Offensive Avatars

[S.A.M.]

Oh S.A.M.

Stop being so damn pragmatic.

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

 

[Trippy]

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

Funny you should mention that, because in the context of the posts I've looked at, it looks like Giambatista went trolling, got a satirical reaction that he wasn't expecting, and went off crying about it being sexual harrasment.

His troll, it backfired.

The (failed) troll
The unexpected satirical backfire
The crying and inability to comprehend repartee.

This thread then seemingly represents further trolling, or him crying into his teacup over the fact that he hasn't been banned.

But if he's that desperate for a break from this place, all he has to really do is ask.

 

[domesticated om]

I think Hitler mustaches should be mandated on all avatars.

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

 

[Tiassa]

Should we call it the Kaikoura Effect?

Funny you should mention that, because in the context of the posts I've looked at, it looks like Giambatista went trolling, got a satirical reaction that he wasn't expecting, and went off crying about it being sexual harrasment.

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.

 

[Trippy]

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.

Hence the effort on my part to relate it in terms that won't get me in trouble for divulging soopa-sekrit information from the soopa-sekrit moderator forum.

I can think of some things that, if they haven't been stated in the back room discussions, then would certainly seem to have been implied that would probably shine a light both baleful an maloderous on recent discussions.

Certainly I have trouble regarding this as being anything more than a vapid vexatious vacuous complaint the sole purpose of which seems to be to provoke moderators into undertaking disciplinary measures.

To my mind, the feature which makes this trolling, as opposed to a political statement is the metaphorical mooning.

 

[Tiassa]

The strangeness of it all

To my mind, the feature which makes this trolling, as opposed to a political statement is the metaphorical mooning.

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.

 

[Giambattista]

I think there is a question of whether or not the political statement is legitimate.

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?

And here I don't mean whether or not the authority agrees with it. Rather, I think if someone is stupid enough to change their avatar to something intended to be offensive, and then actually makes a point of asking people what they think about it, there is good reason to conclude the whole point of it is to goad other members.

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.

Presently, however, the staff is not in agreement on what that treatment should be.

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

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

Amen! Sometimes I wonder just that thing.

 

[Giambattista]

Funny you should mention that, because in the context of the posts I've looked at, it looks like Giambatista went trolling, got a satirical reaction that he wasn't expecting, and went off crying about it being sexual harrasment.

Wrong.

This thread then seemingly represents further trolling, or him crying into his teacup over the fact that he hasn't been banned.

But if he's that desperate for a break from this place, all he has to really do is ask.

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.

 

[Giambattista]

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.

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.

 

[Trippy]

Wrong.

And yet, that's not the impression that the public record gives.

Wrong.
I wasn't crying into my teacup because I haven't been banned. What the hell are you inventing?
I'm not inventing anything, I'm expressing my opinion of this thread, and the way I perceive it.

This thread then seemingly represents further trolling, or him crying into his teacup over the fact that he hasn't been banned.

I've hilighted the relevant clause of the statement in question.
Seemingly
Apparent, ostensibly, outward apperance.
In other words, that single word is your clue that I'm expressing an opinion - something that I am entitled to do by the law in both of our countries.

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.

All of which gives the impression of being guided by your ignorance, or lack of long term memory, or both.

Which is ironic, because several examples of precedent have already been listed in this thread.

 

[Tiassa]

And everywhere that Mary went ....

I wasn't being terribly serious, and I don't care all that much.

Apparently, some people were, and do.

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?

Why? Because it has naughty words in it?

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Giambattista]

I've hilighted the relevant clause of the statement in question.
Seemingly
Apparent, ostensibly, outward apperance.
In other words, that single word is your clue that I'm expressing an opinion - something that I am entitled to do by the law in both of our countries.

Excellent.

 

[leopold]

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

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?

 

[Giambattista]

Apparently, some people were, and do.

And who would those people be?

Why? Because it has naughty words in it?

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.

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?

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.

 

[Giambattista]

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?

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

 

[Tiassa]

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

And who would those people be?

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

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.

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

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.

Interesting.

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

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.

 

[Giambattista]

I think Hitler mustaches should be mandated on all avatars.

Your avatar is beautiful.

Keep it around awhile.

 

[leopold]

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

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.

 

[Giambattista]

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

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?

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

Eh? What's the problem?

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.

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

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.

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

 

[Giambattista]

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 suppose.

I don't think that situation would be petty.

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