Conquer Club

Recently a pic, posted by devilduck, of the Hindu goddess of violence, Kali, was removed by Clapper. Her reason sited for her decision to remove the pic was bigotry...

-----------------------------------------

Re: HOT + SEXY + nsfw

Postby DevilDuck on Fri Jun 12, 2009 6:15 pm
Hot Goddess...
mod edit
Last edited by clapper011 on Fri Jun 12, 2009 8:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: bigotry

----------------------------------------------

The pic that was removed by Clapper was very similar to this pic, which is a very accurate portrayal of the goddess Kali and could never, under any circumstances, be considered bigotry.



Are we to the point were a mod can just decide on a whim to accuse members of bigotry without any justifiable reason?

This is getting ridiculous, can someone in administration please put a stop to this nonsense?

Mods make mistakes too, give her a break.

Clapper does a good job dealing with all the various forms of bigotry that take place in the Much ado section of the forum and sometimes it is easy to make mistakes as to what can be construed as bigotry and what isn't.

I agree! We need to elect our mods. And what a picture.

Rocket.

I am blue... and I am offended, how dare you show such a picture!

Under the context and where it was posted, I can see how it would be considered offensive to some.

jpcloet wrote:Under the context and where it was posted, I can see how it would be considered offensive to some.

Can you explain your reasoning here?

Is it offensive that someone might consider a goddess to be hot or sexy?

Are all posts that might be offensive to someone going to be mod edited, or are the mods going to randomly discriminate?

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:

clapper011 wrote: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.

demonfork wrote:

jpcloet wrote:Under the context and where it was posted, I can see how it would be considered offensive to some.

Can you explain your reasoning here?

Is it offensive that someone might consider a goddess to be hot or sexy?

Are all posts that might be offensive to someone going to be mod edited, or are the mods going to randomly discriminate?

Well, all posts that they deem to be bigoted, and offensive to an entire religion may be. While you cant understand why a person who is hindu is offended by their princess being degradated, the same way you may not realize why something may be offensive to an African American, or an Asian, does not mean that it isn't offensive, and if targeted to an entire group, bigoted.

It is nice to see such passion in protecting the rights to tread on others rights however. In this situation, you are defending someone who posted something that truly offended many people as it mocked their God, in a sexual way to boot. You are also attacking the person who stopped it. Though you think you are on the right side, it puts you on the side of the many that defend their rights to throw racist slurs at people. Its the same thing. You just aren't seeing it.

well i am not sure she is hot and sexy.. though i am absolutely certain James Tiberius Kirk banged her in episode 6 series 2, but that fella will do anything!

We should remember that much ancient Hindu art is pretty saucy and after-all Kali is the Goddess of death and destruction... (i am fairly sure i have met her!) so her attire is pretty good for a costume party. Also Hindu culture is in no way stereotyped as a murderous, warmongering entity (though some sections and aspects of it certainly were) so i am not sure this is really an issue.

Saying all this, the hot and sexy thread is a place to post the images of seductive honies in order to take us away from the hum-drum of banal and over-complicated life. It is not the soap-box for political intrigue or a place to test the boundaries of rulings .. (though the rulings on nipples should definitely be over-turned!)

There are many ideas of what hot and sexy is: -
"too much Plastic" ..
"not enough boob"...
"for god sake woman take something off!"
but that image does not really fall into the category which would lower any trouser zippers on a cold, lonely winter eve. So i think the posting of the image was off-topic, and a cold-shower to a horny mind!

let's all lighten up, stop posting the representations of severed arms and heads which interrupts my me-time and look at some perfect breasts!
that is my final word on the matter!

jim

AAFitz wrote: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.

What, are you mad?

"Offensive" is always a subjective concept and allowing special interest groups to get away with their whining will ultimately lead to the destruction of the free world. Reagan would not have removed any pics.

i did not see the picture that was removed so i cant speak on that, but i will say that i am against this whole politically correct nonsense. You cannot keep everyone happy all the time, for instance you can post a picture of a blue "x" and some one will be offended by that color, i know i am going out on a limb here but its true. My question is, how many people need to object to make something objectionable so that the majority of people who like the blue "x" will remove it?

azezzo wrote:i did not see the picture that was removed so i cant speak on that, but i will say that i am against this whole politically correct nonsense. You cannot keep everyone happy all the time, for instance you can post a picture of a blue "x" and some one will be offended by that color, i know i am going out on a limb here but its true. My question is, how many people need to object to make something objectionable so that the majority of people who like the blue "x" will remove it?

Doesn't it seem enough that even ONE person is honestly and truly offended (as opposed to putting up an "offended front" just to be a pain in the ass)?

If not...why not?

Woodruff wrote:

azezzo wrote:i did not see the picture that was removed so i cant speak on that, but i will say that i am against this whole politically correct nonsense. You cannot keep everyone happy all the time, for instance you can post a picture of a blue "x" and some one will be offended by that color, i know i am going out on a limb here but its true. My question is, how many people need to object to make something objectionable so that the majority of people who like the blue "x" will remove it?

Doesn't it seem enough that even ONE person is honestly and truly offended (as opposed to putting up an "offended front" just to be a pain in the ass)?

If not...why not?

i am not sure i'm with that Wood.. you can always find someone who is offended by everything. I think the complaints were likely made by people who had no idea what they were complaining about ... saw a vaguely ethnic reference .. thought "probably having a go at the Muslims!" and pressed the button .. it is the problem with the faceless complaints button we have, we may not really find out.

Anyway, the picture is back up (but moved as it was off-topic?) , i think this has been deemed as a slip of the button by Clapp? so the system seems to be working.. kind of

Woodruff wrote:Doesn't it seem enough that even ONE person is honestly and truly offended (as opposed to putting up an "offended front" just to be a pain in the ass)?

If not...why not?

1. No.

2. It's good that people learn that when interacting in social places (e.g. an Internet forum, on the street, in school) or take part of society (e.g. reading a newspaper) one now and then gets offended. Learning this and learning to live with it without throwing a fit (but instead cherish the fact that our freedoms allows us in return to do things or say things that others may be offended by) is a good thing that is mutually beneficial. Ah, freedom... better dead than red as they said back in the 80's.

alstergren wrote:

Woodruff wrote:Doesn't it seem enough that even ONE person is honestly and truly offended (as opposed to putting up an "offended front" just to be a pain in the ass)?

If not...why not?

1. No.
2. It's good that people learn that when interacting in social places (e.g. an Internet forum, on the street, in school) or take part of society (e.g. reading a newspaper) one now and then gets offended. Learning this and learning to live with it without throwing a fit (but instead cherish the fact that our freedoms allows us in return to do things or say things that others may be offended by) is a good thing that is mutually beneficial. Ah, freedom... better dead than red as they said back in the 80's.

All freedoms come with corresponding responsibilities and consequences. There is no such thing as true freedom.

it will only be a matter of time that you wont be able to state that you are offended, because you will offend some-one else thus being censored for being offended

jiminski wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

azezzo wrote:i did not see the picture that was removed so i cant speak on that, but i will say that i am against this whole politically correct nonsense. You cannot keep everyone happy all the time, for instance you can post a picture of a blue "x" and some one will be offended by that color, i know i am going out on a limb here but its true. My question is, how many people need to object to make something objectionable so that the majority of people who like the blue "x" will remove it?

Doesn't it seem enough that even ONE person is honestly and truly offended (as opposed to putting up an "offended front" just to be a pain in the ass)?

If not...why not?

i am not sure i'm with that Wood.. you can always find someone who is offended by everything.

If someone is honestly and truly offended, then we should be TRYING to avoid that offensiveness. Can we always do so? No, that's not realistic. But there are MANY, MANY opportunities to avoid that offensiveness that we can do something about, and we absolutely should do so.

jiminski wrote:I think the complaints were likely made by people who had no idea what they were complaining about ... saw a vaguely ethnic reference .. thought "probably having a go at the Muslims!" and pressed the button .. it is the problem with the faceless complaints button we have, we may not really find out.

Well, we know that's not entirely true, since one individual has already surfaced in the "more on topic?" thread stating that they were, as a Hindu, offended by the image.

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.

Woodruff wrote:

jiminski wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

azezzo wrote:i did not see the picture that was removed so i cant speak on that, but i will say that i am against this whole politically correct nonsense. You cannot keep everyone happy all the time, for instance you can post a picture of a blue "x" and some one will be offended by that color, i know i am going out on a limb here but its true. My question is, how many people need to object to make something objectionable so that the majority of people who like the blue "x" will remove it?

Doesn't it seem enough that even ONE person is honestly and truly offended (as opposed to putting up an "offended front" just to be a pain in the ass)?

If not...why not?

i am not sure i'm with that Wood.. you can always find someone who is offended by everything.

If someone is honestly and truly offended, then we should be TRYING to avoid that offensiveness. Can we always do so? No, that's not realistic. But there are MANY, MANY opportunities to avoid that offensiveness that we can do something about, and we absolutely should do so.

jiminski wrote:I think the complaints were likely made by people who had no idea what they were complaining about ... saw a vaguely ethnic reference .. thought "probably having a go at the Muslims!" and pressed the button .. it is the problem with the faceless complaints button we have, we may not really find out.

Well, we know that's not entirely true, since one individual has already surfaced in the "more on topic?" thread stating that they were, as a Hindu, offended by the image.

correct and we can also not be sure that this is a genuine Hindu or a troll having a laugh. I find it hard to believe that a religion so historically comfortable with sex and sensuality would be offended with this dipiction.

Either way, are we saying that we can not show pictures of people going to a fancy dress party in case it upsets someone!? the image was a fair representation, it was just in the wrong place.

alstergren wrote:

AAFitz wrote: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.

What, are you mad?

"Offensive" is always a subjective concept and allowing special interest groups to get away with their whining will ultimately lead to the destruction of the free world. Reagan would not have removed any pics.

Actually it is you who are mad if you think Reagan had that one hanging in the White house. Im sure in the Federal buildings, people were allowed to display whatever pictures they wanted to no matter what. The question, isnt whether the picture gets destroyed and sent to hell or made illegal in all forums, but if it is allowed in a particular forum or not. The difference is the important part. This is a club with a forum, not a public paper. Further, even if it was a public paper, the owners have no responsibility to display something they don't want to.

You have confused free speech, to include posting whatever you want, where ever you want. Im all for free speech, but recognize the rights of others to allow what they want in their own forums. To not allow this, is an infringement of free speech in and of itself. So no, I am not mad, I simply have a differing opinion than yourself, and quite frankly it is the more intelligent one.

AAFitz wrote:You have confused free speech, to include posting whatever you want, where ever you want. Im all for free speech, but recognize the rights of others to allow what they want in their own forums. To not allow this, is an infringement of free speech in and of itself. So no, I am not mad, I simply have a differing opinion than yourself, and quite frankly it is the more intelligent one.

No I have not (of course). I too recognize the right of the site's owner to set whatever guidelines or limitations he wishes on what is posted. But I responded to a very casual statement you made, i.e.

AAFitz wrote: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.

You are correct stating that offensive is subjective. But, seriously. come on. Very few things do not offend someone, somewhere. The fact that someone, somewhere finds something offensive isn't a valid reson for not doing/not saying it. That's just the death of free ideas, free speech etc.

alstergren wrote:

AAFitz wrote:You have confused free speech, to include posting whatever you want, where ever you want. Im all for free speech, but recognize the rights of others to allow what they want in their own forums. To not allow this, is an infringement of free speech in and of itself. So no, I am not mad, I simply have a differing opinion than yourself, and quite frankly it is the more intelligent one.

No I have not (of course). I too recognize the right of the site's owner to set whatever guidelines or limitations he wishes on what is posted. But I responded to a very casual statement you made, i.e.

AAFitz wrote: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.

You are correct stating that offensive is subjective. But, seriously. come on. Very few things do not offend someone, somewhere. The fact that someone, somewhere finds something offensive isn't a valid reson for not doing/not saying it. That's just the death of free ideas, free speech etc.

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.

And again, suggesting that a private entity such as this must allow such a post, is a complete and utter denial of free speech. Far more so than the disallowing of a picture to be posted.

Woodruff wrote:All freedoms come with corresponding responsibilities and consequences. There is no such thing as true freedom.

To demand the "responsible" use of free speech is a tricky one. We can probably all agree that shouting "fire" in a crowded theater isn't a good idea and should generally not be protected by free speech rights. Neither should any protecting be granted to false statements printed on a pharmaceutical package. Fine.

Much more problematic is demanding "responsibility" depicting or discussing a religion (or a person in public office for that matter). The obvious consequence of demanding such "responsibility" is thought control as religious notions overrides basic liberal freedoms. No, religion is a private thing. I don’t mind the public display of religious symbols or religious teaching in schools (to the contrary, I’m perfectly fine with that), but I oppose any terror on thought and speech that limits individuals’ possibility to depict or discuss religion. To call it a bigoted act or statement is just a way to make people feel righteous about themselves as they kill freedom.

alstergren wrote:. To call it a bigoted act or statement is just a way to make people feel righteous about themselves as they kill freedom.

Unless it is a bigoted act of course, and then that is the ultimate killer of freedom.

AAFitz wrote: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!"

I believe we basically agree on most things. Perhaps with the exception that I truly believe that starting to remove pics etc. due to casual complaints like this is a horrible business decision. There are ample reasons to allow it and in particular, judging from CC's previous practice, removing this one doesn't make sense. Would seem like bigoted and targeted censorship compared to many other things going on this site. I see plenty of pics/posts that offend me, but I never complained. Why? Well, I'm a grown man and can stand it and I know that I too may offend people. However, if starting to censor things randomly using different yardsticks people may feel uncomfortable as well causing business to deteriorate.