Offensive signature |
Post Reply | Page <12345> |
Author | ||||
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 27 2004 Location: Peru Status: Offline Points: 19535 |
Posted: April 04 2006 at 21:33 | |||
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 |
||||
|
||||
Empathy
Forum Senior Member Joined: June 30 2005 Status: Offline Points: 1864 |
Posted: April 04 2006 at 21:35 | |||
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:
|
||||
Trotsky
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: October 25 2004 Location: Malaysia Status: Offline Points: 2771 |
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." |
||||
Empathy
Forum Senior Member Joined: June 30 2005 Status: Offline Points: 1864 |
Posted: April 04 2006 at 23:43 | |||
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:
|
||||
int_2375
Forum Senior Member Joined: March 20 2006 Status: Offline Points: 159 |
Posted: April 05 2006 at 06:08 | |||
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 |
||||
Trotsky
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: October 25 2004 Location: Malaysia Status: Offline Points: 2771 |
Posted: April 05 2006 at 08:50 | |||
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." |
||||
Empathy
Forum Senior Member Joined: June 30 2005 Status: Offline Points: 1864 |
Posted: April 05 2006 at 09:35 | |||
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:
|
||||
Empathy
Forum Senior Member Joined: June 30 2005 Status: Offline Points: 1864 |
Posted: April 05 2006 at 09:40 | |||
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:
|
||||
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 22 2005 Location: Sweden Status: Online Points: 21133 |
Posted: April 05 2006 at 10:35 | |||
That can be seen in an ironic way - I always thought of it as a tombstone for communism. |
||||
Trotsky
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: October 25 2004 Location: Malaysia Status: Offline Points: 2771 |
Posted: April 05 2006 at 11:02 | |||
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." |
||||
Peter
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: January 31 2004 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 9669 |
Posted: April 05 2006 at 16:18 | |||
Yes. |
||||
"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy. |
||||
Peter
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: January 31 2004 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 9669 |
Posted: April 05 2006 at 16:21 | |||
Poor Trotsky was murdered before he had a chance to become corrupt.... 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. |
||||
Peter
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: January 31 2004 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 9669 |
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? 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?
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. |
||||
int_2375
Forum Senior Member Joined: March 20 2006 Status: Offline Points: 159 |
Posted: April 05 2006 at 16:56 | |||
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.
Edited by int_2375 |
||||
Empathy
Forum Senior Member Joined: June 30 2005 Status: Offline Points: 1864 |
Posted: April 05 2006 at 17:14 | |||
Check Peter's post a little more closely then.
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:
|
||||
Tuzvihar
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: May 18 2005 Location: C. Schinesghe Status: Offline Points: 13536 |
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 |
||||
int_2375
Forum Senior Member Joined: March 20 2006 Status: Offline Points: 159 |
Posted: April 05 2006 at 18:09 | |||
lol well technically on this forum its not allowed.
|
||||
Masque
Forum Senior Member Joined: April 01 2006 Status: Offline Points: 808 |
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 .
|
||||
Trotsky
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: October 25 2004 Location: Malaysia Status: Offline Points: 2771 |
Posted: April 05 2006 at 23:48 | |||
... |
||||
"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." |
||||
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member Joined: May 27 2005 Location: NE Indiana Status: Offline Points: 28057 |
Posted: April 06 2006 at 00:40 | |||
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. |
||||
Post Reply | Page <12345> |
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |