About the Swastica image on sigs etc.

[Afronaut]

This is an official statement from me.
I think the other Mods are sleeping still.

Clearly ppl think it is offensive in our forums.

There is no Freedom of Speech in FST:


5. Signatures and avatars will be restricted in size and content, and must not be offensive in nature. Signatures and avatars that do not comply will be removed or edited.

The rules are there to make this place nice enough for anyone to post about.

I will be removing any swastika images I see on FST.

You disagree?
Why be a immature kid and generally a pest?
:P

If you got angst about posting swasticas on the net, please to posting in some other forums, thanks.


Personally, my blood dont boil seeing the swastica.
But if other members think it is offensive i will be taking action by the rule nr. 5.

Anything to add in this?

[Peerzy]

Only one i saw was a comical EA logo transforming into the Swastica, this being a refrence to EA buying out lots of other game companies and trying to controll the market.

[Afronaut]

All started on this thread (http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/showthread.php?t=97459&page=1&pp=20).
I see enough ppl being offended by the swastica.

I just wanted to make a statement about this, maybe before we all got the swastica in sigs.

:)

I mean, if the sig is offensive ie. ppl report about it, it will be removed.

Fair enough?

[MCHeshPants420]

I'm offended by Chelsea sigs. Can they all be removed as well please?


Edit: (before this gets deleted by IKE this isn't off-topic btw, it makes a serious point).

[Peerzy]

I'm offended by Chelsea sigs. Can they all be removed as well please?


Edit: (before this gets deleted by IKE this isn't off-topic btw, it makes a serious point).


Hadn't seen that thread.


Chelsea > Cheese FC :snooty:

[Afronaut]

I'm offended by Chelsea sigs. Can they all be removed as well please?


Edit: (before this gets deleted by IKE this isn't off-topic btw, it makes a serious point).



There's difference here.

As far as I know, chelsea is little beans compared to Nazism,
which is why ppl are offended by the swatica.

There's some artists, teams in sports and what not that im not a fan about it,
but that wont warran't the removal.

[Rip The Jacker]

I mean, if the sig is offensive ie. ppl report about it, it will be removed.

Fair enough?
Fair enough.

I personally wasn't offended by the swastica, but when members actually start reporting it, that's when you know its offensive, and it's got to go.

[MCHeshPants420]

I'm offended by Chelsea sigs. Can they all be removed as well please?


Edit: (before this gets deleted by IKE this isn't off-topic btw, it makes a serious point).



There's difference here.

As far as I know, chelsea is little beans compared to Nazism,
which is why ppl are offended by the swatica.

There's some artists, teams in sports and what not that im not a fan about it,
but that wont warran't the removal.


Okay.


What about something more ambiguous?

Say an upside-down American flag? One of those older postcards (http://roadsidephotos.sabr.org/postcards/sexist.htm)? Misspelled swearing? Pro-war sigs? Antiwar sigs? Hitler or any other dictator fuckwit? Anti-Wicca sentiment? Any religious sigs at all? Sigs representing extreme political views (ie communism, republicans...)? Implied cruelty to animals in sigs? Sigs mocking fat/obese people? Sigs mocking any individual? Sigs commenting on the censorship of the mods? Sigs seeking to free banned members? In fact any sig that might be deemed as not quite politically correct?

For instance, if someone was offended by the comments in your sig Afro on the grounds that you are discriminating against organised religion would you remove it? I don't find it offensive myself but perhaps a religious person might.

We'd all end up with pretty safe and boring sigs then wouldn't we? I just hope your criteria is kind of swastika and above. Not just what any old member(s) complain about. ;)

[JPaul]

I didn't report it, however I agree with it's removal. I also think those who used the image did it for shock effect, which was rather pathetic.

I think it is grossly insensitive to use certain images as a source of amusement.

I believe that images which promote or trivialize bigotry, racism or anti-semitism should be removed.

I am all for free speech. That includes my right to object when others say things which I totally disagree with or find distasteful. That seems fair.

[Afronaut]

Okay.


What about something more ambiguous?

Say an upside-down American flag? One of those older postcards (http://roadsidephotos.sabr.org/postcards/sexist.htm)? Misspelled swearing? Pro-war sigs? Antiwar sigs? Hitler or any other dictator fuckwit? Anti-Wicca sentiment? Any religious sigs at all? Sigs representing extreme political views (ie communism, republicans...)? Implied cruelty to animals in sigs? Sigs mocking fat/obese people? Sigs mocking any individual? Sigs commenting on the censorship of the mods? Sigs seeking to free banned members? In fact any sig that might be deemed as not quite politically correct?

For instance, if someone was offended by the comments in your sig Afro on the grounds that you are discriminating against organised religion would you remove it? I don't find it offensive myself but perhaps a religious person might.

We'd all end up with pretty safe and boring sigs then wouldn't we? I just hope your criteria is kind of swastika and above. Not just what any old member(s) complain about. ;)


Hence this topic. Its free for discussion. What do we, as members think about these images etc.?

I dont wish to be deleting/removing anything here.
But it is what I would do if it makes this place more enjoyable for our members. We dont want to be drowned by goatse pics and whatnot,
atleast, that's what I feel.

As far as I know, we're going about in topic by topic basis.
There's no list what is offensive.

If someone has a sig or is posting images that is offensive for members etc.
it will be removed.

A lot of pics has been posted in these boards, not a lot of them has been removed.
I'd say the percentage is tiny for removed images.


I'd say, my current sig is nowhere near to be compared to Nazism, hehe.
But im an easy going guy, I will remove it if ppl finds it offensive about it.

I have no wish to carry on with sigs I know will offend ppl here.

Quite clearly, if that is the case, I would have heard about allready.
The line in my sig has been there for quite some time now.
;)

Of course, there's the chance that ppl will make hassle about images/sigs
just because of getting the kicks out of hassling itself.
It is teh intarweb, after all.

:D

[JPaul]

Re Afro's sig.

I find mankur offensive, can she be deleted.

[lynx]

As rule 5 says, sigs must not be offensive in nature. There's a big difference between someone having a personal dislike for a sig and therefore being offended, and the sig itself being generally offensive.

So cheese being offended by Chelsea sigs wouldn't meet the criteria (but probably should :rolleyes: ), but I agree that some other things may do. So just having someone complain isn't in itself going to get a sig removed.

[GepperRankins]

afro, can we use this thread to discuss the signatures in question?



I didn't report it, however I agree with it's removal. I also think those who used the image did it for shock effect, which was rather pathetic.

I think it is grossly insensitive to use certain images as a source of amusement.

I believe that images which promote or trivialize bigotry, racism or anti-semitism should be removed.

I am all for free speech. That includes my right to object when others say things which I totally disagree with or find distasteful. That seems fair.


i suppose that was a factor but the reasoning was more than just to shock people.

1. i was sticking up for someone who had been threatened for the message in his signature.

2. i suppose the best word is propaganda: the signature suggests that EA are an oppressive, aggressive regime that will pretty much fuck gaming up through it's aims to take-over 95% of the games industry to use as a cashcow.

3. to wind you up. i really can't see how anyone would be offended by it, so i did it to wind you do-gooders up.

it's not just amusement. like i said, it's propaganda.

it doesn't promote or trivialise racism or bigotry. it does the absolute opposite. it plays on stuff like that to get the point across that our oppinions of EA are very negative.

this isn't a freedom of speech zone. i don't mind having the sig removed. i just have trouble working out why you're offended


oh and the "nazi punks fuck off"... i just wanted to see what you'd say :schnauz:

[JPaul]

it doesn't promote or trivialise racism or bigotry. it does the absolute opposite. it plays on stuff like that to get the point across that our oppinions of EA are very negative.


It compares aggresive marketing to attempted genocide, how is that not trivializing the suffering and death of millions of people based on their religious beliefs.

The fact that you used it to make a point about computer gaming is even more offensive, fuck sake, you weren't even doing it for something which matters.

You were sticking up for someone, whoop de fucking do. He deserved to be picked on for what was in his sig. So nil points from me for sticking up for him.

Ooh, Dave called me a do-gooder, I'm offended. Think about it idiot, you were sticking up for the poor we lamb who was getting picked on. What would that make you.

[GepperRankins]

oh FFS i've had it up to here with this
http://www.hitler.org/images/hitler.in.car.jpg



they may not be killing people but they do treat their workers badly and tie them in to contracts that will ruin them if they break. they are trying to take over the world, well the gaming world anyway. there are comparisons but that's not so much the point because as cheese pointed out it's a hyperbole. it's pretty obvious unless you're stupid.

i wouldn't have stood up for TC if i didn't agree with him. i would have let it drop by now also if it wasn't for this:

sorry young fella, nothing against you personally though you should have known better, but gonna get it to fuck

people shouldn't threaten to give what they can't take

[MCHeshPants420]

oh FFS i've had it up to here with this



they may not be killing people but they do treat their workers badly and tie them in to contracts that will ruin them if they break. they are trying to take over the world, well the gaming world anyway. there are comparisons but that's not so much the point because as cheese pointed out it's a hyperbole. it's pretty obvious unless you're stupid.

i wouldn't have stood up for TC if i didn't agree with him. i would have let it drop by now also if it wasn't for this:

sorry young fella, nothing against you personally though you should have known better, but gonna get it to fuck

people shouldn't threaten to give what they can't take

I'd prefer people didn't use the symbol for its negative aspect so as to let those religions who use the symbol for (very) different reasons a chance to "reclaim" it.

[JPaul]

they may not be killing people but they do treat their workers badly and tie them in to contracts that will ruin them if they break.
So that compares to the indiscriminate torture and premeditated murder of millions of men woman and children. The concentration camps and the gas chambers. The stealing of people's homes and assets. The burning of their places of worship.

To say nothing of the Nazis attempting World domination and not just the computer gaming World.

It's the fact that you even think that which is the most offensive thing.

[GepperRankins]

you're actually putting effort into missing the point aren't you.

did you also put effort into making sure i can't quote your post out of context like you did mine? :fist:

[JPaul]

you're actually putting effort into missing the point aren't you.

did you also put effort into making sure i can't quote your post out of context like you did mine? :fist:
No, I just see the point differently from you.

I find your use of the Swastika, now one of the most despised symbols in the western World, inappropriate. I find your justification for it's use insufficient to negate the offense it causes, to a great many people.

Please feel free to quote my posts in any way you see fit.

[bigboab]

oh FFS i've had it up to here with this



they may not be killing people but they do treat their workers badly and tie them in to contracts that will ruin them if they break. they are trying to take over the world, well the gaming world anyway. there are comparisons but that's not so much the point because as cheese pointed out it's a hyperbole. it's pretty obvious unless you're stupid.

i wouldn't have stood up for TC if i didn't agree with him. i would have let it drop by now also if it wasn't for this:


people shouldn't threaten to give what they can't take

I'd prefer people didn't use the symbol for its negative aspect so as to let those religions who use the symbol for (very) different reasons a chance to "reclaim" it.

I agree.:)




The Original Meaning

The word "swastika" comes from the Sanskrit svastika - "su" meaning "good," "asti" meaning "to be," and "ka" as a suffix.



It is all down to association. If you want to associate the Swastika with the Nazis then that is your choice. That does not mean that every person has to do the same.

There is far too much 'association' of words resulting in the loss or misuse of their original meanings. The Swastika and Gay are two examples in my lifetime. If you were to play Harry Bellafonte's 'Jamaica Farewell' to a youngster today, what would he think of the line, 'Down the way where the nights are gay'?:lol:

[GepperRankins]

you're actually putting effort into missing the point aren't you.

did you also put effort into making sure i can't quote your post out of context like you did mine? :fist:
No, I just see the point differently from you.

I find your use of the Swastika, now one of the most despised symbols in the western World, inappropriate. I find your justification for it's use insufficient to negate the offense it causes, to a great many people.

Please feel free to quote my posts in any way you see fit.
i used the most despised symbol in the western world simply because that's what it is. the symbol itself is not offensive, what it stands for is. do you even realise that, i'm not sure you do.

you think i'm desensitising it, which seems to worry you. i'm more worried about the fact that you refuse to see anything deeper than; anything with a swastika = evil. joke about people = evil.

to me it looks like you're scared you could be racist and rather than doing anything about it you just pent it up and deny it :freud:

[JPaul]

No, I just see the point differently from you.

I find your use of the Swastika, now one of the most despised symbols in the western World, inappropriate. I find your justification for it's use insufficient to negate the offense it causes, to a great many people.

Please feel free to quote my posts in any way you see fit.
i used the most despised symbol in the western world simply because that's what it is. the symbol itself is not offensive, what it stands for is. do you even realise that, i'm not sure you do.

you think i'm desensitising it, which seems to worry you. i'm more worried about the fact that you refuse to see anything deeper than; anything with a swastika = evil. joke about people = evil.

to me it looks like you're scared you could be racist and rather than doing anything about it you just pent it up and deny it :freud:


:lol: , please note I am laughing at you, not with you.

[GepperRankins]

w00t! :shifty:

[Snee]

Captain azad had an ss-symbol as his avatar for quite some time. And now the Canuk had a swastika in his sig. Fashion-statement?

Anyway, I understood what the canuk was on about, and although it was a flawed comparison (made him look a bit silly or ignorant, really), I didn't really take offense to it. (It might actually have been a bit offensive to some nazis, actually, being compared to a bunch of incompetents who lack original thought, and who are thus using the thoughts and works of others to stay afloat, though come to think of it, that's sort of how I think of any nazis still around today)


It's good that this has come up though, and since you answered cheebus the way you did, re: chelsea, I take it a sig (or a post) won't be removed on the say of one, perhaps deluded, reporting individual (not in any way talking about zero btw), or a bunch of them, if they decide to gang up on someone. Which is very good :)

[Afronaut]

the symbol itself is not offensive

I have a bit different view on this.

If you'd say "the Image itself" but the meaning relys on the word symbol.

I think that the EA, as Evil corporate that it may be, should not be linked to the swastica,
which is seen most of the time as a symbol of Nazism. The "evil" between the 2 things are way off balance, imo.

Perhaps, you could choose another, more fit horse to ride the EA cause in these forums.

Perhaps we could be "less" personal about this also.

:)

[GepperRankins]

the symbol itself is not offensive

I have a bit different view on this.

If you'd say "the Image itself" but the meaning relys on the word symbol.

I think that the EA, as Evil corporate that it may be, should not be linked to the swastica,
which is seen most of the time as a symbol of Nazism. The "evil" between the 2 things are way off balance, imo.

Perhaps, you could choose another, more fit horse to ride the EA cause in these forums.

Perhaps we could be "less" personal about this also.

:)
that's what i meant: image



all it boils down to is us pointing out bad people by comparing them to the worst imaginable, that doesn't offend me. it's not about drawing direct comparisons. it's about saying EA are bad, though a sig saying "EA are bad" wouldn't be very prominent. clearly associating them with nazis does the job very well.

[JPaul]

I agree it makes the point, however the offence is caused by the trivialization of the real attrocities.

What you are doing (by using your own argument) is saying Nazis were bad, as bad as EA. Some would suggest they were a lot worse.

Have you done maths, of course you have.

EA = Nazis can also be written as Nazis = EA.

[GepperRankins]

i can't fathom how anybody would make the association like that. really, i've tried to but i can't.

[JPaul]

i can't fathom how anybody would make the association like that. really, i've tried to but i can't.
It's the one you made.

[GepperRankins]

everybody knows how bad the nazis were. not everybody knows about EA. even the people who know about both will make the association of EA being bad, nazis being worse - it's common sense to see it that way. who the fuck is going to see it and think "oh the nazis? only as bad as a videogames company, guess hitler wasn't so bad after all. let's re-elect them and burn some jews"? - no-one

one automatically thinks "oh, EA being compared to the nazis they must be really bad then"

[DanB]

I didn't find the sig offensive for what its worth.

It clearly wasn't support for the Nazi regime so I can't see what the fuss is all about. As SnnY said Capt Azad had an SS symbol for his avatar and no one did anything about that

[tesco]

I didn't find the sig offensive for what its worth.

It clearly wasn't support for the Nazi regime so I can't see what the fuss is all about. As SnnY said Capt Azad had an SS symbol for his avatar and no one did anything about that
No one reported that as offensive...

[JPaul]

I just thought of that as a declaration of his idiocy.

It let new people know the strength of him.

[MCHeshPants420]

I didn't find the sig offensive for what its worth.

It clearly wasn't support for the Nazi regime so I can't see what the fuss is all about. As SnnY said Capt Azad had an SS symbol for his avatar and no one did anything about that
No one reported that as offensive...

Most sensible people have him on 'ignore'.

[manker]

Who the feck is Capt Azad :blink:

[Snee]

Who the feck is Capt Azad :blink:
It's usually spelled "Capt. Azzztard".

[RPerry]

Ok, seeing how this isn't going to go much further than name calling....

~closed~