Offensive Avatars

[Trippy]

No, it was changed to the bobblehead after I complained. It may have been changed quickly, but that doesn't change the fact that it was not the bobblehead I was complaining about originally.

I recall have an PM from JamesR saying SAM had now changed her avatar, and that I replied along the lines that parodying it wasn't exactly 'fluffy and nice' or somesuch.

Check out some of the discussion about the avatar in question, there is discussion of the 'Swastika' which is clearly present on the picture I think she cropped, but not on the bobblehead she alleges she used solely.

Also, do you really think that I'd have kicked off about a bobblehead? Seriously mate, have a long hard think about that. While I don't think a bobblehead is funny, it's not in the same league as using an actual photograph.

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

S.A.M., I personally don't give a damn, but could you remove that avatar.. ? It might offend people.

Two minutes later with have Shorty 37 making this comment:
http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1795703&postcount=192

Someone asked her yesterday to remove it and said that he was offended for personal family reasons. She just doesn't give a shit.

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

Well.. if it's going to be like that what's stopping me from using porn in my avatar or the swastika.. ?
But I have a sneaking suspicion it won't be tolerated when I do it.

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

I have no personal complaints about SAM's moderation.
I have a problem with her childish response to my request to remove that avatar.

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.

 

[Trippy]

I believe in Bells' and Asguard's cases, it had to do with moderator status. Indeed, Plazma himself has changed his avatar in response to objections.

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).

And I have to thank you, Trippy. I know it sounds stupid, but in exploring this issue, I don't think I ever once thought to search the term bobblehead.

I mean ... phuck!

Thank you for remembering the obvious, which this time proved elusive to me.

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).

 

[Enmos]

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.

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.

 

[GeoffP]

And then a colleague raises the avatar issue, which essentially had everyone scratching their heads. Some of my fellows felt your intention with the avatar was a deliberate attempt to troll, goad, and inflame. The it's-your-right-to-make-yourself-look-like-a-racist-idiot counterpoint, however, is longstanding and the nearest thing to a practical standard we have on the subject.

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?

People's sense of self-importance is one of the major distractions around here.

Yes.

 

[Gustav]

I've only used a Hitler avatar the once when I argued over it with Enmos

What difference does it make which picture of Hitler it is?

lets give phlog some closure
describe or post the pic if possible

 

[Tiassa]

Reading the thread is always a good start

This standard of yours seems to come up a lot; disagree, end up under a damnable definition.

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?

I presume this came about from the Obama-toothbrush moustache avatar?

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)​

 

[GeoffP]

...and petulance a bad end.

Geoff says so, and that's that.

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

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

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.

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?

After all, there is no alternate configuration. Right?

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

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

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.

 

[Trippy]

Trippy, for what it's worth, at the time of those posts of me you quoted, SAM had the bobblehead as an avatar.

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.

However, Phlog claimed that SAM had the other one right before the bobblehead.

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 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.

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.

Also, SAM was a moderator at that time.

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.

And she did take it down under pressure.

I didn't suggest otherwise, did I?

 

[chimpkin]

ok...I think I shall look for an avatar that will offend everybody equally...
edited:
found...
Yep, that's just a gross toenail!

 

[S.A.M.]

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.

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

lets give phlog some closure
describe or post the pic if possible

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:

 

[Gustav]

bah
there you go, phlog
a tentative vindication

bummer

 

[Gustav]

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

my very first avatar!

/eek

 

[S.A.M.]

bah
there you go, phlog
a tentative vindication

bummer

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.

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

my very first avatar!

/eek

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]

 

[Gustav]

my avatar element is disabled so......
how do i look?
is it there?

/excited

 

[Gustav]

for fuck sake sam
is it there?

 

[S.A.M.]

Yeah it is there and it looks what its meant to, frivolous.

 

[Gustav]

vat!
you shticken ze tonguen outen aten me?

 

[S.A.M.]

You bet

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

 

[Gustav]

you manage to stay focused more than most so....... who really gives a shit

 

[S.A.M.]

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.