Mods gone wild

[AAFitz]

Im not at all suggesting the killing of free ideas or free speech. I was only saying that it was offensive to someone of the hindu faith, and probably more, and therefore, was offensive. I didnt suggest that the picture be made illegal, or that the poster should be punished. That would be unthinkable. However, clapper removing it from a thread in an online, privately owned game site seems fully justified. Its a business, and a business has the right to decide what it associates itself with. You further suggested Regan would allow the pictures, and obviously there is no way he would allow them in certain places. I think its safe to say that many pictures were disallowed in government buildings. Certainly any religious items probably were, and certainly any that were mocking in any way. You would be mad for suggesting otherwise.

Had I suggested that picture be burned, and removed from the world, that would be mad. To suggest there may be ample reason to not allow it in here, is pretty reasonable, and its far more reasonable than you assertion that Regan would have allowed it in the white house.

LOL, never said anything about the White House or Federal Buildings. It was a casual remark that was closer to "not burn and remove from the world" than "let's post that baby all over America!"

Actually, you did. You said Reagan would not have removed that picture. This would imply: in the same situation Clapper was in. That would include the White House, or the statement would be completely false in the first place.

Clapper removed that picture from a CC forum, where it was said to be offensive. She did not suggest or imply it was inappropriate in some other forum or illegal. She also didnt say burn it and get rid of it all over America...she said: this is inappropriate for our little forum in here because someone complained that it offended their religion, the same way your "free speech hero" Reagan would have eliminated that from the walls of the White House, and Federal building in the country. It was inappropriate, and offensive, in that forum, not to mention probably fired the person responsible for endagering the possibility of international incident.

She got reports from someone of the Hindu faith that was offended because their god was displayed, and she deleted it just to be safe. To call this an infringement of free speech is laughable. To imply she didnt have the right to, is an infringement of free speech.

Further, in the end, after reviewing the situation, she decided to let it go, and clearly her earlier decision, was a preventative one to insure there was no bigotry. Had she ignored the bigotry warning, the other side very well could have said that CC was allowing Bigotry again, and then she would have had an entire other group complaining.

In the end, she did the exact correct thing. She deleted a possibly bigoted picture before it could possibly do more harm. Carefully reviewed the situation, and put it back. She should be commended for her efforts on here, not criticised.

Being a mod is a tough job, and there is sometimes no perfect solution. Certainly you cant make all the people happy all the time, and those who gave her hell for this, should be ashamed of themselves.

Now, if Clapper was outside of CC staff, and was trying to tell CC that it couldnt post that picture, Id be right there with you protecting CC's freedom of speech. But CC is a private company, and has set up rules and policies. As such, they can allow, or disallow what they wish, and it does not affect anybody's free speech in any way. That poster could have taken that picture to 10000 other sites, printed up glossys and sent them to everyone in america, etc. Free speech has nothing to do with this situation. This is a forum intended to generate new and more business, and they have the right to do whatever they want towards that goal. Forcing them to change what is displayed or isnt displayed, assuming it isnt illegal, would be an infringement of their freedom of speech.

[pmchugh]

ffs mods can't win. If she doesn't remove it people claim that the mods are bigotted etc. etc. But when she does remove it people say it was OTT. I think she did the right thing, what would you do? Ignore several complaints and put CC under scuritiny just so that a picture can be kept up?

[TheBro]

Mods can't win? Mods never lose!

[King_Herpes]

I was hoping this was the "as seen on t.v." offer. Would of been nice to see Clapp and Insom's shower scene. Worth $19.95 anyways....

[GENERAL STONEHAM]

alstergren on Sun Jun 14, 2009 11:19 am

Ah, freedom... better dead than red as they said back in the 80's.


Sorry, but the term, "Better dead than red." Is a term started in the 1950s.

[alster]

alstergren on Sun Jun 14, 2009 11:19 am

Ah, freedom... better dead than red as they said back in the 80's.


Sorry, but the term, "Better dead than red." Is a term started in the 1950s.

Oh jeez.... so they never said that at all during the 80's then?

[AAFitz]

alstergren on Sun Jun 14, 2009 11:19 am

Ah, freedom... better dead than red as they said back in the 80's.


Sorry, but the term, "Better dead than red." Is a term started in the 1950s.

Oh jeez.... so they never said that at all during the 80's then?

When I hear the phrase, it actually reminds me of a picture of a very hot Native American Woman that I believe had the slogan in reverse on a tee-shirt. Im not sure if that falls into the bigotry category ironically enough though.

[alster]

Actually, you did. You said Reagan would not have removed that picture. This would imply: in the same situation Clapper was in. That would include the White House, or the statement would be completely false in the first place.

I find this annoying and dishonest. It's annoying that you keep pushing something that I have brushed aside as a casual remark. It's dishonest that you argue by making a point construing a remark to imply something far beoynd the meaning and contect of the original statement. If you wish to construe the statement (which is casual and not really important since it obviously was just put in there for color) it would be that I claimed that "Reagan would not have wanted/asked a free enterprise to remove the picture in question." (This is utterly ridiculous to discuss though because this would have been 30 years ago in another time and God knows whether such a statement would be true or not.) So pls stop being annoying and stop argue dishonestly.

Clapper removed that picture from a CC forum, where it was said to be offensive. She did not suggest or imply it was inappropriate in some other forum or illegal. She also didnt say burn it and get rid of it all over America...she said: this is inappropriate for our little forum in here because someone complained that it offended their religion, the same way your "free speech hero" Reagan would have eliminated that from the walls of the White House, and Federal building in the country. It was inappropriate, and offensive, in that forum, not to mention probably fired the person responsible for endagering the possibility of international incident.

She got reports from someone of the Hindu faith that was offended because their god was displayed, and she deleted it just to be safe. To call this an infringement of free speech is laughable. To imply she didnt have the right to, is an infringement of free speech.

Further, in the end, after reviewing the situation, she decided to let it go, and clearly her earlier decision, was a preventative one to insure there was no bigotry. Had she ignored the bigotry warning, the other side very well could have said that CC was allowing Bigotry again, and then she would have had an entire other group complaining.

In the end, she did the exact correct thing. She deleted a possibly bigoted picture before it could possibly do more harm. Carefully reviewed the situation, and put it back. She should be commended for her efforts on here, not criticised.

Being a mod is a tough job, and there is sometimes no perfect solution. Certainly you cant make all the people happy all the time, and those who gave her hell for this, should be ashamed of themselves.

Now, if Clapper was outside of CC staff, and was trying to tell CC that it couldnt post that picture, Id be right there with you protecting CC's freedom of speech. But CC is a private company, and has set up rules and policies. As such, they can allow, or disallow what they wish, and it does not affect anybody's free speech in any way. That poster could have taken that picture to 10000 other sites, printed up glossys and sent them to everyone in america, etc. Free speech has nothing to do with this situation. This is a forum intended to generate new and more business, and they have the right to do whatever they want towards that goal. Forcing them to change what is displayed or isnt displayed, assuming it isnt illegal, would be an infringement of their freedom of speech.

Generally, Western companies themselves enjoying the liberties and freedom guaranteed by the society should IMO thread careful in this area. Besides the obvious, i.e. that keeping the liberal flag decently high is a decent thing to do (the same way that the decent thing to do is not to pollute the air or water more than necessary) it rarely goes down well with customers/public when companies starts to censor and interfere with their customers expressions and discussions. Of course they have to too some extent. E.g. CC may not want people to post porn. Fine, that seems generally reasonably enforced in an objective way using the same yardstick for all. Here though, seeing the picture it concerns me that an over-anxious mod removed the picture prematurely as it seems to me that other religious characters have been portrait in such, for their respective orthodox follower, perhaps not entirely respectful way. It’s good that it’s back though because that signals that CC isn’t a religious community, it’s an online game where people can interact in the forums in a relatively free and liberal way. And that’s probably what most paying customers want it to be.

With respect to free speech etc. I believe that it's perfectly fine for paying customers to request/ask for this in a forum which they pay to be in. Or what, shall all bow to the company in question not asking for customer satisfaction?

EDIT: And as I noted above, I don't really think we're completely disagreeing here on principle. I just think it's good that people are offended from time to time. If not learning to deal with that, well, the society will go down the drain as whining interest groups takes over completely.

[alster]

When I hear the phrase, it actually reminds me of a picture of a very hot Native American Woman that I believe had the slogan in reverse on a tee-shirt. Im not sure if that falls into the bigotry category ironically enough though.

Seen European Commies wear such reverse slogans!

But guess when a redskin (whether ethnic group or football supporter I guess) wears it, it takes on a completely different meaning. Pretty funny spin to it.

[AAFitz]

Actually, you did. You said Reagan would not have removed that picture. This would imply: in the same situation Clapper was in. That would include the White House, or the statement would be completely false in the first place.

I find this annoying and dishonest. It's annoying that you keep pushing something that I have brushed aside as a casual remark. It's dishonest that you argue by making a point construing a remark to imply something far beoynd the meaning and contect of the original statement. If you wish to construe the statement (which is casual and not really important since it obviously was just put in there for color) it would be that I claimed that "Reagan would not have wanted/asked a free enterprise to remove the picture in question." (This is utterly ridiculous to discuss though because this would have been 30 years ago in another time and God knows whether such a statement would be true or not.) So pls stop being annoying and stop argue dishonestly.

Clapper removed that picture from a CC forum, where it was said to be offensive. She did not suggest or imply it was inappropriate in some other forum or illegal. She also didnt say burn it and get rid of it all over America...she said: this is inappropriate for our little forum in here because someone complained that it offended their religion, the same way your "free speech hero" Reagan would have eliminated that from the walls of the White House, and Federal building in the country. It was inappropriate, and offensive, in that forum, not to mention probably fired the person responsible for endagering the possibility of international incident.

She got reports from someone of the Hindu faith that was offended because their god was displayed, and she deleted it just to be safe. To call this an infringement of free speech is laughable. To imply she didnt have the right to, is an infringement of free speech.

Further, in the end, after reviewing the situation, she decided to let it go, and clearly her earlier decision, was a preventative one to insure there was no bigotry. Had she ignored the bigotry warning, the other side very well could have said that CC was allowing Bigotry again, and then she would have had an entire other group complaining.

In the end, she did the exact correct thing. She deleted a possibly bigoted picture before it could possibly do more harm. Carefully reviewed the situation, and put it back. She should be commended for her efforts on here, not criticised.

Being a mod is a tough job, and there is sometimes no perfect solution. Certainly you cant make all the people happy all the time, and those who gave her hell for this, should be ashamed of themselves.

Now, if Clapper was outside of CC staff, and was trying to tell CC that it couldnt post that picture, Id be right there with you protecting CC's freedom of speech. But CC is a private company, and has set up rules and policies. As such, they can allow, or disallow what they wish, and it does not affect anybody's free speech in any way. That poster could have taken that picture to 10000 other sites, printed up glossys and sent them to everyone in america, etc. Free speech has nothing to do with this situation. This is a forum intended to generate new and more business, and they have the right to do whatever they want towards that goal. Forcing them to change what is displayed or isnt displayed, assuming it isnt illegal, would be an infringement of their freedom of speech.

Generally, Western companies themselves enjoying the liberties and freedom guaranteed by the society should IMO thread careful in this area. Besides the obvious, i.e. that keeping the liberal flag decently high is a decent thing to do (the same way that the decent thing to do is not to pollute the air or water more than necessary) it rarely goes down well with customers/public when companies starts to censor and interfere with their customers expressions and discussions. Of course they have to too some extent. E.g. CC may not want people to post porn. Fine, that seems generally reasonably enforced in an objective way using the same yardstick for all. Here though, seeing the picture it concerns me that an over-anxious mod removed the picture prematurely as it seems to me that other religious characters have been portrait in such, for their respective orthodox follower, perhaps not entirely respectful way. It’s good that it’s back though because that signals that CC isn’t a religious community, it’s an online game where people can interact in the forums in a relatively free and liberal way. And that’s probably what most paying customers want it to be.

With respect to free speech etc. I believe that it's perfectly fine for paying customers to request/ask for this in a forum which they pay to be in. Or what, shall all bow to the company in question not asking for customer satisfaction?

Well, no, of course it is your right to request it, but to insinuate that she had no right to remove it to avoid any risk of harm to CC is wrong too. What I was suggesting was against free speech would be any action to actually require the picture to be displayed...

In this case, Clapper was in an impossible situation. She acted quick, to insure something that may have been bigoted, and something that people were complaining about was removed, so that it could be evaluated. It was evaluated, and decided to be ok. It was her only possible option in this situation.

It was your assertion that this somehow was a violation, or infringed on free speech, and further that Reagan would have acted different that I was replying to, and mostly because it was obvious you weren't seeing the other side of it. Not to mention you insinuating I was "mad" for seeing her side of the situation, which really is self evident in my opinion.

Ok, ill leave that for humor's sake, but by self evident, i meant her side of the situation was self evident...not that I was "mad"

[AAFitz]

When I hear the phrase, it actually reminds me of a picture of a very hot Native American Woman that I believe had the slogan in reverse on a tee-shirt. Im not sure if that falls into the bigotry category ironically enough though.

Seen European Commies wear such reverse slogans!

But guess when a redskin (whether ethnic group or football supporter I guess) wears it, it takes on a completely different meaning. Pretty funny spin to it.

I thought so. I also looked it up real quick, and found there was an Aids Campaign in africa that used the slogan in reverse, that had to do with something red. I didnt look into it, but it met some resistance too.

[Snorri1234]

You seem to have forgotten to mention, that clapper mentioned that she had had many complaints about it being offensive, which is what brought her attention to it in the first place:

i had many reports of it offending people.

Now, if people were tagging it as offensive, and bigoted, it obviously was. The fact that you dont care, isnt what decides if something is offensive, its what the offended people think, and in this case, it was an entire religion that was targeted, by what was thought by many to be a bigoted and offensive picture mocking their religious beliefs.

I think you are missing the point. The picture can literally not be offensive to Hinduists because it is an accurate portrayal of Kali. It's impossible for people who know about the religion to consider the picture offensive. It's like getting offended by seeing jesus hung from a cross.

[AAFitz]

You seem to have forgotten to mention, that clapper mentioned that she had had many complaints about it being offensive, which is what brought her attention to it in the first place:

i had many reports of it offending people.

Now, if people were tagging it as offensive, and bigoted, it obviously was. The fact that you dont care, isnt what decides if something is offensive, its what the offended people think, and in this case, it was an entire religion that was targeted, by what was thought by many to be a bigoted and offensive picture mocking their religious beliefs.

I think you are missing the point. The picture can literally not be offensive to Hinduists because it is an accurate portrayal of Kali. It's impossible for people who know about the religion to consider the picture offensive. It's like getting offended by seeing jesus hung from a cross.

Im not missing any point at all. If a Hinduist is offended by a picture, than they are offended. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous. Further, many probably are offended from seeing jesus hung from a cross. Certainly you wont see it in a Mosque, temple, or hindu...err...place of worship. You also wont find one in most schools, or federal buildings either, because some people do find it offensive.

[Snorri1234]

Seriously: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kali#Iconography

Kali is portrayed mostly in two forms: the popular four-armed form and the ten-armed Mahakali form. In both of her forms, she is described as being black in color but is most often depicted as blue in popular Indian art. Her eyes are described as red with intoxication and in absolute rage, her hair is shown disheveled, small fangs sometimes protrude out of her mouth and her tongue is lolling. She is often shown naked or just wearing a skirt made of human arms and a garland of human heads.

Kali's most common four armed iconographic image shows each hand carrying variously a sword, a trishul (trident), a severed head and a bowl or skull-cup (kapala) catching the blood of the severed head.

[AAFitz]

Seriously: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kali#Iconography

Kali is portrayed mostly in two forms: the popular four-armed form and the ten-armed Mahakali form. In both of her forms, she is described as being black in color but is most often depicted as blue in popular Indian art. Her eyes are described as red with intoxication and in absolute rage, her hair is shown disheveled, small fangs sometimes protrude out of her mouth and her tongue is lolling. She is often shown naked or just wearing a skirt made of human arms and a garland of human heads.

Kali's most common four armed iconographic image shows each hand carrying variously a sword, a trishul (trident), a severed head and a bowl or skull-cup (kapala) catching the blood of the severed head.

That does not mean that is an accurate picture. I could dress up, nail myself onto a cross, and simply stick my tongue out to offend most christians. The fact that wikipedia would describe my representation as accurate, does not mean that it is, or that it wasnt offensive to many. Further, the fact that I copied the description closely, would not hide the fact that I was mocking it.

More importantly, Clapper, not being hindu, cant possibly know what would or would not be offensive. She got a report that it was, so she acted quickly, which is her job. She evaluated it, and put it back.

[dezzy26]

i find dezzy26's avatar offensive and feel it should be removed. kicking babies should never be condoned, unless they are very loud and annoying, with crap filled diapers to absorb that kick.

the baby is all of the above
further more granny got some of that crap on her shoes
boy was she offended

[Snorri1234]

Im not missing any point at all. If a Hinduist is offended by a picture, than they are offended. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

I'm saying that they can't be offended because there is nothing offensive about it. A hinduist literally can't get offended by it for the simple reason that it's not offensive to them. Christians don't get offended by seeing jesus on a cross and hinduists don't get offended by seeing Kali with a skirt of severed arms and a garland of human heads.

Further, many probably are offended from seeing jesus hung from a cross. Certainly you wont see it in a Mosque, temple, or hindu...err...place of worship. You also wont find one in most schools, or federal buildings either, because some people do find it offensive.

Uhm those people aren't offended at the jesus but at the implication of it. (e.g. that the school is religious in nature) If they were actually offended by the jesus itself they would protest it at other places too. Anyone who is actually offended by the jesus itself is a bigot and should not be listened to.



And seriously, you are giving clapper way too much credit. She still thinks it's an offensive image.

[Snorri1234]

That does not mean that is an accurate picture. I could dress up, nail myself onto a cross, and simply stick my tongue out to offend most christians. The fact that wikipedia would describe my representation as accurate, does not mean that it is, or that it wasnt offensive to many. Further, the fact that I copied the description closely, would not hide the fact that I was mocking it.

Jesus does not stick his tongue out in traditional imagery. If you don't stick out your tongue it wouldn't be mockery for the simple fact that the intent isn't shown. If you copy a picture of Jesus and write mockery under it it wouldn't be mockery.

[AAFitz]

Im not missing any point at all. If a Hinduist is offended by a picture, than they are offended. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

I'm saying that they can't be offended because there is nothing offensive about it. A hinduist literally can't get offended by it for the simple reason that it's not offensive to them. Christians don't get offended by seeing jesus on a cross and hinduists don't get offended by seeing Kali with a skirt of severed arms and a garland of human heads.

Again, its just ridiculous to speculate what someone can or cannot be offended by. Certainly, a poor representation of the cross, or other religious icon would be offensive to many. The fact that it technically meets your wiki definition is irrelevant.

Further, many probably are offended from seeing jesus hung from a cross. Certainly you wont see it in a Mosque, temple, or hindu...err...place of worship. You also wont find one in most schools, or federal buildings either, because some people do find it offensive.

Uhm those people aren't offended at the jesus but at the implication of it. (e.g. that the school is religious in nature) If they were actually offended by the jesus itself they would protest it at other places too. Anyone who is actually offended by the jesus itself is a bigot and should not be listened to.

Well, its nice to see you understand why everyone is offended, when, how and what thier reasons are.

And seriously, you are giving clapper way too much credit. She still thinks it's an offensive image.

Again with the mind reading... impressive, though difficult to believe.

[AAFitz]

That does not mean that is an accurate picture. I could dress up, nail myself onto a cross, and simply stick my tongue out to offend most christians. The fact that wikipedia would describe my representation as accurate, does not mean that it is, or that it wasnt offensive to many. Further, the fact that I copied the description closely, would not hide the fact that I was mocking it.

Jesus does not stick his tongue out in traditional imagery. If you don't stick out your tongue it wouldn't be mockery for the simple fact that the intent isn't shown. If you copy a picture of Jesus and write mockery under it it wouldn't be mockery.

Ok, what if the cross was plastic. What if I was wearing the wrong kind of cloth.
What if the holes in my hands were wrong, or the pose was wrong, or some other detail was wrong, especially if I was trying to mock it...which, by dressing up for a party, would be mockery in the very sense of the word..unless you are suggesting the woman in that picture was actually worshiping her, and meant it as a tribute.

Certainly anyone could consider someone trying to represent their deity as a form of disrespect, and therefore be offended...even if they did do a good job of it....its obviously being done in the attempt at comedy, not praise...or do you know this to be impossible for someone to be offended by such an act again???

If I take a picture of some guy nailing himself to a fake cross to go to a costume party, I can pretty much assume some christians will be offended by it. I dont have the power of knowing you seem to, but I think its a safe guess that some surely would.

[King_Herpes]

I think everybody needs to calm down and eat more vegetables.

[Bruceswar]

The point here is this image is close to the one that was pulled. The one that was pulled probably was not at a party entrance. Seems like a bad mod decision to me, made by not knowing about the subject matter.

[AAFitz]

The point here is this image is close to the one that was pulled. The one that was pulled probably was not at a party entrance. Seems like a bad mod decision to me, made by not knowing about the subject matter.

It wasnt a bad decision. It was the only decision. Had it been an offensive and bigoted picture, inaction would have been the mistake. Not knowing the hindu faith, or anything about the goddess, she had no choice. People were complaining that it was bigoted, she removed it to evaluate it, which is exactly her job. Had she waited, others would have complained the other side of it.

[AAFitz]

I think everybody needs to calm down and eat more vegetables.

Lowering ones blood pressure, and increasing vegetables is always good health advice, however off topic it may be.

[Bruceswar]

The point here is this image is close to the one that was pulled. The one that was pulled probably was not at a party entrance. Seems like a bad mod decision to me, made by not knowing about the subject matter.

It wasnt a bad decision. It was the only decision. Had it been an offensive and bigoted picture, inaction would have been the mistake. Not knowing the hindu faith, or anything about the goddess, she had no choice. People were complaining that it was bigoted, she removed it to evaluate it, which is exactly her job. Had she waited, others would have complained the other side of it.

Do you really believe a religious image offended people? If so they have no skin. I bet these "so called" offended people have no clue what the image means, and therefore reported it out of not knowing any better. I bet you will not find anybody who is truly offended by an image of her. People can claim whatever, but does not mean they mean it.