Rules About Avatars

[Juan_Bottom]

Religion/belief is on a different plane from race, or disease. You can't change your race, and a disease is something that you can't just fix. Religions/beliefs are more about thoughts and feelings.
There needs to be some type of classification for offensive, or else everything is closed. Seems to me that the Supreme Court made a good call.

And just for the record, sure you can make fun of my Atheism, and of course, I'd throw something right back. But make fun of me for being an Indian, and you'll get stabbed.

[mpjh]

Some people cannot change their religion, or at least believe they cannot, so everyone should take equal care with both, and this thread is not solving anyone's problem.

[Kemmler]

Owen, I didn't know what your avvy was but now I do I think it's offensive.

It's there for a meaning and the meaning is purposely offensive.

[Juan_Bottom]

Some people cannot change their religion,

You're a frickin' weirdo.
It's not about whether or not you change your religion every weak. You missed the point.

Owen, I didn't know what your avvy was but now I do I think it's offensive.

What specificaly? I don't believe that there is anything in the Bible......

[mpjh]

Well, well, now don't stomp your feet. You only took have my statement, and then had a fit. grow up

[Juan_Bottom]

Well, well, now don't stomp your feet. You only took have my statement, and then had a fit. grow up

Only half your statement addressed mine. And totally missed my point. Your other half was fine.

[mpjh]

OK, some people have a strongly held belief that they cannot change their religion, and in some countries the penalty for changing a religion is death. So you should take care when attacking a religion, as much care as in avoiding offending someone's race.

[Ray Rider]

p.s.-brett, it is a crucifix submerged in the artists urine.

Which is quite offensive to Christians just like brett's is to Muslims, no matter what the Supreme Court says. Personally, I feel that it is religion-bashing, which is against the forum rules. I won't tell you that you need to remove it because I'm partially biased being a Christian, but I would respectfully ask both of you to remove them.

Why does everyone think they have to push the lines of decency and respect??

Exactly.

those avatars could be interpreted as religion-bashing, and if the people in charge of CC (Admins) decide that it is religion-bashing, then they can ask you to remove it. Its that simple.

i'm not religious bashing. it is artwork. i'm a catholic, raised catholic, attended private catholic schools and have a degree from a catholic university. i am not offended by the image. and neither were you, until you found out what it was. i have flown this avatar in the GD for over 2 weeks without a peep from anyone, because nobody knew what it was. now, you have been told, and suddenly, you are offended. guess what, it is ART WORK.

I have known what it was since you first put it up as your avatar and found it very disturbing. I considered sending you a pm asking you to remove it, but was quite sure you would not have the decency to do that, so I never even tried. Instead, I simply adblocked it (I love the Adblock add-on for Firefox ).

[Juan_Bottom]

So you mean that you weren't leading from my post? That's ok...

But Religion/Beliefs are still just thoughts and ideas. If JBRETTLIP has an idea for a plane that can fly to Mars, we can all make fun of him and say how crazy he is, no matter how much he believes in his idea. But if he believes that a flying spagetti monster created earth, we can't say anything about that?
You see, there is certinly a difference between race, and religion.

[Juan_Bottom]

I have known what it was since you first put it up as your avatar and found it very disturbing. I considered sending you a pm asking you to remove it, but was quite sure you would not have the decency to do that, so I never even tried.

Ok, WTF people? When JBRETTLIP had his "I love Lymes" avy, I was offended, and I did ask him to remove it. Not only that, but I explained exactly why it was offensive.

Alls anyone is saying to these guys is "no!"

[jiminski]

"You can chose your Religion but you can't chose your race!"

Surely this is not an all purpose formula for polarizing the acceptable and the unacceptable.
It really is just a diversion.

[Juan_Bottom]

"You can chose your Religion but you can't chose your race!"

Surely this is not an all purpose formula for polarizing the acceptable and the unacceptable.
It really is just a diversion.

For the record, I'm not saying that you are saying this, but that was not at all what I was getting at. For anyone who follows.

[cicero]

A series of quotes. All from page 4 of the thread and presented - with one exception - in the order they were posted. Collectively they effectively reflect the difficulty of this issue ...

Just because something is classified as "art" does not mean that it is not offensive or offensively provocative.

Makes sense ... one person or group defining something as "art" (or any other label for that matter) does not preclude another group defining it as "offensive" (or any other label for that matter).

I started this thread, to ask why some avi's are allowed while others aren't.

Which seems a good question to me. Beyond the basics contained in the Forum Guidelines there isn't anything too specific about avatars ... (I've heard mention of a "no nipple" rule, but that's not really relevant to the focus of this discussion.)

And regarding labelling something as "art" or "offensive" owen demonstrates just how subjective it is ...

[jbrettlip's] new avatar is in response to a user being allowed to use a black face avatar, which is patently racist and offensive

... about brett's avatar. i may not like it, but i recognize it as a piece of art work that was published the world over in the biggest publications and shown on all the major networks. it is art. it is not offensive.

And effectively re-presents the question:

... what are the guidelines? what are the rules? who decides what is offensive and what is "art"?

To which I think Neoteny has the closest thing to an answer:

The real problem here has nothing to do with the possibility of you or me or someone else are offended by these images. People are going to be offended by certain images whether they should be or not. The question is "what can be or should be done about the images that people find offensive?"

If I find owen's current avatar offensive - which I don't - what should I personally as a CC member expect CC as an entity to do about it? The same statement applies equally to jbrettlip's current avatar.

Whilst we're on the subjective:

• Bizarrely, perhaps since I'm colourblind, I saw owenshooter's avatar as yellow on red and hence interpreted it as some kind of 'flaming crucifix' which has obnoxious connotations for anyone of African American descent. And yet that can't have been owen's intent. (I realise he has explained in thread that it is in fact an inoffensive image of Christ in urine ... )
• Also I've only realised what jbrettlip's current avatar is from the discussion here. There is nothing about it as an image that offends me. And only by knowing the news story around what it is apparently taken from do I understand why some people might find it offensive.

Off topic: the cartoon with the stick figure always makes me chuckle. I really like that one for some reason.

And that is the really easy answer. If we all just picked happy go lucky avatars and got along there'd be no problem. Would there ? Until someone found pictures of cats (my current avatar) offensive. Surely not? : Google Tayside police and images of dogs. It's all too subjective ...

... There needs to be some type of classification for offensive, or else everything is closed.

... no matter how many rules we make.

[Ray Rider]

I have known what it was since you first put it up as your avatar and found it very disturbing. I considered sending you a pm asking you to remove it, but was quite sure you would not have the decency to do that, so I never even tried.

Ok, WTF people? When JBRETTLIP had his "I love Lymes" avy, I was offended, and I did ask him to remove it. Not only that, but I explained exactly why it was offensive.

Exactly! You talking to him didn't make a difference--he said he only removed it after the mods started talking to him.

Like Night Strike said, I just don't see why people can't have a little more respect for others rather than always trying to push the limits and offend people.

[mpjh]

I have not asked CC to do anything. I am appealing to the original poster trying to make the point that his approach to CC allowing the clearly racist black face avatar isn't working, but backfiring.

However, I do think that religion bashing and race bashing are both against the rules -- so enforce or remove the rules.

[jbrettlip]

I agree whole heartedly with the posts here. (against my avatar). I want CC to become a place free of bigotry. I initially sent the black face avatar to Owen, asking WTF?? I think my current avatar should be banned, and so should Owen's. Also anything political or racist should not be allowed. But when it is ok for a user to use hate imagery, even in the definition of art, it brings down the site.

And Cicero, the stick figure picture he is referring to, is actually ONE of the mohammad cartoons, so it is hardly inoffensive.

[Frop]

I'm sure nobody would mind if I used David's penis as an avatar. It's art.

<NS EDIT>Even if it is a work of art, showing genitalia is not allowed on the site.</NS EDIT>

[PepperJack]

Like Night Strike said, I just don't see why people can't have a little more respect for others rather than always trying to push the limits and offend people.

Um, because its the internet? There's something to be said be said about the nature anonymous tastelessness. That something is that its easy with minor, if any, real penalty.

Tasteless (read: generally hilarious) avatars aside, is there a real chance that the defintion of acceptable, non-offensive, neutered art will be handed down by the powers that be?

*Tasteless does not include hateful. jbrettlips lymes was tasteless AND hilarious.

[cicero]

And Cicero, the stick figure picture he is referring to, is actually ONE of the mohammad cartoons, so it is hardly inoffensive.

In which case I stand corrected. I was assuming it was one of DiM's cartoon avatars of stick men running around generally.

[Frop]

I agree whole heartedly with the posts here. (against my avatar). I want CC to become a place free of bigotry. I initially sent the black face avatar to Owen, asking WTF?? I think my current avatar should be banned, and so should Owen's. Also anything political or racist should not be allowed. But when it is ok for a user to use hate imagery, even in the definition of art, it brings down the site.

And Cicero, the stick figure picture he is referring to, is actually ONE of the mohammad cartoons, so it is hardly inoffensive.

Disagree, I find your and owen's avatars just fine. The 'I Love Lymes' avatar was equally entertaining.

[mpjh]

Yes, Cicero, I do think you also are missing the bigger point the rules are meaningless if they affect no content. Blackface is racist. Ridiculing Muslims is both racist and religion bashing. So enforce the rules or get rid of them.

[Juan_Bottom]

Well that's fine and dandy like sour candy, but I was quite clear. Alls anyone is saying in here is "it offends me." I really would like people to be more descriptive than that, otherwise, why does their opinion matter to me?

Now, JBRETTLIP obviously didn't care what my opinion was, but at least he was able to formulate an argument against my opinion. And more than that, he was able to look at it from another point of view. And you're never going to get anywhere with anyone if you don't at least try and have a discussion. And saying "it's offensive" isn't a discussion. It's a straight opinion with no substance.

[Neoteny]

I have known what it was since you first put it up as your avatar and found it very disturbing. I considered sending you a pm asking you to remove it, but was quite sure you would not have the decency to do that, so I never even tried.

Ok, WTF people? When JBRETTLIP had his "I love Lymes" avy, I was offended, and I did ask him to remove it. Not only that, but I explained exactly why it was offensive.

Exactly! You talking to him didn't make a difference--he said he only removed it after the mods started talking to him.

Like Night Strike said, I just don't see why people can't have a little more respect for others rather than always trying to push the limits and offend people.

Well, I wouldn't say that all of the people arguing for the expression of controversial art are trying to offend people. The offense taken is part of the point, but not the goal. The goal is to try to dull the point of the offense. They want to show that whatever is offensive isn't really that big of a deal either because of the context, the zeitgeist or whatever. It tends to be a "lets move on from this stupidity" than a "I'm deliberately trying to offend people." People will get offended, but it's for a greater good, according to the artists, anyhow.

And respect is overrated. I don't give people respect, they earn it, and I don't expect anything less from anyone else. Flashpoints like these let me discern who I do and do not respect, but that's all my opinions for another topic.

EDIT: I said "anyhow" too many times...

[owenshooter]

Like Night Strike said, I just don't see why people can't have a little more respect for others rather than always trying to push the limits and offend people.

nobody cared when i was offended by a users avatar which depicts black face. i presented it to the mods, and was told it was ART WORK and not offensive. i lived with the decision and moved on. ray rider, you had NO IDEA what my avatar was until i said what it was in CALLOUTS, so don't try to act as if you did. if you had a problem with it, you should have contacted me directly and asked me what my reason was for flying my current avatar, which is an award winning, government funded photograph. i no longer have an issue with the user being allowed to use black face in his avatar, i am now simply trying to find out what are the guidelines, what are the rules, and who decides what is and isn't obscent. as i've stated before, the supreme court decided the image in my avatar was not obscene or offensive, and that decision still holds today. funny, i am catholic and am not offended by an image of a tiny plastic crucifix in a field of yellow, which i know to be urine. and neither was anyone else for over 2 weeks. the instant brett stated what it was, you became offended. that is ridiculous. why are you offended? what makes it offensive to you? how does it cross a line for you? i stated why i found black face images in an avatar offensive, and i lost the argument. i accepted it, and am now questioning what is and isn't offensive for avatars on this site. ray, you find my avatar offensive, but no others on this site? what else is offensive to you? please, tell me. that way, we can remove all the avatars you find offensive on this site. you need a stronger argument than the one you are presenting to persuade this product of catholic schools and university. funny, no outrage about the black face from you.. however, the moment you find out the cross is in urine, you are ready to declare war...-0

[Frop]

There's nothing wrong with offending someone or being offended - life would be f-ing boring without it. Stop being such politically correct pussies.