Rules About Avatars

[owenshooter]

This thread is epic. Should we expect anything to come of it?

now, THAT is a great avatar!!! surely someone can find that offensive too!!! ha... all i hope is
that there is a civil discussion about it, and someone can CLEARLY explain the rules of avatars and
when they are deemed offensive, and by whom. that's it! very easy, right?-0

[jiminski]

No satirical image could ever offend me unless it directly reveled in anothers suffering. I do not actually count the belittling of religious figures as doing that. Suffering derived of that, is largely contrived within the oversensitive and sycophantic minds of the servants of fearful self-delusion: 'faith'.
I certainly do not mean that as an attack upon the nature of faith but put simply, the concept of the embodiment of power and love being demeaned by a picture, formed by a bitter little minion.. is preposterous to me.

Now the cartoons of Mohamed were fairly distasteful and not funny- a terrible combination in satire. So in a sense they sought to mock in that bitter, baseless manner which masquerades as humour. They were like a bad racist joke; in that their primary function was to hurt not entertain. The entertainment was derived after, due to the hurt.
The satirists aim or at least the result of their publishing, was to offend, to teach indoctrinated minds about the sanctity of intellectual freedom. (though the Danes purported to critique them once published)
That, in a very real sense, i do find offensive. (i still don't honestly find the avatar offensive as i do not believe it seeks to do that .. hehe it has another axe to grind)

To the 'Piss Christ'.. now that attempts to do something similar, but it comes from within socialised Christian Dogmatic principle. That image is a family argument and not an attack from a neighbouring tribe!
It is a quasi-secular rebellion against the nature of intellectual slavery. It looks to the contradictions of purity and plays with the very nature of offense but it does so becuase the artist is genuinely offended by the attempts to stunt thought with guilt and 'control', camouflaged as good.


So Christ in urine does seek to offend using the image of a suffering human being. But it does so to counter that very un-mockable image. The Religion chose it for its 'unquestionabillity' and power. there is no morally acceptable antidote to the image of Christ on the cross. And as such we wage war as 'Christian' societies, in his 'undoubtable' honour; manipulated by this image of quintessential sacrifice. Manipulated by Church; the ancient political power bases for the pious warmongers.
We are encouraged towards self-sacrifice in the glory of a man, who in reality, needed no glorification! More, he shunned the essence of self-glorification!

In that sense, the suffering of generations, over millennia in the false name of this magnificent image, outweighs the mockery of a single mans.
If it attempts to break the hold of this immortal taboo, it is somewhat justified. Indeed, in the images ultimate message, Christ sacrificed himself for us! To then say that the sanctity of this image is sacrosanct and irrevocable, even when it is used to cause suffering, does injustice to that most noble ultimate gesture!

[firth4eva]

As catholic I find owen's avatar offensive and demand that it be removed immediately. I have been on holiday for 2 weeks and so I haven't seen it until now. I recognised what it was as soon as I saw it and as a catholic it offends me personally. All avatar should follow forum guidelines which includes no religion bashing.

Also, I see the part on "Am I allowed nudity if it's in the form of art?" The answer is no. Previous users have been told to remove similar avatars, a painting of Aphrodite with her (bare)breasts showing.

Anyone remember this topic? Some good things for discussion in this topic if you read it.

[whitestazn88]

i can't tell if firth is kidding or now

[jiminski]

As catholic I find owen's avatar offensive and demand that it be removed immediately. I have been on holiday for 2 weeks and so I haven't seen it until now. I recognised what it was as soon as I saw it and as a catholic it offends me personally. All avatar should follow forum guidelines which includes no religion bashing.

Also, I see the part on "Am I allowed nudity if it's in the form of art?" The answer is no. Previous users have been told to remove similar avatars, a painting of Aphrodite with her (bare)breasts showing.

Anyone remember this topic? Some good things for discussion in this topic if you read it.

haha, as a catholic one should be offended by everything....
The link is to a good topic Firthy, i remember it well!

Catholics live in a realm of perpetual guilt at the sins they create .. and like a drug-dealer the Church offers the dependency upon temporary absolution. Fostering a cycle of weakening flesh, sanctioned forgiveness and ultimately a never-ending battle with the knowledge of the sweet perverse joy of sin.

Catholicism is based upon the concept of forbidden fruit... it is the harbinger and philosophical captivator of the most devout sadomasochists in history.

Purely putting to one side the aggressive nature of the image or that the Image of Christ in Urine, aims to highlight any and all contradictions a mind could muster.. it is i fact rather beautiful.

[pimpdave]

My Two Cents.


Blackface is incredibly offensive. If some trip ass punk came through my neighborhood wearing black face, he almost certainly wouldn't leave with all of his teeth. People round the way don't think it's a joke. Or art. Or anything other than a middle finger gesture, but like, times 100.

As for the Piss Christ, it's an inanimate object submerged in urine. I remember when the piece first debuted, and it was praised as being a beautiful, ethereal image. When people found out that the image was achieved with urine, suddenly it provided a lightning rod for those people who make their living by being upset at things (evangelists, radio talk show hosts).

Look, it's not like Jesus Christ has literally been submerged in a jar of urine. It's an inanimate object. If someone can interpret it as being offensive towards Jesus, one could just as validly argue that it is offensive towards whoever crafted the crucifix that is in the urine, a target for ridicule wholly other than Jesus.

But blackface, especially when it looks like shoe polish and white paint around the lips is not open to multiple lines of interpretation like the Piss Christ is. It's pretty clearly a denigration of an entire people. A people exploited by 400 years of bondage. Man, just writing that gets my blood up. Using blackface for an avatar is like using a swastika as an avatar, pure and simple. And I doubt anyone will argue with me about the swastika NOT being art.

[The1exile]

Now the cartoons of Mohamed were fairly distasteful and not funny- a terrible combination in satire. So in a sense they sought to mock in that bitter, baseless manner which masquerades as humour. They were like a bad racist joke; in that their primary function was to hurt not entertain. The entertainment was derived after, due to the hurt.
The satirists aim or at least the result of their publishing, was to offend, to teach indoctrinated minds about the sanctity of intellectual freedom. (though the Danes purported to critique them once published)
That, in a very real sense, i do find offensive. (i still don't honestly find the avatar offensive as i do not believe it seeks to do that .. hehe it has another axe to grind)

At the time (nearly 3 years ago now) I wrote an essay on precisely why I disagree with you I can't be bothered to dig it out and copy it here, but at it's most basic while some of the cartoons (like the OP's avatar) are arguably simply obnoxious I would say that some, if not most of the cartoons sought to satirise the perceived reactionary attitude of both Islam fundamentalists and their own trade (i.e. journalism). Sure, they wouldn't have been comedy gold (come on, how many times have newspaper cartoons provoked you to wild uncontrollable mirth?) but that doesn't justify the view that they were written to piss off islam's adherents.

Click image to enlarge.

[firth4eva]

As for the Piss Christ, it's an inanimate object submerged in urine.Look, it's not like Jesus Christ has literally been submerged in a jar of urine. It's an inanimate object. If someone can interpret it as being offensive towards Jesus, one could just as validly argue that it is offensive towards whoever crafted the crucifix that is in the urine, a target for ridicule wholly other than Jesus.

Yes it's an inanimate object but it's what this object symbolises. You say that it is not like Jesus Christ has been literally submerged it is the closest damn thing you can get. You can say that the swastika is just some lines. I mean, it's just some lines isn't it?. Don't start comparing that to something that insults everything my faith is based on.

[jiminski]

At the time (nearly 3 years ago now) I wrote an essay on precisely why I disagree with you I can't be bothered to dig it out and copy it here, but at it's most basic while some of the cartoons (like the OP's avatar) are arguably simply obnoxious I would say that some, if not most of the cartoons sought to satirise the perceived reactionary attitude of both Islam fundamentalists and their own trade (i.e. journalism). Sure, they wouldn't have been comedy gold (come on, how many times have newspaper cartoons provoked you to wild uncontrollable mirth?) but that doesn't justify the view that they were written to piss off islam's adherents.

I think they were mate, I think it was an excercise in the religion of reason and secular societies' reverence of free speech.
I saw it as the expression of bravery in the face of reactionary, bullying, theocratic prevalence. "After years of 'our' defense of 'their' right to say whatever they want, even to the detriment of the principle which defends their right to say it!"

I found it to be the culmination of a partisan movement which attempted to say "We, lilly-livered liberals have got big balls too! and we will also die for our principles!"
hahahah 'we' were proved wrong i think... once the shit really hit the fan

But i reason that this feeling of need to re-establish cultural dominance was ill-judged and completely irrelevant. The fact is Muslim culture and doctrine is completely servile to Secular democracy in real terms. The most extreme Muslim thought lives on the battle-fields of world diplomacy. The reactionary nature of its fundamentalists, is born of the struggle which 'we' (or those doing it in our name) impose.

We bomb them .. we impose regime change, we nick their resources and then, in some vainglorious attempt to reimpose our dominance, we undermine the one thing which they can truly hold as their own?
A little childish on the part of Western intelligentsia.. we are supposed to be the mature ones. ^^

[owenshooter]

As catholic I find owen's avatar offensive and demand that it be removed immediately. I have been on holiday for 2 weeks and so I haven't seen it until now. I recognised what it was as soon as I saw it and as a catholic it offends me personally. All avatar should follow forum guidelines which includes no religion bashing.

i'm catholic, it is artwork. deal with it. and you have had ample time to see it in the 2 plus weeks i have been flying it. i have even posted in threads you have visited and posted in. if you are going to be part of the discussion, don't make up facts to try and force an issue. the fact is, you didn't know what it was, and didn't know that you were "offended", until someone pointed out what it was. when i was shown the users avatar with black face, i instantly knew what it was, and realized the cultural ramifications of what it represented. it is a GLOBAL ICON of a time and era that is not so distant to many black americans. what did i do? i asked a few mods about it, got a ruling, and moved on. it was "art work" and not offensive. my avatar is an award winning, government funded piece of art work, that you didn't even recognize as offensive, until you were told what it was.-0

[firth4eva]

As catholic I find owen's avatar offensive and demand that it be removed immediately. I have been on holiday for 2 weeks and so I haven't seen it until now. I recognised what it was as soon as I saw it and as a catholic it offends me personally. All avatar should follow forum guidelines which includes no religion bashing.

i'm catholic, it is artwork. deal with it. and you have had ample time to see it in the 2 plus weeks i have been flying it. i have even posted in threads you have visited and posted in. if you are going to be part of the discussion, don't make up facts to try and force an issue. the fact is, you didn't know what it was, and didn't know that you were "offended", until someone pointed out what it was. when i was shown the users avatar with black face, i instantly knew what it was, and realized the cultural ramifications of what it represented. it is a GLOBAL ICON of a time and era that is not so distant to many black americans. what did i do? i asked a few mods about it, got a ruling, and moved on. it was "art work" and not offensive. my avatar is an award winning, government funded piece of art work, that you didn't even recognize as offensive, until you were told what it was.-0

Artwork or not it still offends me and my religion. I have not got time to post more now. Will do later.

[owenshooter]

Don't start comparing that to something that insults everything my faith is based on.

if your faith is based on a tiny plastic cross, you really need to re-examine your faith. and firth, this is a serious discussion, looking for the rules on what is considered offensive in avatars, and who decides what is offensive. again, you saw my avatar multiple times, and didn't know you were offended until someone told you. now move along, if you can't be constructive. please tell us HOW and WHY this so violates the tenants of faith... if you are truly offended, i would like to know why. if you are joking around, try to come back when you have something real to say. this is a constructive DISCUSSION, not an argument.-0

[owenshooter]

No satirical image could ever offend me unless it directly reveled in anothers suffering.

jim, do you mean like black face directly reveling in slavery and segregation? yeah, i agree... i was told it was art work. as an overly educated black american, i was only seeking to find out what the guidelines were on such avatars. i saw the black face avatar during a week when i reported a few users, using the N word in their user names. 1 kept the name for almost an additional week before anything was done. anyway, i am not patently offended by it, i was just seeking clarification on the rules. brett with a tick, in a doctored photo, is offensive. black faced minstrel, is not... one is art work, the other is satire... ok.. fine... so i put up my art work and let it fly for close to 3 weeks without a peep, until brett was tired of my enjoyment in posting unnoticed and pressed the issue with his new avatar and thread. you must admit, my avatar is a much more subtle protest, because people didn't know they were supposed to be offended, until brett told them what it was...-0

[jbrettlip]

First of all, ANY picture of Mohammad is against the rules of Islam. So it isn't that this one is racist, or againt their religion, but they do not believe in depicting the prophet in any way. That is what the protests were about. So in conclusion, get your facts straight.

In regards to my former avatar, using personal info?? That is a real stretch. Other than th efact that the picture was of ME, there was no personal info in it. It didn't reference anyone specifically. What about Klobber's avatar, of the wicked witch with the house on her? Was that personal info? what about the user, that took Wicked's former avi (the one of the nude cartoon lying on the bed) and added "himself" to it, on top of her? Personal info? I think not. It was a simple witch hunt, because it offended some mods. So I changed it. Then I got comments from mods, after a clever play on words. (Lyme's=limes). So meanwhile, racist imagery is allowed, and Owen's new avi is allowed. So mine should be fine within the rules.

Now the only way it won't be is if there is some "reverse racism" on this site. Basically you can trash white people and Catholics (or Christians) all you want, but can't say anything about Muslims. But that logic doesn't hold up since the black face imagery is still around.

[jiminski]

First of all, ANY picture of Mohammad is against the rules of Islam. So it isn't that this one is racist, or againt their religion, but they do not believe in depicting the prophet in any way. That is what the protests were about. So in conclusion, get your facts straight.

In regards to my former avatar, using personal info?? That is a real stretch. Other than th efact that the picture was of ME, there was no personal info in it. It didn't reference anyone specifically. What about Klobber's avatar, of the wicked witch with the house on her? Was that personal info? what about the user, that took Wicked's former avi (the one of the nude cartoon lying on the bed) and added "himself" to it, on top of her? Personal info? I think not. It was a simple witch hunt, because it offended some mods. So I changed it. Then I got comments from mods, after a clever play on words. (Lyme's=limes). So meanwhile, racist imagery is allowed, and Owen's new avi is allowed. So mine should be fine within the rules.

Now the only way it won't be is if there is some "reverse racism" on this site. Basically you can trash white people and Catholics (or Christians) all you want, but can't say anything about Muslims. But that logic doesn't hold up since the black face imagery is still around.

are you addressing me in some of that Bret? i don't want to go off half cocked.

[jbrettlip]

No I was addressing several posters, and mods.

[firth4eva]

Don't start comparing that to something that insults everything my faith is based on.

again, you saw my avatar multiple times, and didn't know you were offended until someone told you. now move along, if you can't be constructive. please tell us HOW and WHY this so violates the tenants of faith... if you are truly offended, i would like to know why. if you are joking around, try to come back when you have something real to say. this is a constructive DISCUSSION, not an argument.-0

No, I didn't, I already told you that

Pissing on my faith? I'm not supposed to find that offensive.

[jbrettlip]

Faith is a choice, race is not.

[jiminski]

Faith is a choice, race is not.

so it is acceptable to mock a woman for being obese but not a man for being short?

just throwin it out there...

[mpjh]

Just because something is classified as "art" does not mean that it is not offensive or offensively provocative. This thread was started by a person that could not do what he wanted so, to make a point, he provoked with an offensive avatar. That is a legitimate role for art, to provoke power to respond. However, any artist worth his/her salt will not use art to provoke and put innocents at risk. That is being done here. You know the intensity of the battles over the issues provoked in this thread. Use some common sense, if you want to provoke, go do it where you will not bring down harm on innocents. If you refuse that just makes you another terrorist harming innocents to make your point.

Most on this site just want some relaxation with a game to play. If you want to blow that up, well you can, but why?

[jbrettlip]

Just because something is classified as "art" does not mean that it is not offensive or offensively provocative. This thread was started by a person that could not do what he wanted so, to make a point, he provoked with an offensive avatar. That is a legitimate role for art, to provoke power to respond. However, any artist worth his/her salt will not use art to provoke and put innocents at risk. That is being done here. You know the intensity of the battles over the issues provoked in this thread. Use some common sense, if you want to provoke, go do it where you will not bring down harm on innocents. If you refuse that just makes you another terrorist harming innocents to make your point.

Most on this site just want some relaxation with a game to play. If you want to blow that up, well you can, but why?

No I started this thread, to ask why some avi's are allowed while others aren't. And it doesn't effect any innocents. It is not displayed in my games. So if you and I were in a game, you wouldn't know my avatar. Only in the forums do you see it.

[mpjh]

I appreciate what you are trying to do, and it is a good thing that the avatar does not appear in games, but you run a serious risk of offending people who will take action against the whole site with your forum discussion. Please could you have the thread removed and take up your discussion with the moderators off line?

[owenshooter]

Use some common sense, if you want to provoke, go do it where you will not bring down harm on innocents. If you refuse that just makes you another terrorist harming innocents to make your point.

Most on this site just want some relaxation with a game to play. If you want to blow that up, well you can, but why?

sooo, by using a published piece of art work, jbrettlip is single handedly bringing harm to you and others on this site? how did this turn into a debate on terrorism? that argument is just ludicrous and has very little merit. brett had no problem with changing his avatar, and his second avatar was equally as funny and poignant to what he was saying prior to the change. his new avatar is in response to a user being allowed to use a black face avatar, which is patently racist and offensive to an entire race of people, and it being shielded under the guise of "art work." try to read the thread, try to understand the thread, and try to not make this about brett bringing the terrorist into your computer in response to his avatar, it is just not so. what are the guidelines? what are the rules? who decides what is offensive and what is "art"?-0

[owenshooter]

Please could you have the thread removed and take up your discussion with the moderators off line?

the discussion was held. at least the question was asked. and "art work" was deemed non-offensive. i assume you are talking 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. if you don't like the discussion, don't participate. we are not name calling, inciting a riot, calling people to arms for a forum war... we are simply asking questions and looking for answers in a calm and rational way.-0

[Neoteny]

It's true. 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?" A simple user request to have an image removed isn't tackling the big picture issue.

We understand that there might be feelings hurt by these images, but there doesn't seem to be any repercussion for this. Should there be? What should it be?

Also, I'm sad that I'm stuck with this avatar for a few days, otherwise I'd be right up there with you.

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