Forum Home Forum Home > Site News, Newbies, Help and Improvements > Report abuse here
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Offensive signature
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedOffensive signature

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345>
Author
Message
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 04 2006 at 21:33

Originally posted by TheProgtologist TheProgtologist wrote:

Ivan...in this country we  are free to worship as we choose,but we do have a seperation of church and state,and I hope you are familiar with that concept.


That's my point, there's a correct oplace for everything, if racism is banned here as it MUST be, then religious provocation must also.

We come here to talk about music, or talk about other issues in the correct lounge, if something may cause problems, lets avoid it. If some thread is turning offensive, administrators delete them, if something is offensive, it must follow the sane path.

The guy can talk about Satanism as he wants in the Non Music related Lounge, I assure you, wouldn't even worry to press the link, but outside it, it's better to avoid problems.

Iván 

            
Back to Top
Empathy View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 30 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1864
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 04 2006 at 21:35
Originally posted by MikeEnRegalia MikeEnRegalia wrote:

I think that all religious or political statements in signatures should be removed - no big discussion about whether or not the particular signature is offensive or not.


Sorry we didn't take your advice, Mike!

DeepPhreeze (or someone) seems to have removed the offending sig, so let's call the point moot, for now.
Pure Brilliance:
Back to Top
Trotsky View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 25 2004
Location: Malaysia
Status: Offline
Points: 2771
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 04 2006 at 23:35

I did indeed PM DeepPhreeze who very graciously agreed to remove it ...

I must say that this issue is one that causes me difficulty.

The boundary between freedom of speech and the use of language/imagery that is offensive is not always clear.

I had this dilemma when somebody posted pix of the 9/11 victims throwing themselves off the building ... and with the Mohamad cartoon as well.

I just want to ask you this ... when I first joined my avatar was a hammer and sickle, my username is still that of the founder of the Soviet Red Army and my signature is still a quote from him ... does anybody interpret that as open promotion of Communism? I can certainly see it being perceived as such! Does anybody then perceive that promotion to be offensive?

"Death to Utopia! Death to faith! Death to love! Death to hope?" thunders the 20th century. "Surrender, you pathetic dreamer.”

"No" replies the unhumbled optimist "You are only the present."
Back to Top
Empathy View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 30 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1864
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 04 2006 at 23:43
Originally posted by Trotsky Trotsky wrote:

I just want to ask you this ... when I first joined my avatar was a hammer and sickle, my username is still that of the founder of the Soviet Red Army and my signature is still a quote from him ... does anybody interpret that as open promotion of Communism? I can certainly see it being perceived as such! Does anybody then perceive that promotion to be offensive?



Not I. Now if you had an avatar or sig file glorifying Stalin or Mao... I'd personally find that quite distasteful, but I wouldn't ask you to remove it. I would likely comment that I found it distasteful and disrespectful, however.
Pure Brilliance:
Back to Top
int_2375 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 20 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 159
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 05 2006 at 06:08
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

I believe I've been very tolerant with religious beliefs and disbeliefs, but the use of Satanic symbols is at least looking for trouble, already Drew made a comment and honestly I find it offensive against my beliefs.

USER: DeepPhreeze

I believe this should be stopped, lately some newbies are trying to cause problems.

I'm sure that if any member made a signature asking for people to tuirn to some religion or cult or even saying Jesus Loves You, there will be a lot of people asking for that sig to be deleted with reason, because this is not a place for religious propaganda.

Please delete this signature and tell the kid to stop asking for troubles.

This is worst IMO.

Iván

What is so offensive about that?  Its a symbol... its not religous propaganda.  Thats like saying that wearing a cross is religous propaganda.  He's not asking you to join any religion, he merely has a Seal of Solomon in his signature.

Did you know that symbol was not originally used by Satanists?  The Seal of Solomon has been associated with many groups over the years, including the Freemasons.  In fact, the way he is using it is associating it with the supposed "New World Order"- not directly with religous beliefs at all... its closer to a political statement than a religous one.

Just as Trotskys avatar does not promote Communism, this guys signature does not promote Satanism.  Its just a symbol.  Should we remove all symbols from these forums that could be associated with an "ism" of some kind?  Oooh, the rush symbol has a star in it, maybe that is promoting something... no more Rush album covers in your sigs folks!



Edited by int_2375
Back to Top
Trotsky View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 25 2004
Location: Malaysia
Status: Offline
Points: 2771
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 05 2006 at 08:50
Originally posted by Empathy Empathy wrote:

Originally posted by Trotsky Trotsky wrote:

I just want to ask you this ... when I first joined my avatar was a hammer and sickle, my username is still that of the founder of the Soviet Red Army and my signature is still a quote from him ... does anybody interpret that as open promotion of Communism? I can certainly see it being perceived as such! Does anybody then perceive that promotion to be offensive?



Not I. Now if you had an avatar or sig file glorifying Stalin or Mao... I'd personally find that quite distasteful, but I wouldn't ask you to remove it. I would likely comment that I found it distasteful and disrespectful, however.


I just remembered that my avatar is now (and has been for a couple of months) Trotsky's tombstone 

But I also wonder if the fact that a tiny portion of my 2,000 plus posts on this forum are related to my leftist views also has an effect on the "offensiveness" of the avatar/signature/username ... but if that is the case, then how come no one complained when I first joined?

Or it because Trotsky himself is infinitely less objectionable to non Communists (and even anti-Communists) than the likes of Stalin and Mao (I of course have my own views on who was a "real Communist" and who wasn't but that's another story) ...


"Death to Utopia! Death to faith! Death to love! Death to hope?" thunders the 20th century. "Surrender, you pathetic dreamer.”

"No" replies the unhumbled optimist "You are only the present."
Back to Top
Empathy View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 30 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1864
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 05 2006 at 09:35
Originally posted by Trotsky Trotsky wrote:


Or it because Trotsky himself is infinitely less objectionable to non Communists (and even anti-Communists) than the likes of Stalin and Mao (I of course have my own views on who was a "real Communist" and who wasn't but that's another story) ...




I'd say it's because, similar to the swastika in pre-Hitler times, the concept and symbol of Communism was far more "pure" and untainted with Trotsky, before it was twisted and tarnished by the evils that Stalin and Mao wrought.


Pure Brilliance:
Back to Top
Empathy View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 30 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1864
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 05 2006 at 09:40
Originally posted by int_2375 int_2375 wrote:

What is so offensive about that?  Its a symbol... its not religous propaganda.  Thats like saying that wearing a cross is religous propaganda.  He's not asking you to join any religion, he merely has a Seal of Solomon in his signature.

Did you know that symbol was not originally used by Satanists?  The Seal of Solomon has been associated with many groups over the years, including the Freemasons.  In fact, the way he is using it is associating it with the supposed "New World Order"- not directly with religous beliefs at all... its closer to a political statement than a religous one.



Actually, that's not the Seal of Solomon. Here's the Seal of Solomon.

The symbol in the sig is actually Baphomet, which is, in fact, often associated with Satanism.




Edited by Empathy
Pure Brilliance:
Back to Top
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Online
Points: 21131
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 05 2006 at 10:35
Originally posted by Trotsky Trotsky wrote:

Originally posted by Empathy Empathy wrote:

Originally posted by Trotsky Trotsky wrote:

I just want to ask you this ... when I first joined my avatar was a hammer and sickle, my username is still that of the founder of the Soviet Red Army and my signature is still a quote from him ... does anybody interpret that as open promotion of Communism? I can certainly see it being perceived as such! Does anybody then perceive that promotion to be offensive?



Not I. Now if you had an avatar or sig file glorifying Stalin or Mao... I'd personally find that quite distasteful, but I wouldn't ask you to remove it. I would likely comment that I found it distasteful and disrespectful, however.


I just remembered that my avatar is now (and has been for a couple of months) Trotsky's tombstone 

That can be seen in an ironic way - I always thought of it as a tombstone for communism.

Back to Top
Trotsky View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 25 2004
Location: Malaysia
Status: Offline
Points: 2771
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 05 2006 at 11:02
Originally posted by MikeEnRegalia MikeEnRegalia wrote:

Originally posted by Trotsky Trotsky wrote:

Originally posted by Empathy Empathy wrote:

Originally posted by Trotsky Trotsky wrote:

I just want to ask you this ... when I first joined my avatar was a hammer and sickle, my username is still that of the founder of the Soviet Red Army and my signature is still a quote from him ... does anybody interpret that as open promotion of Communism? I can certainly see it being perceived as such! Does anybody then perceive that promotion to be offensive?



Not I. Now if you had an avatar or sig file glorifying Stalin or Mao... I'd personally find that quite distasteful, but I wouldn't ask you to remove it. I would likely comment that I found it distasteful and disrespectful, however.


I just remembered that my avatar is now (and has been for a couple of months) Trotsky's tombstone 

That can be seen in an ironic way - I always thought of it as a tombstone for communism.



Actually it was put there when I was on the verge of leaving the site in a huff ... and then I forgot about it ... it was  meant to be tombstone for Trotsky the forum admin!
"Death to Utopia! Death to faith! Death to love! Death to hope?" thunders the 20th century. "Surrender, you pathetic dreamer.”

"No" replies the unhumbled optimist "You are only the present."
Back to Top
Peter View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: January 31 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 9669
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 05 2006 at 16:18

Originally posted by Empathy Empathy wrote:






I'd say it's because, similar to the swastika in pre-Hitler times, the concept and symbol of Communism was far more "pure" and untainted with Trotsky, before it was twisted and tarnished by the evils that Stalin and Mao wrought.


Yes.

"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.
Back to Top
Peter View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: January 31 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 9669
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 05 2006 at 16:21

Poor Trotsky was murdered before he had a chance to become corrupt....Ermm



Edited by Peter Rideout
"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.
Back to Top
Peter View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: January 31 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 9669
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 05 2006 at 16:31

Hypothetically speaking, now, how about sigs (or polls) that loudly trumpet the member's supposed achievements and greatness?Ermm

Are they "offensive," or just a pitiable sign of extreme poor taste, very bad judgement, self-absorption, and an almost scary absence of character and charisma? Confused

 

 

Just wondering -- no particular reason....



Edited by Peter Rideout
"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.
Back to Top
int_2375 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 20 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 159
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 05 2006 at 16:56
Originally posted by Empathy Empathy wrote:

Originally posted by int_2375 int_2375 wrote:

What is so offensive about that?  Its a symbol... its not religous propaganda.  Thats like saying that wearing a cross is religous propaganda.  He's not asking you to join any religion, he merely has a Seal of Solomon in his signature.

Did you know that symbol was not originally used by Satanists?  The Seal of Solomon has been associated with many groups over the years, including the Freemasons.  In fact, the way he is using it is associating it with the supposed "New World Order"- not directly with religous beliefs at all... its closer to a political statement than a religous one.



Actually, that's not the Seal of Solomon. Here's the Seal of Solomon.

The symbol in the sig is actually Baphomet, which is, in fact, often associated with Satanism.


Well thats my bad... I was looking at this source: http://www.rotten.com/library/occult/pentagram/ , which had that picture next to some text about the Seal of Solomon.  But even so, its history extends beyond Satanism.

I do think the sig is tacky and the user is asking for trouble.  He's obviously trying to offend by touching on three touchy topics at once: drugs, Satanism, and political conspiracy.  However, I don't believe in restricting his right to put what he wants in there as long as he is not soliciting/advertising or promoting a religion.  It would have been easiest just to ignore his silly signature, but apparently he already willingly removed it.  It wasn't a very democratic decision on part of the forum IMO.


I haven't noticed those sigs that brag about accomplishments, I'll have to watch more closely.  I don't find it offensive, I'll just have a hard time taking people with ridiculous sigs like that seriously.



Edited by int_2375
Back to Top
Empathy View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 30 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1864
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 05 2006 at 17:14
Originally posted by int_2375 int_2375 wrote:


I haven't noticed those sigs that brag about accomplishments, I'll have to watch more closely.



Check Peter's post a little more closely then.

Originally posted by int_2375 int_2375 wrote:



I don't find it offensive, I'll just have a hard time taking people with ridiculous sigs like that seriously.


I think Peter counts on that.

Congrats on the parallel parking, Peter! I learned to tie my shoes in 1975!!


Edited by Empathy
Pure Brilliance:
Back to Top
Tuzvihar View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 18 2005
Location: C. Schinesghe
Status: Offline
Points: 13536
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 05 2006 at 18:03
What do you think of my new sig ?
"Music is much like f**king, but some composers can't climax and others climax too often, leaving themselves and the listener jaded and spent."

Charles Bukowski
Back to Top
int_2375 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 20 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 159
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 05 2006 at 18:09
lol well technically on this forum its not allowed.
Back to Top
Masque View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 01 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 808
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 05 2006 at 20:09
After reading through this stuff with an open mind on the topic I think I`m going to have to side with Ivan on this matter, we can`t let religious views negate a forum that is meant to be about progressive rock ,  that would be unfortunate and perhaps even costly to the clarity of this sites objectives .
Back to Top
Trotsky View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 25 2004
Location: Malaysia
Status: Offline
Points: 2771
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 05 2006 at 23:48

Originally posted by Tuzvihar Tuzvihar wrote:

What do you think of my new sig ?

 ...

"Death to Utopia! Death to faith! Death to love! Death to hope?" thunders the 20th century. "Surrender, you pathetic dreamer.”

"No" replies the unhumbled optimist "You are only the present."
Back to Top
stonebeard View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 06 2006 at 00:40

Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

The Progtologist wrote:

Quote But I also was raised in a country where everyone is free to practice whatever religion they choose,and are free from prosecution because of it.

I really can't understand you, if your info is correct you live in USA.

A country in which school principals can loose their jobs if the word God is mentioned, a country where God can't be mentioned in public institutions, a country where a Circuit Judge was fired and sued because he commited the sin of hanging the Ten Commandments over his head (Even when he argued that it was a reference to a legal code).

I don't believe people is allowed to practice whatever religion they want, at least not in Public places.

But at the same time a country that accepts that a bunch of Fundamentalists force the Governments of several States to place before any book about evolution "This is only a theory, as valid as Creationism".

So what irrestricted Religious freedom are you talking about?

I'm only going to make this one post. I don't want to debate anything.

1. Concerning those underlined in red: In my personal opinion, lef-wing/right-wing/etc. radical ignoramuses have made these cases so. If the constitution doesn't specifically allow for benign policies reguarding references of God and all other things relating to these subjects, then we should amend it. The USA should strive be a utopia for all people, and if certain people would stop making rediculous arguments like those outlined above, our society would nearly be that. Fundamentalists are the root of all evil, or at least it seems so to me.

2. Concerning the one in purple: As long as it isn't obscene or grotesque, I think society has to accomodate for it. Obviously no satanist can slaughter a sheep or anything like that, but a benign religious act should be accommodated. EX: Some people may get offended if, as if out of nowhere, a Muslim gets down on the ground and faces Mecca right in the middle of a sidewalk at midday. They may be offeneded, or felt imposed upon, but the Muslim should be allowed to do it, and the people should not care. It's those people who care about stuff like that, in any religion, society, and political field, and people who try to keep to old ways instead of embracing the future that are the root of all evil.

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.116 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.