Avatar pushing the limits....

[DcifrThs]

look at livinitup's avatar in this post...

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...;gonew=1#UNREAD (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=4006018&an=0&page=0&gone w=1#UNREAD)

tooo close to swastika for my likeing....but i can understand if its acceptable.

Barron

[Jurollo]

I would say we msg him and delete it explaining why, that seems pretty blatant on whoever made it's part, whether he knows it or not.
~Justin

[[censored]]

oh come on guys. Yeah I see what you see but that is pretty harmless. Its green and a cactus, anyone who would get offended by that is likely wanting to get offended.

Let's not get to PC crazy

[astroglide]

the image name is 'cactuar'. this is the first hit on google:

http://tonberry-cactuar.tripod.com/cactuar.html

obviously not malicious man

[jason_t]

gg. It's a character from Final Fantasy III.

Edit to add: Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cactuar).

[Lloyd]

[ QUOTE ]
gg. It's a character from Final Fantasy III.

Edit to add: Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cactuar).

[/ QUOTE ]
I do find it interesting in this thread that he references "American History X". Great film, of course. But an interesting reference under the circumstances.

This is not the first time his avatar has been brought up for discussion (not sure if the last was here or in a forum). Given the Final Fantasy reference I'm okay with it even though my first reaction is pretty negative. I would, however, shoot him a PM and just tell him that it's been brought up a couple of times and people who don't know the reference might be offended. He might want to consider taking it down himself.

[astroglide]

if people are actually bitching he could just pick another picture of the same thing. this does sound a little silly though.

[[censored]]

I think if people are bitching about that, it says more about than it does about the avatar.

[timprov]

Apart from being cactuar, it's also not a swastika (note the arms aren't all in the same direction).

[Lloyd]

There is a clear and obvious resemblance to a swastika, whether or not it technically meets the definition.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
There is a clear and obvious resemblance to a swastika, whether or not it technically meets the definition.

[/ QUOTE ]

no doubt and I understand that nobody wants to do anything to it now. But I don't think we should even be sending members PMs over something like this. I just think it makes out job much harder when it comes time to take action and lends credance to whole thought police, nazi [censored] that i'm sure we all have read again and again

There are going to be times when certain members become offended it's going to happen on any message board of this size. It's no big deal in my opinion that this happens

[Evan]

[ QUOTE ]
There is a clear and obvious resemblance to a swastika, whether or not it technically meets the definition.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree, I've seen that avatar many times and never thought that. Half of the appendages are going in the right direction to be a swastika and it's got an extra one because of the head. So basically 40% of the avatar looks like half of a swastika.

[durron597]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is a clear and obvious resemblance to a swastika, whether or not it technically meets the definition.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree, I've seen that avatar many times and never thought that. Half of the appendages are going in the right direction to be a swastika and it's got an extra one because of the head. So basically 40% of the avatar looks like half of a swastika.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would never have thought swastika until I read this thread.

[Lloyd]

[ QUOTE ]
There is a clear and obvious resemblance to a swastika to many people, whether or not it technically meets the definition.

[/ QUOTE ]
FMP

[[censored]]

I'm going to be honest and it's not my intent to direct this at anyone person or offend anyone but that this was even grounds for a thread is quite bothersome to me.

It's really caused me to reconsider some of my moderating policies and I think a lot of us need to take a step back and make sure we aren't going overboard with getting rid of things that we as individuals are sensitive to.

Like I said I've probably been as guilty as anyone of this in the past but I've noticed a definite trend since becoming active on the board once again and it's not a good one.

I'm all for banning jackasses and creating a conductive environment to learning and entertainment but I don't think we should be out there looking for and getting rid of everything that may offend someone or may hurt someone's feelings.

I don't think that is the type of board we want and I don't think that is the type of board the majority of the members want.

Let's focus on dealing with things like trolls, spam, obvious shitheads and other things which really result in the forum not being fun for anyone and let the members decide of they are offended and how they deal with it.

I once had an avatar of some dude getting sucker punched in the face. I thought it was harmless but another member PM'd me and said that had happened to him recently and it really bothered him to see. He asked if I would take it down but understood if I wouldn't. I decided to but I would have been really bothered if instead of it being handled like that a user mod would have sent me a PM or taken it down because it may offend others.

Basically when it comes to all these things whether they are avatars or myspace threads let's be a little more open and little less likely to take action in all but the most extreme cases

[Surfbullet]

I followed the link and couldn't figure out what was going on, I went through the entire thread. Then I went back and read this and realized it's the catuar that's been worried about? That thing's in a whole slew of Final Fantasy games, and if you see it in the game its arms move back and forth to make it look like it's running - it's definitely not a symbol of hate. I actually think this whole thing is kind of absurd. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

Surf

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm all for banning jackasses and creating a conductive environment to learning and entertainment but I don't think we should be out there looking for and getting rid of everything that may offend someone or may hurt someone's feelings.

[/ QUOTE ]


Yes.

The main problem here isn't people wanting to remove offensive content. I think everyone can agree that there is a line some things actually do cross. What's worrisome is that line seems to be constantly moving towards catering to a progressively smaller number of people. This is not good, IMO.

Clearly the people who mod forums will always impose some of their own sensibilities. That's to be expected. But those sensibilities always need to be balanced with what's reasonable and best for the forums.

The cactuar may look somewhat like a swastika, but is that really something that needs to be addressed by us? A lot of things bear some resemblance to a lot of other things.

If I used an image of a big cucumber as my avatar, would that be something that required the attention of a moderator? It looks somewhat like a penis, and we all know that we wouldn't allow an avatar with genitalia on 2+2. Yet, I bet more people would see a penis in a cucumber than a swastika in a cactuar.

Even so, I believe that if I posted about an offensive cucumber avatar in this forum, all of you would call me crazy.

If we start going after stuff that, to some people, looks somewhat like something else that's offensive, we really have gone the wrong direction. That would be catering to a very small group of people. We should not be doing that, mostly because it would be an entirely futile effort. Even if it doesn't make any sense, some people will always be offended by particular actions, words, and images.

So, let's try to stay reasonable, guys.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v431/AngryCola/jumbocactuar.jpg

[B Dids]

As the guy who was championing the senstive in other threads, this avatar is fine.

Yeah- we need to be aware, and it's good that as mod we're having these conversations, it helps establish standards and get us all thinking and talking, but this does seem a little far.

[GuyOnTilt]

Um, even if the avatar was a blatant swastika look-alike, what's wrong with that exactly?

GoT

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
Um, even if the avatar was a blatant swastika look-alike, what's wrong with that exactly?

GoT

[/ QUOTE ]

this is my feeling as well and what I was trying to get at with my long winded reply

[Lloyd]

[ QUOTE ]
Um, even if the avatar was a blatant swastika look-alike, what's wrong with that exactly?

GoT

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe that would be considered objectionable material per the T&C. Some would also consider it threatening. Obviously those terms are very subjective but nonetheless it would in my opinion fall in at least one of those categories. We have to use our discretion just like when enforcing the T&C prohibition against posting "obscene" or "pornographic" material (obviously both also very subjective). With regard to those, there is certainly more tolerance for links within threads than pictures within threads or avatars.

[Mat Sklansky]

"I hate gorie" is probably a good example of an avatar we don't want. I'm assuming this is being directed at the poster?

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
"I hate gorie" is probably a good example of an avatar we don't want. I'm assuming this is being directed at the poster?

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah but I think this POST (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=4152751&an=0&page=0#Post 4152751) should give it some context. I can certainly change it though

[Lloyd]

When I first saw the avatar I thought you had better judgement than that. Reading the post, nh. Benefit of the doubt.

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
There is a clear and obvious resemblance to a swastika, whether or not it technically meets the definition.

[/ QUOTE ]

that is all i was saying.

the other picture of the "cactuar" (in this thread....ive never seen this creature before) is way different, has a background, and has a leg moving and doesn't remind one of a swastika the second you look at it.

i guess being who i am i took the visual hint to strongly and it clearly reflects upon me that i took the time to post it here. all i was doing was asking whether or not that avatar was pushing the limits. no harm, no foul.

reading this thread: am i to understand that if somebody had an avatar that was ACTUALLY a swastika (black) on a while background on a red flag that we would be wrong to send that person a PM kindly asking them to change it???

-Barron

[Mike Haven]

fwiw, i don't like seeing the guy being killed by an aeroplane in your gif

[GuyOnTilt]

[ QUOTE ]
reading this thread: am i to understand that if somebody had an avatar that was ACTUALLY a swastika (black) on a while background on a red flag that we would be wrong to send that person a PM kindly asking them to change it???

[/ QUOTE ]
Dude, it's a political party. Since when do/should we decide which of these parties are "good" and which are "bad"? If I decided to make my avatar the symbol of the Democratic party, would/should it be asked to be removed? I completely understand the bias being show given where we were raised (most of us) and the existing bias of our education system and various media, but I would've hoped we're all intelligent enough to be able to think objectively. Our job here isn't to enforce posters' personal political views nor should it be. If you really think what happened under the Nazi party makes doing such a small thing as allowing a picture of their symbol to exist an atrocious and gasp worthy, consider the Trail of Tears or any other of American-committed atrocities throughout our history (legalized slavery, internment camps, etc). Is one worse than the other in principle? Do they necessarily make the political parties in power when they occurred "evil"?

Edit: I should add, I do understand if 2+2 would decide not to allow avatars of the Nazi symbol since this forum's main purpose is a marketing tool. I am simply stating my opinion that believing the symbol is in some way "evil" or "bad" is imo dumb, and more specifically the seeming obviousness of the above that so many seem to believe.

GoT

[timprov]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
reading this thread: am i to understand that if somebody had an avatar that was ACTUALLY a swastika (black) on a while background on a red flag that we would be wrong to send that person a PM kindly asking them to change it???

[/ QUOTE ]
Dude, it's a political party. Since when do/should we decide which of these parties are "good" and which are "bad"?

[/ QUOTE ]

We probably don't want the forum blocked in Germany, though. So there's an external reason to give Nazi paraphenalia the boot.

[Evan]

[ QUOTE ]
fwiw, i don't like seeing the guy being killed by an aeroplane in your gif

[/ QUOTE ]
1) I agree.
2) Is that how Brits spell airplane?

[Lloyd]

Apparently I am dumb.

[Evan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
reading this thread: am i to understand that if somebody had an avatar that was ACTUALLY a swastika (black) on a while background on a red flag that we would be wrong to send that person a PM kindly asking them to change it???

[/ QUOTE ]
Dude, it's a political party. Since when do/should we decide which of these parties are "good" and which are "bad"?

[/ QUOTE ]

We probably don't want the forum blocked in Germany, though. So there's an external reason to give Nazi paraphenalia the boot.

[/ QUOTE ]
So if GoT made his avatar the image below, Germany would block 2+2? I'm not sure that makes a whole lot of sense.

http://www.keyway.ca/gif/naziflag.gif

[Evan]

I think this is a good post and likely vastly different from the way many people think.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
reading this thread: am i to understand that if somebody had an avatar that was ACTUALLY a swastika (black) on a while background on a red flag that we would be wrong to send that person a PM kindly asking them to change it???

[/ QUOTE ]
Dude, it's a political party. Since when do/should we decide which of these parties are "good" and which are "bad"?

[/ QUOTE ]

We probably don't want the forum blocked in Germany, though. So there's an external reason to give Nazi paraphenalia the boot.

[/ QUOTE ]
So if GoT made his avatar the image below, Germany would block 2+2? I'm not sure that makes a whole lot of sense.

http://www.keyway.ca/gif/naziflag.gif

[/ QUOTE ]


I come out like this. Unless 2+2 (matt, etc) specifically decides to ban an avatar like that we should not be the ones deciding what type of political or cultural statements people make.

The truth is there are people who look at a cross or a picture of Jesus Christ in the same light other's look at that swastika.

[Evan]

[ QUOTE ]
I come out like this. Unless 2+2 (matt, etc) specifically decides to ban an avatar like that we should not be the ones deciding what type of political or cultural statements people make.

The truth is there are people who look at a cross or a picture of Jesus Christ in the same light other's look at that swastika.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think this is right on the money.

I had an avatar at one point that contained swastika images and it was not revieved well by the mods. Maybe that should be taken as precedant and maybe not. I think it would be best it Mat just chimed in with his opinion.

[Lloyd]

Why are pornographic or obscene avatars not allowed?

Caesar does not usually opine on petty avatar matters, but this thread borders on ridiculous. What limit, exactly, does this avatar push? I have seen Cactuar on countless occasions and not once has it conjured visions of the Third Reich in my mind. I had never even come close to making this connection until this thread. Had the avatar looked something like this, you would probably have a case


http://img370.imageshack.us/img370/9302/nazicactuar25zw.gif



Those offended by the original image (as mentioned in an earlier post) are out searching desperately to be offended. We might as well ban the letter X while we're at it, because if I cock my head at the correct angle and squint long enough, I see a swastika.

Caesar will not be associated with such ludicrous censorship.


Am I not merciful?

[AngryCola]

Here is a link to the wikipedia page that contains some history of the swastika. I'm not sure if it has been mentioned that the symbol itself really didn't have any negative meaning for most of its history.

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika)

[ QUOTE ]
I should add, I do understand if 2+2 would decide not to allow avatars of the Nazi symbol since this forum's main purpose is a marketing tool.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe this is the main reason this site probably shouldn't want people using swastika avatars. Regardless of how much logical sense it makes, I think more people would be put off by that image than an avatar which contains nudity. The main base of 2+2 is overwhelmingly male. It's hard for me to imagine that (primarily young) men are more likely to be offended by a topless woman than a swastika.

It just makes sense for 2+2 to play it safe with actual swastikas, IMO.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
Why are pornographic or obscene avatars not allowed?

[/ QUOTE ]

Lloyd I think it's the same reason a magazine could have Swastika on its cover and be sold openly, but a pornagraphic cover would need to be sold within the same bookstore with something blocking the cover from public view.

Additionally I believe the T&C's note material that is obscene or pornagraphic - is this right?

[Evan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why are pornographic or obscene avatars not allowed?

[/ QUOTE ]

Lloyd I think it's the same reason a magazine could have Swastika on its cover and be sold openly, but a pornagraphic cover would need to be sold within the same bookstore with something blocking the cover from public view.

Additionally I believe the T&C's note material that is obscene or pornagraphic - is this right?

[/ QUOTE ]
Score another one for censored.

[Lloyd]

We obviously have a very different opinion. And your analogy has flaws. I will move on.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]


Additionally I believe the T&C's note material that is obscene or pornagraphic - is this right?

[/ QUOTE ]

One can interpret the T&C in all sorts of different ways. They are always purposely written that way.

"While using 2+2 website, you may not post or transmit any unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, pornographic, profane, or otherwise objectionable information of any kind"

The part at the end could apply to pretty much anything.

[jason_t]

I can't believe we are still having this discussion.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't believe we are still having this discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it has morphed into a more general discussion about whether real swastikas should be allowed at all. The original issue about the avatar seems to be dead.

[Greg J]

1) I would be all for removing.. hell BANNING anyone with a swastika avatar. (I think the same about the confederate flag.)

2) That does not look like a swastika. Sorry. The arms and legs don't match. It's the cool little cactus dude from Final Fantasy 6 (released as FF3 in the U.S. -- damn I'm a dork). This is coming from a guy who recommended the permanent banning of one of his own higher quality strategy regulars for making racist comments in OOT. I have ZERO tolerance for racists -- nuke em on site. Sorry, but if you see a swastika there you are looking too hard.

[Mike Haven]

I was interested to read your "different" comments, and I passed a copy of them to a Jewish friend in London, UK, for his opinion. (He is not a poker-player, nor a member of this forum.) I set it out below, for your interest:

Let's make the hypothetical assumption that at some point the Christian Cross is adopted as a symbol and included on the regalia of a particularly unpleasant totalitarian party. Would that be grounds to ban the future display of the Cross? No. By the same token the swastika. This week I attended my daughter's end of year school play which featured scenes of indian life and dancing. The girls wore headresses decorated with the swastika. This, remember, in an area of London that is home to half of the UK's Jewish population.

Of course, none of this considers why on your forum that symbol has been selected as an avatar. Is the member merely being intentionally offensive to the point of sociopathy and is he claiming 'freedom of speech' as his defence. This doesn't necessarily wash.

There are of the order of 30 exceptions to the right of free speech, perhaps the most famous being the undesirability of someone maliciously shouting "Fire" in a crowded public place where people might be crushed to death as a consequence.

If it's plain that the member is indeed a sociopath there is no fundamental right to have his sociopathy catered for.

Similarly if his use of the symbol is a declaration that he is among you and believes that the philosophy of German National Socialism and its attendant horrors could profitably (in any sense) be revived, then, in a forum where people gather for relaxation, the moderators might decide that the guy's a wind-up merchant and boot him. On a forum where people meet for relaxation there is no obligation to be confronted by loathsome political philosophies. That can be done elsewhere.

Of course, the fact that some people find some particular philosophies loathsome doesn't disqualify those philosophies from the population at large, but in a forum where people gather for the exchange of anything but political discourse it's not unreasonable to decide that logging on and looking at a symbol which to most Europeans of middle age and above at least represents an horrific folk memory is not conducive to the "quiet enjoyment" of that facility.

If on the other hand he is, naively or otherwise, using the symbol to be representative of something other than the bestial horrors witnessed between 1933 and 1945 then it might be allowed to stand.

The most memorable ruling I have seen on this sort of case is that made in another forum a few years back in which was stated, vis a vis the idiocy of another member and the decision to ban him, "We all like cats, but we don't want cats to [censored] on our front room carpet."

[GuyOnTilt]

[ QUOTE ]

1) I would be all for removing.. hell BANNING anyone with a swastika avatar. (I think the same about the confederate flag.)

[/ QUOTE ]
Out of curiosity, why exactly the Confederate flag?

GoT

[astroglide]

i can't speak for greg, but i suspect it has something to do with tom wopat never realizing his potential as a thespian

[GuyOnTilt]

[ QUOTE ]
i can't speak for greg, but i suspect it has something to do with tom wopat never realizing his potential as a thespian

[/ QUOTE ]
I have no clue who Tom Wopat is, but I'm guessing it's unrelated and a jab at me. /images/graemlins/smile.gif While I personally kind of have an eye-rolling mentality toward people who sport the Confederate flag, considering it a justiable bannable offense seems absolutely absurd to me.

GoT

[astroglide]

you're not even curious who he is then? weird

[Mat Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it would be best it Mat just chimed in with his opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I had to think about this for some time before chiming in. I think it depends on the type of cactus. For instance, I believe that there is a cactus out there with a pretty bad attitude, some people call it the jumping cactus. And if someone had that cactus as as an avatar, and it went out jumping at people and blinding them and so forth, that would definitely not be acceptable.

In all seriousness, this site is the property of Two Plus Two (ie. the authors) They care about selling books. Avatars really don't matter THAT MUCH to anyone do they? A real swatiska isn't allowed if I get complaints, neither is a cross a cock a cucumber or a dildo. Someone just asked me to censor the word nigger. I'm about to do just that. Does anybody here really think that particular tidbit of censorship will hurt business? If a bunch of peoople pm me wanting the ability to call people niggers, I'd be afraid. But I would also have to consider their request. I'm just trying to make a point. I love the fact that we have you guys caring enough about moderation to delve into these philosophical issues in our "star chamber," but I think in cases like these, it's sort of a waste of time. Maybe. I've grown perfectly comfortable with being wrong.

Thank you, sincerely.

Mat

[Evan]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it depends on the type of cactus. For instance, I believe that there is a cactus out there with a pretty bad attitude

[/ QUOTE ]
Awesome!

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]
I have no clue who Tom Wopat is

[/ QUOTE ]

He's just a good ol' boy, never meanin' no harm. Beats all you ever saw, been in trouble with the law, since the day he was born.

[Greg J]

http://www.dromar.com/conf/lpps30033.jpg
This is what I meant.

[ QUOTE ]
While I personally kind of have an eye-rolling mentality toward people who sport the Confederate flag, considering it a justiable bannable offense seems absolutely absurd to me.

[/ QUOTE ]
I can understand this, but coming from Mississippi I am accutely aware of what it means. This was not a popular flag until 1954 Brown decision in support of segregation (and to a lesser extent with the 1948 candidacy of Strom Thurmond). Basically, it is a hate symbol. It does not "really" stand for state's rights... people learned in Southern politics know what most (Southern) people mean when they "state's rights" anyhow, and that "heritage not hate" is a lie.

I do agree it might not be legitmately bannable, and my own (admittedly strong) opinions regarding this particular symbol are probably in the minority here. It's really not a problem anyhow (thankfully).

I am also a free speech guy. There is a movement here on the campus of LSU to ban this flag:
http://www.epier.com/store/outpostflags/ItemImages/RebLSU.jpg

which is waved by (white) fans and students at LSU sporting events. It's kind of a big deal on campus -- there have been repeated marches. You should see the white "fans" yelling at the black protestors... calling them n*ggers and such. It's really disgusting. The thing is, as much as I sympathize with the feelings of the (mostly) black protestors, they are wrong. It's a freedom of speech issue. LSU is a public university, and as such should allow the public display any symbol (even the swastika). (2p2 on the other hand is a private entity and can censor much more liberally.)

That was long winded I know -- you are probably not a Southerner though, and it's hard to fully understand this issue if you are not. "Heritage not hate" is a *wink-wink* kinda thing.

[GuyOnTilt]

[ QUOTE ]
Basically, it is a hate symbol.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
you are probably not a Southerner though, and it's hard to fully understand this issue if you are not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is pretty much what it boils down to. You think it's purely a hate issue and nothing else; others do not. In the same way, some people may view a symbol such as the Christian cross as purely a hate symbol, while others will not. Same goes with the current US flag. The majority of Americans will usually side on one side or the other on these issues, but that has necessarily no bearing whatsoever on which side is "right" or "wrong".

Say I was someone from the mid 13th century who happened to be born in Syria. Could I be faulted if I stated that the symbol of the cross was purely a symbol based on hate and the desire to spill innocent blood? No. I would have every reason to say that and to believe it with every bone in me. Now say I was an orphan who was dying of malnutrion on the streets of London during the same time period, and was taken in by a loving Christian family because of their faith and loved and raised as their own. Would I be wrong to think that the symbol of the religion that in essence saved my life was nothing but good and praise-worthy? No, that would obviously be a perfectly reasonable opinion to have. So which of these people's beliefs would be in the wrong? The point is I'm not saying either you or either of them are necessarily right or wrong, but rather you should all realize that yours is a matter purely of opinion and nothing more.

So ask yourself honestly, do you really think we should make the Conderate flag bannable? Or even better, do you really think the Confederate flag is bad or evil in some way? More specifically, is it necessarily any more or less of those characteristics than the Christian cross, the American flag, or the Wiscosin Highway Patrol logo? In the end, I really hope we are all intelligent enough to realize that just because we (individually) may feel very strongly one way or another about symbols, political or otherwise, does not mean our opinion is anything more than just that - an opinion, nor does it make the symbols themselves nor the people who may feel differently about them than we do, evil or bad in any way. And not only for the sake of our moderating decisions here, but in applying the same objecctive and logical thinking in our everyday lives.

GoT

[Greg J]

Good points. I did concede though that I would not be banning anyone for using the confederate flag. Do I think it's bannable? Probably not. Is a swastika? Probably.

The idea that symbols mean different things to different people is certainly valid for most symbols -- and to some extent or another all symbols. But many, to some degree or another have some universal meaning that does not encompass of of thier meaning. To right wing fruitcakes in Montana or Alberta, a confederate flag likely means white nationalism. In Mississippi or Alabama it (usually) means pride in being a white Southerner who hates the blackies on welfare. These ideas are not identical, but similar, and have some overlap.

[ QUOTE ]
do you really think the Confederate flag is bad or evil in some way?

[/ QUOTE ]
That is really not the issue. (I could go into some speel about my secular humanist philosophy, but I won't, which I sure you are grateful for. /images/graemlins/smile.gif)) The issue is whether it is generally offensive. Your overall point is slightly reductionist. "It's just a symbol right?" Okay, well are the letters f, u, c, and k offensive? Of course not, but when I put them together, oh [censored] look that happens! My point: it's not the symbol itself which is offensive but the meaning, that is the intent behind it. A symbol is, after all, only some colors and shapes. Inherently it can't hurt anyone. But try telling that to a black LSU player who runs into the endzone scoring a touchdown to see a bunch of rednecks waving a purple and gold rebel flag around.

[Evan]

Can you think of any living people for whom the Confederate flag has positive connotation? Has a party or organization represented by the Confderate flag helped anyone lately? I don't think people that like it because it's a fun thing to wave around in their backyard while their dad bangs their sister count in this instance. I'm talking about people who have reason to believe that the Confederate flag and what it represents have improved their quality of life (like your orphan example). I can't think of any at the moment.

[MrWookie47]

Well, now I have no idea what to think. Here's what just popped up in OOT:

http://img462.imageshack.us/img462/5418/norton1el.jpg

[Greg J]

[ QUOTE ]
Can you think of any living people for whom the Confederate flag has positive connotation? Has a party or organization represented by the Confderate flag helped anyone lately? I don't think people that like it because it's a fun thing to wave around in their backyard while their dad bangs their sister count in this instance. I'm talking about people who have reason to believe that the Confederate flag and what it represents have improved their quality of life (like your orphan example). I can't think of any at the moment.

[/ QUOTE ]
There is an interesting correlary to this. Yr point is totally valid, and while I don't think there is any reasonable group of people that truly thinks of the confederate flad as having a positive connotation, many whites in the South love to portray this myth of a Condederate golden age. States had rights, political sovereignty was properly decentralized, and people were happy. Slavery was not as bad as people say, and most masters were good to thier slaves and took care of them in this rural agrarian paternalistic system which stressed values and morals.

I am not lying about this -- I am totally serious. There are some people that actually spout this sh*t. Of course, I equate them to Haulocaust deniers (who uncoincidentally hate Jews for the most part).

[Lloyd]

What post was it in? Still up? Any comments from others?

[Lloyd]

Found it. Well Wacki, you definitely started something with your original post. Not sure if that was completely wise.

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
Found it. Well Wacki, you definitely started something with your original post. Not sure if that was completely wise.

[/ QUOTE ]

can you link me to this thread?

Barron

[Lloyd]

Here (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=4221707&an=0&page=1#Post 4221707) you go.

[timprov]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, now I have no idea what to think. Here's what just popped up in OOT:

http://img462.imageshack.us/img462/5418/norton1el.jpg

[/ QUOTE ]

Posted by Eurotrash. This is somewhat of an important point.

I think it's a damn funny joke at the expense of this thread.

[Evan]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, now I have no idea what to think. Here's what just popped up in OOT:

http://img462.imageshack.us/img462/5418/norton1el.jpg

[/ QUOTE ]
n00b

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
Can you think of any living people for whom the Confederate flag has positive connotation?

[/ QUOTE ]

There are millions. All you have to do is travel south of the Mason-Dixon line.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think people that like it because it's a fun thing to wave around in their backyard while their dad bangs their sister count in this instance.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a good example of genuine racism.

[Evan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can you think of any living people for whom the Confederate flag has positive connotation?

[/ QUOTE ]

There are millions. All you have to do is travel south of the Mason-Dixon line.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ugh, if you couldn't tell the point of this question was regarding experience and not just traditional opinions passed down through environment then you're an idiot. If you could tell that and you just felt like being an idiot then you succeeded. Since I'm sure proving me wrong would be the best thing since the last Harry Potter book for you, why don't you make up some absurd example where the Confederate flag (not someone else's opinion of the Confederate flag) has had a positive impact on someone's life.

Maybe one time a guy's shirt caught on fire and his buddy, thinking on his feet, quickly extinguished it using a Confederate flag. Then that guy, the burned one, for the rest of his life, would feel rightfully indebted to all that the flag represented.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think people that like it because it's a fun thing to wave around in their backyard while their dad bangs their sister count in this instance.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a good example of genuine racism.

[/ QUOTE ]
Dyanasty, stop being an idiot. How is this racist? What race am I being prejudice towards? White people? I'm white. I don't think this about myself; I don't even HAVE a sister! If ANYTHING it's geographist. But that's not a word, so it can't be that.

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
Here (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=4221707&an=0&page=1#Post 4221707) you go.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think its funny that i posted this suggestion in the mod forum and now its actually being graphically linked that cactus guy look slike swastika

Barron

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think people that like it because it's a fun thing to wave around in their backyard while their dad bangs their sister count in this instance.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a good example of genuine racism.

[/ QUOTE ]
How is this racist? What race am I being prejudice towards? White people? I'm white. I don't think this about myself; I don't even HAVE a sister! If ANYTHING it's geographist. But that's not a word, so it can't be that.

[/ QUOTE ]

A quick search found this definition of racism by the ICERD (International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Descrimination)

“Any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment, or exercise, on equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, or any other field of public life.”

The bolded parts apply particularly well to your statement.

It was plainly obvious that you were using a racial sterotype of an American Southerner and using it to denegrate those who would disagree with you.

Your complete inability to discuss something on this forum without insulting others still stuns me. You have a remarkable lack of maturity.

[Lloyd]

Like I've said, you weren't the first to bring up that specific avatar. Others obviously have the same linkage.

[Evan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think people that like it because it's a fun thing to wave around in their backyard while their dad bangs their sister count in this instance.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a good example of genuine racism.

[/ QUOTE ]
How is this racist? What race am I being prejudice towards? White people? I'm white. I don't think this about myself; I don't even HAVE a sister! If ANYTHING it's geographist. But that's not a word, so it can't be that.

[/ QUOTE ]

A quick search found this definition of racism by the ICERD (International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Descrimination)

“Any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment, or exercise, on equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, or any other field of public life.”

The bolded parts apply particularly well to your statement.

It was plainly obvious that you were using a racial sterotype of an American Southerner and using it to denegrate those who would disagree with you.

Your complete inability to discuss something on this forum without insulting others still stuns me. You have a remarkable lack of maturity.

[/ QUOTE ]
I am the same race, color, decent and nationality as the people I was talking about. Your definition proves that you're completely wrong, so thanks for looking that up.

As for my lack of maturity, you'd think it would have stopped stunning you a while back since I've been aggressively open about how much I dislike you for months.

[wacki]

http://www.wilholden.com/images/Hunting2.jpg

http://www2.lib.udel.edu/subj/hist/images/book_burning.jpg

http://www.emediawire.com/prfiles/2004/05/10/125040/patCorrLogo_web.jpg

[wacki]

whatever it's a business

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Can you think of any living people for whom the Confederate flag has positive connotation?

[/ QUOTE ]

http://inlandempirestrikesback.net/v-web/gallery/albums/Dukes-Of-Hazard/General_Lee03.jpg

[Greg J]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can you think of any living people for whom the Confederate flag has positive connotation?

[/ QUOTE ]

There are millions. All you have to do is travel south of the Mason-Dixon line.

[/ QUOTE ]
*Raises hand*

Huh?

My whole point is that it has a racist meaning to Southern whites who "fly it proud." However, if you concede that they see racism (hatting n*ggers) as a good thing (which they do) then yes, it does have a positive meaning to them.

[MrWookie47]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, now I have no idea what to think. Here's what just popped up in OOT:

http://img462.imageshack.us/img462/5418/norton1el.jpg

[/ QUOTE ]
n00b

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not that I thought Eurotrash was posting something racist. It's that there's now a lot more swastika association than I thought there was, especially after seeing that post. I couldn't see any swastika when Dcifr first posted this, but he's far from the only person who sees it, apparently. I'm still leaning towards just leaving the avatar be, and I saw the humor in the picture, but I see that the issue isn't as cut and dry as I thought.

I'm just going to stay out of the Confederate Flag debate.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Basically, it is a hate symbol. It does not "really" stand for state's rights... people learned in Southern politics know what most (Southern) people mean when they "state's rights" anyhow, and that "heritage not hate" is a lie.

[/ QUOTE ]

Considering it was on states flags till the politically correct crowd removed it in 2001, to a great uproar by those in Georgia, I call complete bullsh1t.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]

I am the same race, color, decent and nationality as the people I was talking about. Your definition proves that you're completely wrong, so thanks for looking that up.


[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that you're the same race, olor, descent, and nationality does not prevent your statement from being racist.

[wacki]

This conversation is retarded.
Recent mississippi flag

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/52/Mississippi_state_flag.png

Recent georgia.



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ad/GaFlag1956.gif

And when I said old I mean 2001. But political correctness caused SC, GA, and many others to take their flags down or change them in this decade. Everyone I know from the south (outside of the internet) does not equate it with slavery or hate.

[Jim Kuhn]

[ QUOTE ]
As for my lack of maturity, you'd think it would have stopped stunning you a while back since I've been aggressively open about how much I dislike you for months.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not sure if it is a case of growing up but you really should show more respect to the other mods. We should all be trying to moderate these forums in a professional manner. I think this precludes getting into 'pissing matches' with other mods.

Thank you,

Jim Kuhn
Catfish4u
/images/graemlins/spade.gif /images/graemlins/diamond.gif /images/graemlins/club.gif /images/graemlins/heart.gif

[GuyOnTilt]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=4221707&an=0&page=1#Post 4221707) you go.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think its funny that i posted this suggestion in the mod forum and now its actually being graphically linked that cactus guy look slike swastika

Barron

[/ QUOTE ]
I think it's funny that none of you get it.

GoT

[timprov]

[ QUOTE ]
I couldn't see any swastika when Dcifr first posted this, but he's far from the only person who sees it, apparently.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's obvious that now everyone who read this thread is going to think of it.

[Mike Haven]

i find some nice spellings here ... descrimination ... denegrate

descrimination is presumably the opposite of scrimination?

i don't know what scrimination is but it could well be the act of a female family member being banged by her father

denegrate, in this context, is more interesting - presumably it is something akin to de-negrofying?

i'm not sure what de-negrofying is either but i think it's a
process such as was undergone by Michael Jackson, as in "Michael has been denegrated"

next time we have a beer we can look out for 6-fingered people and when we spot one we can say "looks like there be some scriminatin' goin' on in that family, yessirreebob"

[Greg J]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Basically, it is a hate symbol. It does not "really" stand for state's rights... people learned in Southern politics know what most (Southern) people mean when they "state's rights" anyhow, and that "heritage not hate" is a lie.

[/ QUOTE ]

Considering it was on states flags till the politically correct crowd removed it in 2001, to a great uproar by those in Georgia, I call complete bullsh1t.

[/ QUOTE ]
Call anything you want. It was not on the Mississsippi state flag until reconstruction ended and black disenfranchised in 1894 (the Democratic Party took over the state again). It was not on the GA state flag until 1955, or flown above the SC State Capitol until 1954, following the Brown decision.

You call BS, I call you don't know what the f*ck you are talking about, but whatever.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
i find some nice spellings here

[/ QUOTE ]

We've got enough going on in this thread without adding a spelling nazi.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's funny that none of you get it.

GoT

[/ QUOTE ]

I get it. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[[censored]]

I'm not against racist avatars and im not against racist posts.

IMO the only thing that should be moderated are the instances of when a poster will inject on overtly racist and offensive comment into a thread not pertaining to issues of race or culture. For example Thread did you see that ____ game. Post: I can't believe those stupid [censored] get paid so much or something to that effect. That type of racist trolling should be dealt with. Members expressing their beliefs in a mature manner, even racist beliefs should not be. IMO

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
You call BS, I call you don't know what the f*ck you are talking about, but whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ugh, when it comes to 1950's politics you are right. When it comes to the civil war this is not the case.

Let me ask you this, during the civil war, what was the primary motivation for the stars and bars and what was the primary motivation for the succession of the states?

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
That type of racist trolling should be dealt with. Members expressing their beliefs in a mature manner, even racist beliefs should not be. IMO

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this 100%.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say
it."-voltaire

[Lloyd]

I believe you're confusing freedom of speech with the operation of a commercial forum. At the end of the day, it all comes down to what 2+2 feels is in its best interests. And as far as I know, blatantly racist remarks that are found to be offensive are in violation of the Terms and Conditions and therefore should not be allowed. If Mat or another rep from 2+2 says otherwise than great.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe you're confusing freedom of speech with the operation of a commercial forum. At the end of the day, it all comes down to what 2+2 feels is in its best interests. And as far as I know, blatantly racist remarks that are found to be offensive are in violation of the Terms and Conditions and therefore should not be allowed. If Mat or another rep from 2+2 says otherwise than great.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one is confusing that but I as far as I know nor has Mat or anyone ever stated that all racist posts violate the T&C's. Its on the current moderating group that has decided so. I can remember one controversial post dealing with genocide in a light hearted manner where people got offended in which Mat's reply was "I think this is a discussion worth having"

This isnt a case of me, wacki or the others wanting to change 2+2 policy and practice but rather wanting to preserve it. I would say that those moderators who find such things offensive should leave them be until they hear otherwise from Mat or 2+2.

[Mike Haven]

http://www.chessington.co.uk/images/2005_events/spongebob/SB_run.gif

[Sniper]

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/telnaes/images/06-04620r.jpg

[Mat Sklansky]

I vote this thread be moved to politics or oot. I'm serious. Any objections?

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
I vote this thread be moved to politics or oot. I'm serious. Any objections?

[/ QUOTE ]

nope, forum issues could also work

[timprov]

[ QUOTE ]
I vote this thread be moved to politics or oot. I'm serious. Any objections?

[/ QUOTE ]

You should probably delete my attempted incluing of the new mods first.

[Evan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As for my lack of maturity, you'd think it would have stopped stunning you a while back since I've been aggressively open about how much I dislike you for months.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not sure if it is a case of growing up but you really should show more respect to the other mods. We should all be trying to moderate these forums in a professional manner. I think this precludes getting into 'pissing matches' with other mods.

Thank you,

Jim Kuhn
Catfish4u
/images/graemlins/spade.gif /images/graemlins/diamond.gif /images/graemlins/club.gif /images/graemlins/heart.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't want to get into a big side discussion, since it's not the point of this thread, but I disagree. I don't see any reason to hide the fact that I think Dynasty is an idiot just because he's another mod. This isn't a political regime where I have to worry about undermining him. I'm not the one that made him a mod and we aren't mods in the same forums, so I don't see any reason to be falsely supportive of his position.

[Evan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You call BS, I call you don't know what the f*ck you are talking about, but whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ugh, when it comes to 1950's politics you are right. When it comes to the civil war this is not the case.

Let me ask you this, during the civil war, what was the primary motivation for the stars and bars and what was the primary motivation for the succession of the states?

[/ QUOTE ]
Wacki, this is not about the civil war. What the flag stood for then or why the war started has very little to do with the perception of the flag today or why people care about it.

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't believe we are still having this discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

[B Dids]

Meh

I would hestitate against moving this thread, simply because I'm not sure I'd ever like to see something moved out of this forum that started her.

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]
Meh

I would hestitate against moving this thread, simply because I'm not sure I'd ever like to see something moved out of this forum that started her.

[/ QUOTE ]

Out of curiosity, do most regular posters know that there is a special board for mods? I think I had heard about it but thought that it might have just been made up, like Bigfoot and female orgasms.

[GrunchCan]

Someone happened to mention the mod forum in a strat thread before I became a mod. That's the only time I ever heard of this forum. When I became a mod, I had to do a little detective work to find it. I suspect this forum is a very well-kept secret, although that might not be intentional.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]

Wacki, this is not about the civil war. What the flag stood for then or why the war started has very little to do with the perception of the flag today or why people care about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://photos1.blogger.com/img/200/3608/640/DALTON2004SCV%20053.jpg

http://www.revisionisthistory.org/images/black_confederates.JPG

http://www.thesouthernamerican.org/files/eger.jpg

http://img482.imageshack.us/img482/8249/asdfas9cs.jpg

http://www.thesouthernamerican.org/files/edger2.jpg



And my favorite!!!
http://www.southernmessenger.org/images/MissFlag.jpg

Btw gregatron, in the legislation record for GA's flag change there isn't one mention of slavery symbolism. I also think claiming any southern state changed it's flag in the 1800's just to symbolize slavery after the reconstruction is a bunch of crap.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
I vote this thread be moved to politics or oot. I'm serious. Any objections?

[/ QUOTE ]

No need to do it mat. I'll start one for you.

[Evan]

Congratulations wacki, you found six people that disagre with me. You really haven't said anything meaningful in this thread and I don't understand why. It basically seems like you're googling [censored] on the civil war and the confederate flag and posting it here as fast as you can without any concern for its purpose.