The picture thread and offensive pictures. - Page 2

On June 02 2012 03:38 JingleHell wrote:


You didn't just report it, you tried to take it a level beyond that, you wanted to get rules specially made or changed to fit your definition of offensive, due to some bizarre claim on the thread.

There is no final authority on funny. If you know it's not worth reporting, why would you turn it into some giant deal, complete with polls, in the ABL thread, before moving it here? You clearly thought it was ban-worthy, or you wouldn't have brought it up there initially.

This is ridiculous, in my eyes. I'm probably more jaded than most, but lets face it, that's pretty benign as a general thing. If it offended specific people, for specific reasons, there might be a case for those people to complain, but this is either a different grievance manifesting through that outlet, or an attempt to set a precedent to police humor.

The thread is a shit fest. Everyone expects that. It's not exactly the Louvre. It's like a compost pit. You throw all the moldy leftovers of the internet in there to safely decompose out of public view.

That's pretty much what shrugging something off is, in my book. It's not saying it doesn't affect you, it's saying that you're able to avoid knee jerking, see it for what it is, and keep moving.

On June 02 2012 05:47 beetlelisk wrote:

Quote me on that. Where did I say that? First I asked if it should be prohibited then I proposed to extend the SFW rule and make offensive pictures a bannable offense as they may be not safe for work. There is no requirement for a new rule other than a mod posting in the pic thread "from now on blatantly offensive pictures are considered NSFW and thus a bannable offense".
I didn't make my definition of offensive, I said making fun of a massacre where more than 2800 people died isn't funny to me.
What exactly is my bizarre claim on the thread? You have just proven to me that you never, ever contributed anything to TL or you would understand how a contributor feels when other people shit on the thread he contributes in.


I think I said I didn't report it because I knew there would be no action, which doesn't make it not ban worthy. In other words: yes, it was ban worthy; no, there would be no action taken before attempt at a discussion about that.


Can you explain what both "different grievance manifesting through that outlet" and "an attempt to set a precedent to police humor" mean, because I don't understand both terms. What is ridiculous in my eyes is you really don't see a problem with that picture. Again and again I have to underline we are talking about thousands of people getting killed, in horrible ways too. What do you laugh to on a daily basis?


So you are saying you don't even visit the picture thread. For some reason you are trying to say there is a need for this thread so stuff that gets placed in it isn't placed anywhere else. You are wrong in multiple ways.
1st of all you are underestimating the sheer force and will power of TL moderation staff. They don't need a compost pit, there are sites like 4chan that are places to gather all of the garbage and worst stuff internet has to offer. There is no need for part of TL to be that. In fact, if it would look like that it would get closed, just like the 1st picture thread that got additionally deleted. Google ads terms weren't the only reason, that thread was locked multiple times and locking it wasn't working, wasn't changing anything.
2nd, like I wrote already, I do not have a problem with majority of pictures posted there. If I do, I just scroll down.
I don't find it be a pile of shit.
3rd this is the most viewed thread with 27 MILLION views and pending. Do you imagine majority of TL users a sickos? How do you explain the view count if the thread is supposed to be so bad? I do not think "everyone expects the thread to be a shit fest", I do not think those people are even a majority on TL.


So it's a good thing, you see a picture of burning buildings where temperature was so hot people were committing suicides by jumping off the windows instead of choking and burning to death BUT HEY I'M DESENSITIZED TO IT, I CAN KEEP MOVING.

On June 02 2012 05:09 AmericanUmlaut wrote:
I'm so glad you made this thread, and thus finally created a context in which to say that I found that picture hilarious. I don't hate my homeland, and I'm not a terrible, immature person. I just found the juxtaposition of the two images to be very, very funny. Failing to find it funny wouldn't have helped any of the people who died on 9/11, and the fact that you're so terribly offended by it isn't doing any of them any good, either.

Your argument that anything that might tempt someone to respond in a bannable fashion should be prohibited on TL is also hilarious, though probably not as intentionally so as the NYAN-ELEVEN picture.

On June 02 2012 05:27 Whole wrote:
Since not a lot of people are offended by Nyan-Eleven, we shouldn't change the rules of the thread imo.

On June 02 2012 06:03 beetlelisk wrote:

It's just the opposite, I'm helping the memory about them. History likes to repeat itself and the first step to repeating it is disregarding what has happened. WTC attacks is among things like nazism and communism that should be treated seriously and not be forgotten. Disregard this shit now and be forced to eat it later.
We come from the animals which doesn't mean we should act like ones. We are laughing about people getting killed in a terrorist attack today, what will we laugh about tomorrow then?
More than me being offended I was thinking there would be more people terribly offended, I guess I was wrong.

On June 02 2012 06:02 JingleHell wrote:


You accuse me of putting words in your mouth because I read between the lines, and then you turn around and put words in my mouth. Quaint. I think you've officially gone from being offended that someone dared to post a pic that they thought was funny and you didn't (no accounting for taste), to being offended that people dare to say "so what".

Congratulations, you're not helping your case any. If you can't suggest a specific sort of hard and fast rule regarding moderation, and you know that under the current rules that pic doesn't matter, then you're not accomplishing much.

Hell, I'd say the best method for fixing the problem would just be locking the thread and banning anyone who tried to remake it, to avoid people possibly getting their panties in a twist, since most humor will offend someone. But that would kill the thread you love so much.

I'd respond more directly to you, but given that your entire response was an effort to twist my words into me being some sort of evil person (you really don't want me to lend credence to those points, with how easily offended you are), I get the impression it would be wasted effort all around. So try again, with the intent being debate rather than argument.

On June 02 2012 06:07 Cokefreak wrote:

I disagree, I don't think it was a ban-worthy picture, mildly bad taste, sure but nothing banworthy. You are trying to enforce your way here as to what kind of joke is or isn't allowed. Humor is a subjective matter, some jokes don't make everyone laugh, there is no universal rule of what is funny and what isn't, sure we could argue that joking about certain events, such as 9/11, is not a proper thing to do, but still it is not something that should be completely denied as that would be borderline censorship over something completely subjective.

If people can't be bothered to read the note at the top saying no arguing then they deserve the warning/ban.

On June 02 2012 06:25 TheToast wrote:


.... You are aware that we're talking about a thread filled with nothing but pics of fat guys, costume wearing cats, and memes; RIGHT?

Really, given the trash in that thread it's frankly absurd that you're making a big deal out of this one picture. It's by the furthest stretches of the imagination the only wildly inappropriate picture in there; I could come up with dozens from each page.

This is not some grand social issue, nor is the morality fiber of western civilization at risk. Nyan cat is not, I repeat NOT, going to cause the resurgence of genocide or totilitarian government in Eastern Europe. He's a cat with the body of a poptart that shits rainbows, the only real danger is getting fat from all the calories in poptarts. (like 400 a pack, wtf!)

It's a stupid picture in a thread full of stupid pictures, idiotic, and regularly offensive pictures. If you don't like it, don't go in there. Otherwise, let it go before this gets any sillier than it already is.

On June 02 2012 07:02 JingleHell wrote:
You seem to be doing quite a bit of judging me based on a few things, in your process of trying to claim the moral high ground. Back to irony, I see.

And I'm "wrong in many ways". Feel free to elaborate, instead of making ad hominem attacks based on your ill-considered pre-conceived notions of me. Otherwise, my point about argument vs debate stands.

I'd say I probably have a better idea of my own feelings about 9/11, or the response I had to it than you could even begin to understand, and the odds of you ever being somebody I would confide that sort of shit in are somewhere around negative infinity, under the circumstances.

I'd say that that shit shaped my life in ways you couldn't even begin to comprehend, but that doesn't mean that I have to have the same emotional response to a dumb picture that you do.

As for your assertation that views somehow mean a thread is valuable, well, not really. I mean, Mein Kampf has had a whole shitload of views (yes, I'm bringing your German fixation back into this, that's what you get for your implication that I can't comprehend 9/11), and I think we'd both agree that that doesn't make the contents good for society, right?

Anyways, since you're not interested in debating the point, just stirring the shit pot, I'm done here.

On June 02 2012 08:42 beetlelisk wrote:

What's ironic to you? Instead of generalizing defend your point of view because otherwise you are showing you have no arguments.


You ripped "wrong in many ways" out of context. You are wrong in your view about the picture thread and I did elaborate on that.
Argumentum ad hominem means I tried to make personal attacks against you irrelevant to your argument, which I didn't.
I don't have ill-considered pre - conceived notions of you, you did of me, starting with claiming I had an ulterior motive behind making this tread and even adding a poll to it. You started it so blaming me for the discussion going wrong is laughable.
You like to throw specialized terms so I will throw one too - what you are doing is called psychological projection - you deny your own thoughts and emotions and ascribe them to me.


Holy hell, you hurt me so badly. I will never know if it was something actually different than "shrugging it off". In every post in this thread you convinced me that you didn't care about 9/11 so I guess yeah, that's a response I couldn't even begin to understand. Which means you have nothing to confide.

Pulling out your martyr cart is not going to work here. "Shit shaping your life" can explain your responses but is not an excuse. My emotional response to that picture was checking what does community think about it, it's you thinking that it made me outraged and trying to prove whatever you tried to prove by making ad hominem attacks based on your ill-considered pre-conceived notions of me.


Lol, where did I show any German fixation? Also if the thread wasn't valuable then TL staff would close it.


Psychological projection aaallll the waayyy.
What you want is not a debate but me saying I was wrong and you were right.
Yeah be done here, dodge everything I said. Have a nice day.

On June 02 2012 10:03 JingleHell wrote:


You know what, just for you, maybe I won't be done. Although, frankly, you're going to be harder to straighten out than a sine wave.

There's no generalizations in saying you're judging me based off of incomplete information, it's only a broad statement because it encompasses so many grossly inaccurate and insulting assumptions you've made about me.

Feel free to explain how I'm "wrong" on a question that's so blatantly subjective in nature, otherwise my point there stands.

On June 02 2012 05:47 beetlelisk wrote:

So you are saying you don't even visit the picture thread. For some reason you are trying to say there is a need for this thread so stuff that gets placed in it isn't placed anywhere else. You are wrong in multiple ways.
1st of all you are underestimating the sheer force and will power of TL moderation staff. They don't need a compost pit, there are sites like 4chan that are places to gather all of the garbage and worst stuff internet has to offer. There is no need for part of TL to be that. In fact, if it would look like that it would get closed, just like the 1st picture thread that got additionally deleted. Google ads terms weren't the only reason, that thread was locked multiple times and locking it wasn't working, wasn't changing anything.
2nd, like I wrote already, I do not have a problem with majority of pictures posted there. If I do, I just scroll down.
I don't find it be a pile of shit.
3rd this is the most viewed thread with 27 MILLION views and pending. Do you imagine majority of TL users a sickos? How do you explain the view count if the thread is supposed to be so bad? I do not think "everyone expects the thread to be a shit fest", I do not think those people are even a majority on TL.

As for the fixation and ulterior motive, that's easily explainable. You took offense at something that you have yet to show a reason to take significant offense to, from a source full of potentially offensive material.

The poster happens to be German, you happen to be Polish. You compared the people behind 9/11 to Nazis, and you've compared making light of 9/11 to making light of concentration camps. Yes, tinfoil hat is in effect here, but that sounds like a fixation.

I'm sure you'll just call that a projection again, but until and unless you can tell me what of my own inadequacies, which you've so far proven utterly incapable of judging correctly, I'm supposed to be projecting, I'm just going to assume I'm right.

As for your personal attacks, which you said you weren't doing, I'm not going to waste my time explaining why you're wrong.

To go back to one of your earlier... points, for lack of a better word, I'd say I would know something about contribution, maybe more than someone who feels like he owns the funny pics thread would understand, all without the sense of entitlement. Here is my thoughts about it, in fact. Maybe trying to help people with PC issues doesn't seem that important compared to posting "funny" pictures, but hey, that's my contribution, so I'll roll with it.

You have yet to define any standard beyond the current case-by-case standard TL has for all moderation anyways that could be used here, except a specific incident, which falls under case-by-case, and if we tried to compile a full list of "not safe to joke about this specific incident" type things, we still risk offending people by the things that don't end up on the list, or we just be safe and list everything, which brings us back to knock-knock jokes.

Now I don't know why you're so grossly offended by my lack of palpable offense at the picture, maybe it's just because I save getting offended for cases where it's more relevant. If I get offended about a stupid picture like that, it doesn't do anybody any good. What can I do? Yell at someone? Punch someone in the face? Shoot them? Try to get them banned from an internet forum? Explain to me which of those does any good for the victims of the event?

No, I'd rather get offended by some person on the internet who thinks he can talk down to me based off of ridiculous and erroneous character judgements that are damn near slander.

And then, just to keep it reasonably productive, instead of rising to the bait and calling them names like they want, because they're hoping I'll say something I shouldn't and validate those statements, I'll point out why what they're saying is blatantly ridiculous.

I assume I'm still projecting, but here's some food for thought. Maybe what you see as me projecting is actually you projecting your need to project. It would explain a lot. You're actually projecting your anger from that German fixation I mentioned on 9/11, and since I called you out on it, you're projecting the need to project on me, so that you can dismiss my points without valid debate. How's that for some inception shit?

On June 02 2012 10:49 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
Hmm, I thought it was pretty funny. Actually, there's a handful of twin tower images in the SFW thread. Anyway, I'm sorry you're so offended, seem obsessed with this... "problem," and won't just get on with your life (a picture on a gamer website oooooh nooooo).