in a while that logic even makes sense. Whether or not that difference is of any importance is still left each to his own.

    ° it isn't in effect — Something about being provocative goes here. And here's the fun part: Toward whom? Because I stopped talking about you ... well, a while ago. Stopped talking about you, and instead to you. I don't know; there's one line in there I can pick out—and it isn't even the bit about demented psychology. It doesn't really matter if there's anyone in the crosshairs of that line. Nor is there any riddle. It was all about you, always. No, it wasn't. Yes, it was. No, it wasn't. (Really, it wasn't. Stop being so paranoid.)
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    good post

    /pondering away
     
  8. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,878
    Hold on a minute. Doesn't get to be the same? You mean criticized for doing the same thing as "the white man"? I don't quite understand. Does skin color mean being treated equally, or that someone gets a pass?

    Just for the record: are you calling me a racist?

    Be honest. You like to parade that around.


    Where free speech is concerned, it kinda is their problem. I don't have any issue whatsoever with words, but when it comes down to using forcible censorship to get rid of unsightly or undesirable opponents rather than use reasonable arguments against.. I tend to have a problem with that.


    I can guess which colleague you refer to, since you've mentioned that issue before.
    But I confess, I don't really know which of the subfora that racism is an untouchable subject. I can readily guess Politics. That's easy. Are there others?
    And is it really untouchable? I've already seen plenty of racism accusations regarding political controversies. It's uttered very very easily as a weapon of preemptive attack, it seems. Is that wrong? Not really. Is it truthful? Probably not, at least not in all cases. I can't speak for everyone here, though.

    Sometimes both. Or neither. You can't please everyone. Sometimes, no matter what one says, someone will get irate and jump to conclusions about the other's agenda or how they feel, in this particular case, about race and racial divides.

    I don't think I ever said anything about prohibiting someone from saying what they think about an avatar. Did I? I'm sure you can go find something that passes for that argument, but I'd like to be clear, discussion and argument are fine with me. It's the implication that a picture that a few people find offensive, instead of being argued against rationally, would simply be expunged and censored in order to spare someone's feelings.

    I have the same feeling about people who think the solution to an argument is to physically punch someone into unconsciousness. Usually, either outright censorship or violence, both are the same in effect: you don't feel you can argue, so you seek to prevent your opponent from expressing their idea by force.

    Do you support that kind of tactic? I don't think you do. I hope you don't. It certainly isn't very becoming of anyone.



    I don't think I could ever equate an avatar that's offensive to a few people as a super-soldier and a flamethrower in a maternity ward.
    Bad analogy, monsieur. Really overreaching, for sure.

    "Might is right, and the moment is now."

    Isn't that the shout of the crusading moderator in pursuit of justice in the name of political correctness?
    No?
    Have I really been wrong all these years? Apparently so.




    Yes. I remember the motto. A little egotistical, given the prevailing sense of unquestionable expertise in various disciplines exhibited throughout the forum.

    But the name of the forum stands as testament to its stated goal.


    Michele Bachmann barely registers on my radar. She's probably pretty convenient for a few people. I don't find her very helpful.


    Has someone come here making that exact argument?
    Then argue against it, or for it, or whatever you feel is necessary. :shrug:


    Who is the biggest brute on the block? It seems that the biggest brute on the block would be the moderator "council" and what they deem to be acceptable argument, and what they deem frivolous.

    For example, how could I, GB, be a big brutish tyrant? I have no power to ban or to abstain from banning myself. All I have is argument and persuasion through idea and word.

    Maybe you were referring to yourself?

    It worked for the last president, why should the current one be any different? I thought it was wrong to treat the "black man" as being different from the "white man". You seemed to be arguing that very point at the beginning of this thread.

    I wonder why the "Constitutional conservatives" have been so quiet about Libya.

    They love it.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    No, it's not. Impeding or erasing speech is not a light matter.


    Okay. Let's have a little honesty. How many people complained about my avatar? I would consider Tiassa to be one of them, but I'm not sure.
    Was there another person? pjdude perhaps? no?

    How many people actually complained? Let's get that certified, reasonably.

    Judging James R's reply to me, it was seriously considered. Then again, maybe he was just enjoying himself. Perhaps he found it entertaining to make it look bigger than it was.

    But for the record, I will post the response...

    Posted as official SF business.
    Just may find myself banned again.
    So. James R enjoying himself by inflating the issue, which is what I think it is, or is he serious. Doesn't matter.


    Either way, anyone who wants to call this just a simple example of a "racist birther" not getting his way and having to cope with mere verbal complaints against his avatar, and that he is just being mad about a few "frail emotions" uh, yeah. No. Not it. Wrong on multiple fronts.

    God bless it.

    It is. I see. Accusing someone without having anything to prove it is a lowering of standards. Totally agree.
    You engage in that all the time.


    birthers, racists, or fanatics
    Labels applied and defined by ONE person. That's fine if you don't want to entertain them. Just be consistent and fair when you are asked to define those insulting terms.

    Oh. DOODEE DOODEE, I addressed in person!

    People haven't done that already. You're right. That isn't the embodiment of this entire thread. No one has ever said anything like that. You're breaking new ground.

    Juvenile behavior is truly in the eye of the beholder. Sir. So fuck off.

    blah blah blah

    illiteracy. that's funny.

    stuff your own face.
     
  9. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,878
    he's really dreamy isn't he? such a fuckin scholar.

    uh yeah.

    puke

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    eace:

    Note to self:
    Let's try to be a little more civil. I know you got a little drunk, and insulted, but try not to go overboard.

    Thank you!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2011
  10. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    You just proved his point Giam
    Think about it, some.

    One man's taboo is another man's freedom of expression. If you're going to be fair, which one gets a pass? The one who says nigger or the one who says nazi? That is the difference between intelligence and political correctness. In PC even racists have rights.
     
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2011
  11. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    batistta is an ok guy
    a few self confidence issues perhaps
    overly sensitive?
    definitely

    i see no real need for tiassa to respond
     
  12. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,878
    Tried. Doesn't work. I can't see how I proved his point. But I will accept the fact that I did somehow, and missed it!
    He mutters things about racism under his breath quite a lot when you know who is involved. So do others. I think it's kinda cheap. Then again, I could be totally misinterpreting Tiassa. That's a possibility.
    That's why asked for a clarification.


    Umm... thank you. You are boosting my self-confidence! :m:
    No. Wait a minute. Just "ok"? Shit. What did I do now?!?!?
    DAMMIT! I'm such a f*** up!

    You are free to flesh this out, if you so choose. What specifically do you mean by this?

    Don't most people have issues on Sciforums, confidence et al? The forum is a harsh place. I think someone who doesn't question their own position from time to time.... is not human. Probably unwise. It is good to keep a small seed of doubt on hand, if for no other reason than to spur one on to further improvement. Or from completely shredding your own credibility.

    As are others. And people who might take issue with avatars or other things. There's plenty of that to go around.

    Well. Well.
    I do. There are a few items.
    He can be upfront about it and just call me a racist to my face. It wouldn't be very accurate, but it would at least settle that issue once and for all.


    I tried to be nice, and I guess I was, until the end of that message.
    It was a long post, and a harsh taskmaster. I was juggling several "intellectual" activities while responding, as well as imbibing intoxicant... = getting rude at the end.

    TRIED not to do it. But being soused, I was compelled.
    It would help if Tiassa didn't always have to resort to some of the tactics and veiled insults in his smug little way.

    But that's life.

    We take our chances with the Ferengi.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Hi there!
     
  13. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,878
    Deserves a little more than I just gave it.

    For me the issue isn't whether people get angry with something I say, with any ideology I get caught spewing, or avatars I put on my self.

    I recall someone referring to me as "whining" or something. That was in another thread.

    I can take verbal disagreements and bickering. That's the game we play.

    If I'm whining, it's about the idea that a handful of people could be responsible for censoring me for a political statement that only the deluded could conclude is racist.

    Let's look again at that PM from the Sciforums Head Honcho


    Originally Posted by James R
    It's offensive, and coupled with your user title, also racist.

    I'm not going to ask you to change it. If you want to look like a bit of a racist birther, that's your business as far as I'm concerned. Other administrators may decide differently. You may just find yourself banned again.

    Your risk. Your choice. Good luck.


    I can look back fondly on it, but at the time, was I in the wrong to take such a message seriously?

    You may just find yourself banned again.

    A statement like that leaves little to the imagination, no?
    I was under the impression for a short time that if I kept my Obama with Hitler moustache, I might actually be banned twice in a one week period.
    All because a few people around here don't like their political Jesus being made fun of.

    Naturally, I didn't take the avatar off. A second ban, although now the threat seems childish and unrealistic, would have been delightful! I mean, it would have looked incredibly stupid, a blight on the wisdom of the mods.

    Alas, we had no such luck!

    It is THAT sentiment, what is embodied in You may just find yourself banned again.
    which I find strongly to my dislike.

    Not acceptable. Freedom of speech is a sine qua non in my world. Without it, most other freedoms lose their potency.

    It's principle to me. I don't like someone saying I will be heavily reprimanded for a stupid avatar.


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    They DO!?!?

    Are you sure? :bugeye:

    Then, what about pseudo-racists, like myself.
     
  14. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    And the deluded could also use it to make their own racist arguments, disregarding that liberals have special dispensations which make them unaccountable for fagotty nigger nazis?

    In that case consider this:

    And especially this:

    Its kinda like being stuck between a rock and a hard place. I think.

    But we ca wait on Tiassa to expand, if he wants

    P.S. Emir/Emira [amirah]
     
  15. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Too many words. Heh. I will say this much though - my avatarm and my snotwuh are both political statements. Do I expect to be banned for them anytime soon? Hell no.
     
  16. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    Ha its easy to make political statements that are as contentious as angora bunnies with pink and purple sparklies. But should Giam be allowed to use gay[ghey] terms while anyone else would be indicted [and banned] for homophobia or hate speech? Its my experience that since most people will not read anything before or after the post [and indeed, our forum homosexual has been banned for homophobia] so its unfair to expect special dispensation on the basis that humour and sarcasm filter through internet postings and distinguish themselves from bigotry and racism to the discerning EYE. Especially considering that reading and comprehending posts is not considered a requirement for responding to or acting on reports.
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2011
  17. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Why should a political statement have to be contentious?

    Blacking out the internet was started by a group of artists in response to internet censorship laws.

    My personal opinion? No.

    I don't believe that George Takei calling someone a faggot as a derogatory term is any less offensive than me calling them a faggot. While I understand about reclaiming the language, in most regards, that's a mine field of shades of gray I'm not particularly inclined to get into, besides which, I don't think that ths is an example of such - it comes down to context.

    Who complained him, and who banned him though?

    But then again, to some extent that's the risk you take trying to use sarcasm in the written medium, it doesn't always translate very well into written language, having said that, yes, it is often blindingly obvious through context, but, I think, for the time being I'm going to maintain my own counsel on the habits of other moderators when it comes to threads that have been festering for extended periods of time.

    Heh - don't get me started on that.
     
  18. chimpkin C'mon, get happy! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,416
    Heh- maybe we should designate a forum color for sarcasm.

    Red, green, blue, sarcastic....

    I don't read that Giam meant those comments to be sarcastic...I wasn't sure how I felt about him alleging gayness in the Republican leadership...which is vaguely possible-there's no public homophobe like a closet case.

    The saying in the American gay community: "The one who screams "Faggot!" the loudest usually is one."

    I like to pick on Texas. I live here. Texas actually has some really phenomenally cool people. But there's a huge amount of people who are just mind-blowingly stupid here, too.

    I think America's like that all over...it's just that in Texas, the surreality and low-budget trailer-park style dramatics seems to be amped a little higher. Oh, and the political corruption.

    So I make fun of Texas and America because I love this state and country... and it makes me want to rip my hair out very regularly.

    Nothing can annoy you like the ones you love can.
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2011
  19. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Not really - there's a number of ways of making it explicitly clear you're being sarcastic. For example - I've been known to use <sarcasm>"Sarcastic comment"</sarcasm>

    Tim Minchin, Prejudice
     
  20. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822

    Well a lot of forum interaction is based on history. I've known Giam since many years so I would obviously immediately see his ghey remarks for what they are. Just as I would appreciate his putting Obama on the same pedestal as Bush for his disappointment with his policies. I bet Giam voted for Obama too.
     
  21. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,599
    A longer consideration

    I'll give the matter some attention later tonight. I've been on an unexpected vacation for the last day and a half.

    My first question, though, pertains to perception and reading comprehension: What am I supposed to tell people?

    For instance, how many times do I challenge a person's treatment of my words before they take the message personally? To wit, I'm going to be asking Giambattista later if he actually knows how to read. Or, perhaps, in consideration of his emotional frailty, I'll find another way to express it.

    Another question that comes to mind is why people are so fixated on themselves that Sciforums becomes an egotistical battleground in which the issues only exist as a pretense for people to beat one another over the head with. Combined with the prior issue, one might suggest that there is no point in answering another's questions, since those questions aren't actually intended to resolve any question, proposition, conflict, or issue. I mean, apparently, one cannot play with the abstract idea of provocation without seeking to specifically and unnecessarily provoke someone. In this case, Giambattista.

    Any substantial address of the points folks have raised will have to wait until later. Airport run in a couple hours; hockey game after that; all sorts of stuff. I'll try to pick up the details when I get back home.
     
  22. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,878
    No one knows. However, let's remember, the main issue is not neccessarily that, but James saying I could possibly get banned again for my avatar, which sounded a little outrageous, hence this thread. I wanted to know the process that would lead to someone being banned for a political avatar.

    The "faggot" issue kind of get mixed in and confused, but it's legitimate. Just saying, let's not forgot about what qualifies an avatar to be so offensive as to warrant forcible removal, or even banning.

    It was the ban suggestion that really got my attention. I didn't see any logic behind it. Perhaps James spoke too soon, and didn't realize what the ramifications of that were? That's going a little far over Obama Hitler!
     
  23. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,878
    Multiple avenues lead to me using so-called homophobic slurs when it happens. Republicans and conservative Christians have a habit of harboring secrets. When one has a problem with a particular politician, that only makes it inevitable that one would take advantage of rumors (Sen. Graham) and call them something.

    Sometimes I make fun of people for being the stereotypical "gay community member" or activist, if I don't like their lifestyle or politics or personality.

    I really have no problem using minority slurs, depending on the crowd I'm with. Before you get all shocked and indignant, it depends on the context. Of course, one shouldn't take it to mean that I'm a bigot or racist, or that I identify every person with a minority trait to be one and the same. I'm not stupid. I can separate those things.

    I call white people "niggers" sometimes.

    I can call anyone "faggot". That word in particular is strange in the context of homophobia, because it is used so often just as an insult in general, even between friends and acquaintances. My experience anyway.
    The thought that it is just a derogatory reference to dehumanize someone because of sexual preference is, at least to me, inaccurate. Words change over time.

    I like crude, racist, sexist, potty humor when I'm in the mood. The language to me isn't really offensive, it's the meaning behind it.
    In truth, it isn't the word that makes one a bigot; it's your intent. You don't have to use any slurs at all to be a bigot. Your ideology is what counts.

    So that's that.
    I'm sure I will somehow manage to cause more offense with all of that jazz!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Thank you for appreciating my stunt. Okay, stunt makes it sound like less than sincere. Sometimes you can accomplish more than one goal with a single action.
    Yes. I am pretty hard on politicians. I like to keep my principles grounded. Few things make me angrier than government corruption, and two-faced players.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    oke:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Hmmm... what gave you that idea?
    I think a past perusal of my 07-08 postings would probably lay bare who I was supporting. Not Obama.

    I would have taken several candidates. None of them would really have a chance.

    Several things about Obama left me uneasy.
    • Relatively short political career.
    • Some vague, New Agey political slogans that had everyone entranced.
    • Nearly instant media stardom. Media engages in kingmaking. Same with Palin. Gained superfame almost overnight. That always makes me wary.
    • Some of his connections, advisers, etc. Probable Bilderberg approval. Not good if you want my respect!

    I'm hard to please. I almost think the Presidency is a lost cause. Perhaps the Congress as well. Few of them impress me. It's disheartening to have to be so pessimistic and cynical, but that's how it goes.
     

Share This Page