Is This Normal?

[daddy1gringo]

As many have said, we don't know what the person's motivation was, but I suspect it was just an error of judgement. As many have also said, there's nothing unusual about choosing the name of a bloodthirsty military leader for a game like this, but there should be a little voice that says, "meh... this might be crossing the line". I'm guessing that the person didn't listen to that voice, or didn't have it developed enough.

[Frito Bandito]

Naming yourself after Hitler, Stalin, or any other truly heinous person probably doesn't indicate evil as much as ignorance of history. Probably a kid or a lout.

[BigBallinStalin]

Generally, when I take the position of free markets in a debate about welfare, some people will immediately assume that I must want people to die because I oppose government welfare. They're wrong, of course, but their jumping to that conclusion requires no knowledge about me or my position. Does the OP fit this description?

By OP do you mean me? I mentioned the possibility, however slim, that the users may have some meaningful connection to the handle/avatar but the likelihood of this is questionable. But back to the original question, is knowingly using a username/avatar that represents a monster among men a normal thing to do, psychologically speaking? Do these people wear Hitler T-shirts in public? If not, why not and why don't the social norms that apply to real life apply to a socially active online site?

When people wear the following shirt, does that mean they support all those guys and their policies?





No, of course not. That would be kinda stupid to assume that.


If people wear that shirt, are they abnormal? Is something psychologically wrong??? For nearly all of them, no.

[Funkyterrance]

No, of course not. That would be kinda stupid to assume that.
If people wear that shirt, are they abnormal? Is something psychologically wrong??? For nearly all of them, no.

That shirt offers explanation though, BBS. It's meant to be a joke. Flat out wearing a t-shirt with the face of Joseph Stalin just being regular old Joseph Stalin, without any explanation, implies support and/or I dunno, idolatry? I'm not going to put any words into your mouth but I would imagine you might find something a little abnormal in this?

[BigBallinStalin]

No, of course not. That would be kinda stupid to assume that.
If people wear that shirt, are they abnormal? Is something psychologically wrong??? For nearly all of them, no.

That shirt offers explanation though, BBS. It's meant to be a joke. Flat out wearing a t-shirt with the face of Joseph Stalin just being regular old Joseph Stalin, without any explanation, implies support and/or I dunno, idolatry? I'm not going to put any words into your mouth but I would imagine you might find something a little abnormal in this?

Of course, but that is different, so perhaps you can clarify your stance here.

With names, sometimes we cannot see if the user is joking (like the Communist Party shirt) or is totes serious (like I dunno, that guy over there).

From what I've read from you, your position seemed to assert that ALL users fit into the totes serious and psychologically abnormal category--and no funny stuff.

[Funkyterrance]

From what I've read from you, your position seemed to assert that ALL users fit into the totes serious and psychologically abnormal category--and no funny stuff.

If I've been inconsistent on here somehow, that's not how I've felt. I feel that if you have an image/name of one of these lovely individuals representing you without explanation, its going to be assumed that you are a proponent of said individual. The natural assumption is that he/she is ok with this. Whatever idealistic beliefs may exist on here, it's arguably not normal or even healthy to be apathetic of droves of people assuming that you are a horrible person who idolizes Adolf Hitler.

[GeneralRisk]

Naming yourself after Hitler, Stalin, or any other truly heinous person probably doesn't indicate evil as much as ignorance of history. Probably a kid or a lout.

“History is written by the victors.”

― Winston Churchill
Atrocities were committed by the Axis Powers during World War 2. Atrocities were committed by the Allies both during and after World War 2. The extent of the atrocities supposedly committed by the Germans have been exaggerated and in some cases totally fabricated..................................................

show: Economic Boycott of 1933

The "holocaust" was the strangest genocide in history. While waiting to be gassed, you could enjoy a cold beer, play a game of soccer, listen to an orchestra or watch the kids perform in a play.

show: IKE

...........................................................full length video of Deanna Spingola Dwight D Eisenhower's death camps in Germanyhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jz1GTIimIjI....................................."Hitler... one of the most significant figures who ever lived"
President J.F. Kennedy



"Hitler will emerge from the hatred that surrounds him now as one of the most significant figures who ever lived...
He had a mystery about him in the way that he lived and in the manner of his death that will live and grow after him.
He had in him the stuff of which legends are made."
- John F. Kennedy,
President of the
United States of America

[GeneralRisk]

I would agree with this quote. I don't think it's "normal" to want to associate yourself with mass murderers, real life-villains, etc.. but at times I get the very strong impression that many people on CC do not share this viewpoint. "All in good fun", in so many words, or "freedom of speech" are very common response to issues like this.
So if you all don't mind, I'd like the hear some good reasonable defense(in a thread that will be viewed by a larger audience) for usernames as well as avatars, etc. on here that seem to laugh in the face of decency?

I don't think it needs a "defense" per se. If people have a right to give themselves fantasy names, then that right should be absolute and not need defending. However, if you want a rationale for naming yourself after vicious dictators and butchers, it is simply this. This site is selling a game about warfare and world conquest. Thus, one would expect names associated with warfare and world conquest to be commonplace. I'm actually surprised that we don't have more usernames reflective of Hitler, Stalin, Napoleon, Ghenghis, Ceasar, Xerxes, Tamurlane, etc. than we do.

If it didn't need a defense, it does now lol. Basically these people are being referred to in some circles as abnormal which I'm not feeling is a universal response. But putting Hitler and Stalin in the same boat as any of the great Caesars of Rome... for shame!

The Conquest of Gaul

Now Caesar was free to pursue honour and glory for another five years. The conquest of Gaul, during the Gallic Wars celebrated in Caesar's own treatise on the subject, does not appear to have been planned, but in 58 BCE an intrusion into Roman controlled territory of the Helvetii from the area of Switzerland gave Caesar an excuse to go on the offensive.

Later Caesar used a request for help from some of the Gallic tribes to intervene in internal Gallic conflicts, and he defeated one tribe after another. By the end of 57 BCE most of the tribes were defeated and forced to accept Roman supremacy.
The Capitoline 'Dying Gaul' The Capitoline 'Dying Gaul'

In 56 BCE the alliance of Caesar, Crassus and Pompey met fierce opposition in the senate in Rome and one candidate for the consulship in 55 BCE promised to call back Caesar and prosecute him if he won the election. Caesar, who had spent the winter in Illyricum, met with Pompey and Crassus in Italy to sort out the situation. The agree to prolong their private agreement for another five years. Caesar would support the election of Pompey and Crassus for the consulship of 55 BCE, and Caesar's pro-consular command in Gaul would be prolonged for another five-year period, giving him another respite from prosecution. Their plan succeed, Pompey and Crassus became consuls and Caesar's command prolonged.

With his back covered Caesar returned to Gaul. In the following years (55 and 54 BCE) he fought Germanic tribes that had crossed the Rhine into Gaul, with a brutality and ruthlessness that caused much opposition in Rome, and he crossed the British Channel and made a short, victorious campaign in Britain, but with no lasting consequences.

Caesar's troops camped for the winter in various places in Belgium, but in the spring of 53 BCE some of these camps were attacked by the local tribes and suffered serious losses. Caesar spend most of that year fighting these tribes, and effectively annihilated some of them, men, women and children. The next year an alliance of many Gallic tribes, under the leadership of Vercingetorix, rose against the Romans. They tried to starve out the Romans, burning many of their own towns and collected all their forces and supplies in a few heavily fortified strongholds. Caesar's forces took some of these towns, but failed to take others. In the end all the Roman forces was concentrated around the city of Alesia, but failed to take it by storm. Caesar decided to starve the Gallic forces out, and after a prolonged siege Vercingetorix and the Gauls surrendered.

It is estimated that one million persons died in the wars and another million was sold into slavery, draining Gaul of approximately one third of the entire population. Caesar had effected an unprecedented genocide (in modern terms we would talk about war crimes, genocide and crimes against the humanity), all in the name of honour and glory.

[Funkyterrance]

I would agree with this quote. I don't think it's "normal" to want to associate yourself with mass murderers, real life-villains, etc.. but at times I get the very strong impression that many people on CC do not share this viewpoint. "All in good fun", in so many words, or "freedom of speech" are very common response to issues like this.
So if you all don't mind, I'd like the hear some good reasonable defense(in a thread that will be viewed by a larger audience) for usernames as well as avatars, etc. on here that seem to laugh in the face of decency?

I don't think it needs a "defense" per se. If people have a right to give themselves fantasy names, then that right should be absolute and not need defending. However, if you want a rationale for naming yourself after vicious dictators and butchers, it is simply this. This site is selling a game about warfare and world conquest. Thus, one would expect names associated with warfare and world conquest to be commonplace. I'm actually surprised that we don't have more usernames reflective of Hitler, Stalin, Napoleon, Ghenghis, Ceasar, Xerxes, Tamurlane, etc. than we do.

If it didn't need a defense, it does now lol. Basically these people are being referred to in some circles as abnormal which I'm not feeling is a universal response. But putting Hitler and Stalin in the same boat as any of the great Caesars of Rome... for shame!

The Conquest of Gaul

Now Caesar was free to pursue honour and glory for another five years. The conquest of Gaul, during the Gallic Wars celebrated in Caesar's own treatise on the subject, does not appear to have been planned, but in 58 BCE an intrusion into Roman controlled territory of the Helvetii from the area of Switzerland gave Caesar an excuse to go on the offensive.

Later Caesar used a request for help from some of the Gallic tribes to intervene in internal Gallic conflicts, and he defeated one tribe after another. By the end of 57 BCE most of the tribes were defeated and forced to accept Roman supremacy.
The Capitoline 'Dying Gaul' The Capitoline 'Dying Gaul'

In 56 BCE the alliance of Caesar, Crassus and Pompey met fierce opposition in the senate in Rome and one candidate for the consulship in 55 BCE promised to call back Caesar and prosecute him if he won the election. Caesar, who had spent the winter in Illyricum, met with Pompey and Crassus in Italy to sort out the situation. The agree to prolong their private agreement for another five years. Caesar would support the election of Pompey and Crassus for the consulship of 55 BCE, and Caesar's pro-consular command in Gaul would be prolonged for another five-year period, giving him another respite from prosecution. Their plan succeed, Pompey and Crassus became consuls and Caesar's command prolonged.

With his back covered Caesar returned to Gaul. In the following years (55 and 54 BCE) he fought Germanic tribes that had crossed the Rhine into Gaul, with a brutality and ruthlessness that caused much opposition in Rome, and he crossed the British Channel and made a short, victorious campaign in Britain, but with no lasting consequences.

Caesar's troops camped for the winter in various places in Belgium, but in the spring of 53 BCE some of these camps were attacked by the local tribes and suffered serious losses. Caesar spend most of that year fighting these tribes, and effectively annihilated some of them, men, women and children. The next year an alliance of many Gallic tribes, under the leadership of Vercingetorix, rose against the Romans. They tried to starve out the Romans, burning many of their own towns and collected all their forces and supplies in a few heavily fortified strongholds. Caesar's forces took some of these towns, but failed to take others. In the end all the Roman forces was concentrated around the city of Alesia, but failed to take it by storm. Caesar decided to starve the Gallic forces out, and after a prolonged siege Vercingetorix and the Gauls surrendered.

It is estimated that one million persons died in the wars and another million was sold into slavery, draining Gaul of approximately one third of the entire population. Caesar had effected an unprecedented genocide (in modern terms we would talk about war crimes, genocide and crimes against the humanity), all in the name of honour and glory.

I read the whole thing and I don't disagree with any of it. However, don't you feel that the context of ancient history might have at least a little weight here? Again, I implore you to consider motivation as it means everything as far as morality is concerned.

[GeneralRisk]

I would agree with this quote. I don't think it's "normal" to want to associate yourself with mass murderers, real life-villains, etc.. but at times I get the very strong impression that many people on CC do not share this viewpoint. "All in good fun", in so many words, or "freedom of speech" are very common response to issues like this.
So if you all don't mind, I'd like the hear some good reasonable defense(in a thread that will be viewed by a larger audience) for usernames as well as avatars, etc. on here that seem to laugh in the face of decency?

I don't think it needs a "defense" per se. If people have a right to give themselves fantasy names, then that right should be absolute and not need defending. However, if you want a rationale for naming yourself after vicious dictators and butchers, it is simply this. This site is selling a game about warfare and world conquest. Thus, one would expect names associated with warfare and world conquest to be commonplace. I'm actually surprised that we don't have more usernames reflective of Hitler, Stalin, Napoleon, Ghenghis, Ceasar, Xerxes, Tamurlane, etc. than we do.

If it didn't need a defense, it does now lol. Basically these people are being referred to in some circles as abnormal which I'm not feeling is a universal response. But putting Hitler and Stalin in the same boat as any of the great Caesars of Rome... for shame!

The Conquest of Gaul

Now Caesar was free to pursue honour and glory for another five years. The conquest of Gaul, during the Gallic Wars celebrated in Caesar's own treatise on the subject, does not appear to have been planned, but in 58 BCE an intrusion into Roman controlled territory of the Helvetii from the area of Switzerland gave Caesar an excuse to go on the offensive.

Later Caesar used a request for help from some of the Gallic tribes to intervene in internal Gallic conflicts, and he defeated one tribe after another. By the end of 57 BCE most of the tribes were defeated and forced to accept Roman supremacy.
The Capitoline 'Dying Gaul' The Capitoline 'Dying Gaul'

In 56 BCE the alliance of Caesar, Crassus and Pompey met fierce opposition in the senate in Rome and one candidate for the consulship in 55 BCE promised to call back Caesar and prosecute him if he won the election. Caesar, who had spent the winter in Illyricum, met with Pompey and Crassus in Italy to sort out the situation. The agree to prolong their private agreement for another five years. Caesar would support the election of Pompey and Crassus for the consulship of 55 BCE, and Caesar's pro-consular command in Gaul would be prolonged for another five-year period, giving him another respite from prosecution. Their plan succeed, Pompey and Crassus became consuls and Caesar's command prolonged.

With his back covered Caesar returned to Gaul. In the following years (55 and 54 BCE) he fought Germanic tribes that had crossed the Rhine into Gaul, with a brutality and ruthlessness that caused much opposition in Rome, and he crossed the British Channel and made a short, victorious campaign in Britain, but with no lasting consequences.

Caesar's troops camped for the winter in various places in Belgium, but in the spring of 53 BCE some of these camps were attacked by the local tribes and suffered serious losses. Caesar spend most of that year fighting these tribes, and effectively annihilated some of them, men, women and children. The next year an alliance of many Gallic tribes, under the leadership of Vercingetorix, rose against the Romans. They tried to starve out the Romans, burning many of their own towns and collected all their forces and supplies in a few heavily fortified strongholds. Caesar's forces took some of these towns, but failed to take others. In the end all the Roman forces was concentrated around the city of Alesia, but failed to take it by storm. Caesar decided to starve the Gallic forces out, and after a prolonged siege Vercingetorix and the Gauls surrendered.

It is estimated that one million persons died in the wars and another million was sold into slavery, draining Gaul of approximately one third of the entire population. Caesar had effected an unprecedented genocide (in modern terms we would talk about war crimes, genocide and crimes against the humanity), all in the name of honour and glory.

I read the whole thing and I don't disagree with any of it. However, don't you feel that the context of ancient history might have at least a little weight here? Again, I implore you to consider motivation as it means everything as far as morality is concerned.

“A moral system valid for all is basically immoral.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche........The Nazis: a Warning from History. In this series an eyewitness account tells of Hitler watching movies (which he did very often). If ever a scene showed (even fictional) cruelty to or death of an animal, Hitler would cover his eyes and look away until someone alerted him the scene was over. The documentary also commented on the German animal welfare laws that the Nazis introduced, which were unparalleled at the time.“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
― Mahatma Gandhi

[Funkyterrance]

“A moral system valid for all is basically immoral.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche........The Nazis: a Warning from History. In this series an eyewitness account tells of Hitler watching movies (which he did very often). If ever a scene showed (even fictional) cruelty to or death of an animal, Hitler would cover his eyes and look away until someone alerted him the scene was over. The documentary also commented on the German animal welfare laws that the Nazis introduced, which were unparalleled at the time.“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
― Mahatma Gandhi

Umm, yeah...
The fact that Hitler had to cover his eyes over animal slaughter on TV while ordering the deaths of millions suggests that for a modern person he was seriously fucked up, in other words a madman.
And the Gandhi quote, yeah he is assuming that people being treated morally is a given dude.
And Nietzsche had the hots for himself and probably thought that quote sounded clever. It's not a very profound idea and doesn't really apply to what we are talking about either. Well, maybe it does, but it's supporting my own argument more than anything; Hitler and Caesar came from both very different moral backgrounds. Hitler, considering his background, was a far more amoral person.

[Haggis_McMutton]

I don't get this avatar banning business.

There's 2 levels of discussion usually.

1. The discussion of the image itself. Ok, I get it, this is a business so it doesn't allow all the images that would fly on 4chan. No gore, no explicit porn, what not. Presumably because people would be involuntarily shocked, offended, grossed out or otherwise inconvenienced by these images. An image of Hitler however, I don't understand what reaction this is supposedly causing in people. Do you actively hate the guy so much that seeing a picture of him makes your blood boil? Does the mention of his name cause a visceral reaction deep in your soul? What exactly is going on with your mental state when you see his picture such that you feel a need to make showing his picture illegal ?

2. And this is the more retarded one. The discussion about the intent of the user when he uploaded the avatar. Are you fuckin kidding me? You do realise that to even entertain that intent is punishable is basically prosecuting thought crime?
Not only is it completely impossible to discern intent, it is also completely useless. Why should the intent matter to you? If I upload a picture of kittens while actively thinking about killing all jews, does that make the picture of kittens somehow different? What about if I write "kill all jews" on the kittens with font that's 99% transparent so that it is completely invisible to the naked eye. Does this make the image illegal? ffs, prosecuting intent is ridiculous. stick to what the image shows and how exactly the image causes you so much mental distress that you feel the need to try to make it illegal.

[kentington]

I don't get this avatar banning business.

There's 2 levels of discussion usually.

1. The discussion of the image itself. Ok, I get it, this is a business so it doesn't allow all the images that would fly on 4chan. No gore, no explicit porn, what not. Presumably because people would be involuntarily shocked, offended, grossed out or otherwise inconvenienced by these images. An image of Hitler however, I don't understand what reaction this is supposedly causing in people. Do you actively hate the guy so much that seeing a picture of him makes your blood boil? Does the mention of his name cause a visceral reaction deep in your soul? What exactly is going on with your mental state when you see his picture such that you feel a need to make showing his picture illegal ?

2. And this is the more retarded one. The discussion about the intent of the user when he uploaded the avatar. Are you fuckin kidding me? You do realise that to even entertain that intent is punishable is basically prosecuting thought crime?
Not only is it completely impossible to discern intent, it is also completely useless. Why should the intent matter to you? If I upload a picture of kittens while actively thinking about killing all jews, does that make the picture of kittens somehow different? What about if I write "kill all jews" on the kittens with font that's 99% transparent so that it is completely invisible to the naked eye. Does this make the image illegal? ffs, prosecuting intent is ridiculous. stick to what the image shows and how exactly the image causes you so much mental distress that you feel the need to try to make it illegal.

1. I agree with that. I think if anything foe (does foe remove everything? I have never used it), hate, or know that the person is ignorant.

2. I agree with that, there has been a case where the mods decided to enforce an avi change because of a users previous posts. Showing that the avatar was this users way of trolling. But then it is not that the intent is being punished, but the act of trolling. In that case would you punish them for trolling, inhibit their trolling ability by removing the avi, or ...?

[Haggis_McMutton]

1. I agree with that. I think if anything foe (does foe remove everything? I have never used it), hate, or know that the person is ignorant.

2. I agree with that, there has been a case where the mods decided to enforce an avi change because of a users previous posts. Showing that the avatar was this users way of trolling. But then it is not that the intent is being punished, but the act of trolling. In that case would you punish them for trolling, inhibit their trolling ability by removing the avi, or ...?

Trolling has to be personalized. If I put up an avatar that says "You are dumb", I'm guessing you'll agree that it's not trolling. For an avatar to be trolling it would have to somehow be targeting a person or a small group of people in a particularly nasty way. It'd also probably have to contain actual words or perhaps gore. If such an avatar was used (extreme case, an avatar could have some other poster's personal info in it) then it should of course fall into the trolling or personal info category.

What I think you're referring to is some guy putting the swastika (correct me if I'm wrong, I didn't keep track of that particular club drama), in which case I have trouble believing the trolling verdict.(it seems more like he was trying to prove a point, like when MDF posted that close-up of a nipple).
Again I would ask the offended people to explain what kind of inadvertent and visceral reaction the sight of that image causes them such that they are petitioning to have it removed.

[kentington]

1. I agree with that. I think if anything foe (does foe remove everything? I have never used it), hate, or know that the person is ignorant.

2. I agree with that, there has been a case where the mods decided to enforce an avi change because of a users previous posts. Showing that the avatar was this users way of trolling. But then it is not that the intent is being punished, but the act of trolling. In that case would you punish them for trolling, inhibit their trolling ability by removing the avi, or ...?

Trolling has to be personalized. If I put up an avatar that says "You are dumb", I'm guessing you'll agree that it's not trolling. For an avatar to be trolling it would have to somehow be targeting a person or a small group of people in a particularly nasty way. It'd also probably have to contain actual words or perhaps gore. If such an avatar was used (extreme case, an avatar could have some other poster's personal info in it) then it should of course fall into the trolling or personal info category.

What I think you're referring to is some guy putting the swastika (correct me if I'm wrong, I didn't keep track of that particular club drama), in which case I have trouble believing the trolling verdict.(it seems more like he was trying to prove a point, like when MDF posted that close-up of a nipple).
Again I would ask the offended people to explain what kind of inadvertent and visceral reaction the sight of that image causes them such that they are petitioning to have it removed.

You are right. I wanted to know your opinion on that one. No need to read the thread much either, I think I stopped posting in it after the first couple of pages. It wasn't going anywhere.
I didn't see the report and I don't have any info on why it was reported, but some people really don't react well towards those images.
Would foe-ing remove the images as well as the posts? I imagine that if you are really bothered by the image, then you don't really care what the person has to say.