Moderator: Community Team
jpcloet wrote:Under the context and where it was posted, I can see how it would be considered offensive to some.
clapper011 wrote:i had many reports of it offending people.
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?
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.
Gengoldy wrote:Of all the games I've played, and there have been some poor sports and cursing players out there, you are by far the lowest and with the least class.
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?
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?
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?
Gengoldy wrote:Of all the games I've played, and there have been some poor sports and cursing players out there, you are by far the lowest and with the least class.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Gengoldy wrote:Of all the games I've played, and there have been some poor sports and cursing players out there, you are by far the lowest and with the least class.
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.
Woodruff wrote:All freedoms come with corresponding responsibilities and consequences. There is no such thing as true freedom.
Gengoldy wrote:Of all the games I've played, and there have been some poor sports and cursing players out there, you are by far the lowest and with the least class.
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.
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.
Gengoldy wrote:Of all the games I've played, and there have been some poor sports and cursing players out there, you are by far the lowest and with the least class.
Return to Conquer Club Discussion
Users browsing this forum: Tyler98