I was told to stop posting about this in the TL community ABL thread so I'm finally making a thread here. The discussion in the ABL thread looked like this:
On June 01 2012 10:32 GMarshal wrote: Thats website feedback material, not laugh about people getting banned material -__-
You were right until arguing over this picture caused 1 perm and 1 temp ban. And even before that, my post was at least related to taking moderating action as reaction to a post, unlike some offtopic stuff that happens to be posted in this thread. As a former contributor of the 1st pic thread and from time to time contributor of the current pic thread I don't like it when people lower the quality of that thread with their posts, when I post I expect the quality to get better. I don't get your reason to be strict as to where this stuff should be posted when post I quoted offends at least 33% TL users, because this is how many TL users are Americans. I'm really, really surprised 71% people voted "No" in my poll.
The permed guy I reported because he was arguing in the pics thread. The temped guy was banned because he was arguing with the permed guy. None of this has anything to do with you coming in here to complain about a picture you found offensive. If you want the Nyan Eleven guy moderated, report his post. If you disagree with the way your report is handled, take it to Website Feedback.
TLDR; I got a guy permed. :: report dance ::
What? Go to the pic thread and read their argument, starting from the 1st person offended by the nyan WTC picture, on the page earlier. Everything started because of this picture. Does a plane has to be hijacked by terrorists and hit a tall building in Germany before you get how people get offended?
They should not have argued in the thread. That is the only reason to why they where banned. (One of them permed because he was a shitty poster normally). They could have taken it in PMs if they had problems with the pics. The discussion if offending pictures should be banned from the pic thread or not is very much so a website feedback discussion. Or at least not here. Since what is offensive is very subjective and what is offensive to you might be hilarious to me, it would be a long discussion tainting this thread.
On topic: I love arbitrageurs ban. Saw him in the "Terrible anti foreigner reporting from MBC" thread and had trouble keeping myself from telling him how extremely stupid he was, without stepping over the line. But I couldn't so i just didn't post. He gave me the feeling of a twelve year old who just have learned some statistic math and then suddenly have to show it off to all his friends. Except for the fact that twelve year olds don't learn statistics unless they are extremely intelligent and skip years. And he is not particularly intelligent.
Surely you could've picked something less offensive to put that retarded cat on.
Oblig:
That makes absolutely no sense. You can be offended without being emotional at all. Even if someone is outraged that's not an indication that they can't control their emotions. Any person can be outraged, especially when that outrage is completely justified as it would be in this case.
It's not even a remotely funny image anyway so it's not worth the risk. What's truly funny is that I'm trying to reason with someone in this thread.
You are right, it is really funny considering its a big fat warning on top of the thread telling you not to. I guess reading is hard.
User was temp banned for this post.
Summary:
user Special Endrey posts offending picture, like clearly offending considering more than 2800 people died in WTC towers. To not consider it offending you must either hate USA or be really immature. We are not talking 1 user over reacting and getting butthurt here, [SFW] Random pics that make you laugh thread has 27 129 097 views and 33% of TL users are Americans and I would guess there is more people from countries other than US, people with common sense like me who at least don't find it funny.
user LazyDT shows his dislike for the picture, possibly gets offended
user Hypemeup shows he can laugh about a massacre of thousands of people and starts an argument with a retarded picture. DO NOTE IT: he argues using a picture
user Silvertine correctly states that Hypemeup argument picture makes no sense, unfortunately what he does with that is he argues and gets permed for that and for being a shitty user
user Hypemeup keeps on arguing and gets temp ban.
To make it shorter - offensive picture causes a user to get offended which starts bannable, in that thread, argument. Posting offensive picture is directly related to 2 users getting banned.
What should be done? I think making a 3rd rule for the pic thread is unnecessary, just consider blatantly offensive pictures as NSFW and sacrifice the users who post such pictures to the Ban Gods.
Poll: Did NYAN-ELEVEN picture made you laugh?
Yes (21)
53%
No (19)
48%
40 total votes
Your vote: Did NYAN-ELEVEN picture made you laugh?
Anyway, 90% of the pictures in the thread are offensive. I don't see how you make an arbitrary deliniation between what's harmlessly offensive and what's harmfully offensive. Personally, I just don't every go into the thread, problem solved.
On June 02 2012 01:32 TheToast wrote: Haven't we had this discussion before?
Anyway, 90% of the pictures in the thread are offensive. I don't see how you make an arbitrary deliniation between what's harmlessly offensive and what's harmfully offensive. Personally, I just don't every go into the thread, problem solved.
Dude, how the hell do you find 90% of pictures offensive? Also brb, putting dat red and big tags on words "blatantly offensive" in my OP.
To make it shorter - offensive picture causes a user to get offended which starts bannable, in that thread, argument. Posting offensive picture is directly related to 2 users getting banned.
I disagree, they could have been arguing about anything and still received the same moderation. Regardless of the content of the images (execpt where the content of the image is an argumentative device) the ban reason was related only to arguing. Therefore the images concerned were only indirectly related to the moderation.
With all due respect my ban-praising friend, beetlelisk I think it's really two issues you have confused here 1) the moderation of the posters and 2) the content of the images.
I think your main concern actually, is the content of the image quoted in the OP and that moderation was NOT directly related to it (at least so it seems), here is the link to Silvertine's ban note:
It is ambiguous whether the ban stems from the content of the image or the argument in the images thread, probably both.
It would good to get clarification on why Silvertine was banned (although I type slow so you probably have this).
Marco images usually suck in that thread.
Realistically I think it's a little too pedantic for my tastes to formulate a rigorous definition of 'offensive' purely for the benefit of moderating an thread on a forum. I'd suggest it would be best to keep it simple (as it is) and have the approach that, if yuo find an offensive image on the thread you report it to get a mod's opinion.
As an addendum, the spirit of the SFW tag was so that pornographic and related images were barred from the thread I believe. It wasn’t to placitate the thread towards the sensibilities of the forum goers, more to prevent it becoming an dumping ground for just the same kind of images. In fact, foremostly, was the tag even intended to protect users that view it at work?
On June 02 2012 01:32 TheToast wrote: Haven't we had this discussion before?
Anyway, 90% of the pictures in the thread are offensive. I don't see how you make an arbitrary deliniation between what's harmlessly offensive and what's harmfully offensive. Personally, I just don't every go into the thread, problem solved.
Dude, how the hell do you find 90% of pictures offensive? Also brb, putting dat red and big tags on words "blatantly offensive" in my OP.
It's called hyperbole.
But seriously, the SFW Pics thread is essentially a containment aparatus for 4chan content to keep it off the rest of TL. It's sort of like a purgatory somewhere in between the rest of the forum and the closed section where the inherent laws of TL break down. Trying to apply standards to that would be an excercise in futility, and any standards concerning offensive material would be entirely arbirary and open to wild interpretation.
Well, partly, the SFW no porn requirement is part of google ads. I had to ask a mod about one of my tattoos in case I post pics in TLHF, and they told me that nudity is disallowed in the google ad agreement.
As for "offensive", well, humor tends to have the potential to offend. The majority of jokes are at the expense of a person or a group of people. If you ban offensive stuff, you're basically going to have knock knock jokes.
I'd say that if they were going to make a hard and fast rule for "too" offensive, it would need to be time related, and even that can't work, since it would remove any relevancy by the time we went back far enough to prevent holocaust jokes.
In other words, leave it case by case, and get some thicker skin if you're going to participate in that thread. Humor will, by nature, be capable of offending someone. Frankly, I found all your comments in the ABL thread to be inanely egotistical (and if I think that, holy shit), implying that you should have veto power due to your contributions. It's a fucking joke thread. I don't go to a comedy club and expect not to have the potential to get made fun of. That's what you're fucking THERE for.
Considering my place of employment's rules on offensive material, I wouldn't dream of opening the SFW image thread at work. That said, I'm okay with that since not everybody's workplace cares if you look at WTC jokes whereas porn is pretty much a no-no across the board (unless you, say, work for a porn studio).
On June 02 2012 01:56 bonifaceviii wrote: Considering my place of employment's rules on offensive material, I wouldn't dream of opening the SFW image thread at work. That said, I'm okay with that since not everybody's workplace cares if you look at WTC jokes whereas porn is pretty much a no-no across the board (unless you, say, work for a porn studio).
At that point, I think the biggest concern would be plagiarism. Speaking of which, that would be about the world's funniest lawsuit.
How would you argue your case without being held in contempt of court, anyways?
On June 02 2012 01:54 JingleHell wrote: Well, partly, the SFW no porn requirement is part of google ads. I had to ask a mod about one of my tattoos in case I post pics in TLHF, and they told me that nudity is disallowed in the google ad agreement.
As for "offensive", well, humor tends to have the potential to offend. The majority of jokes are at the expense of a person or a group of people. If you ban offensive stuff, you're basically going to have knock knock jokes.
I'd say that if they were going to make a hard and fast rule for "too" offensive, it would need to be time related, and even that can't work, since it would remove any relevancy by the time we went back far enough to prevent holocaust jokes.
In other words, leave it case by case, and get some thicker skin if you're going to participate in that thread. Humor will, by nature, be capable of offending someone. Frankly, I found all your comments in the ABL thread to be inanely egotistical (and if I think that, holy shit), implying that you should have veto power due to your contributions. It's a fucking joke thread. I don't go to a comedy club and expect not to have the potential to get made fun of. That's what you're fucking THERE for.
Can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
That remibnds me of a saying, 'You falling over is a comedy, me falling over if a tragedy'
To make it shorter - offensive picture causes a user to get offended which starts bannable, in that thread, argument. Posting offensive picture is directly related to 2 users getting banned.
I disagree, they could have been arguing about anything and still received the same moderation. Regardless of the content of the images (execpt where the content of the image is an argumentative device) the ban reason was related only to arguing. Therefore the images concerned were only indirectly related to the moderation.
I'm all for people arguing there getting banned and warned. I still stand my ground though, offensive pictures force a reaction and that's how arguments start, therefore offensive pictures start arguments.
With all due respect my ban-praising friend
HAIL THE BAN GODS!!!!
, beetlelisk I think it's really two issues you have confused here 1) the moderation of the posters and 2) the content of the images.
I think your main concern actually, is the content of the image quoted in the OP and that moderation was NOT directly related to it (at least so it seems), here is the link to Silvertine's ban note:
It is ambiguous whether the ban stems from the content of the image or the argument in the images thread, probably both.
It would good to get clarification on why Silvertine was banned (although I type slow so you probably have this).
I think the ban was for arguing, perm was used because he was a shitty poster.
Marco images usually suck in that thread.
Realistically I think it's a little too pedantic for my tastes to formulate a rigorous definition of 'offensive' purely for the benefit of moderating an thread on a forum. I'd suggest it would be best to keep it simple (as it is) and have the approach that, if yuo find an offensive image on the thread you report it to get a mod's opinion.
Except this example shows it's not a bannable offense so reporting doesn't do anything. Like I say in my OP, focus on the blatantly offensive pictures and consider them NSFW instead of formulating a definition of offensive.
As an addendum, the spirit of the SFW tag was so that pornographic and related images were barred from the thread I believe. It wasn’t to placitate the thread towards the sensibilities of the forum goers, more to prevent it becoming an dumping ground for just the same kind of images. In fact, foremostly, was the tag even intended to protect users that view it at work?
I think there is enough users who view the thread at work for this rule to be useful. My personal view on SFW rule is NSFW images and gifs created a environment of doing whatever the fuck you want in the old pic thread and that wasn't looking nice.
I have to be vaguely curious why it's a guy from Poland attacking that anyways. Maybe if it was a New Yorker. Have those posters got any history, by any chance?
Special Endrey is from Germany, no less. I'm sensing some sort of shenanigans. Maybe I should go break out the tinfoil, but seriously, this strikes me as being more than meets the eye.
On June 02 2012 01:32 TheToast wrote: Haven't we had this discussion before?
Anyway, 90% of the pictures in the thread are offensive. I don't see how you make an arbitrary deliniation between what's harmlessly offensive and what's harmfully offensive. Personally, I just don't every go into the thread, problem solved.
Dude, how the hell do you find 90% of pictures offensive? Also brb, putting dat red and big tags on words "blatantly offensive" in my OP.
It's called hyperbole.
But seriously, the SFW Pics thread is essentially a containment aparatus for 4chan content to keep it off the rest of TL. It's sort of like a purgatory somewhere in between the rest of the forum and the closed section where the inherent laws of TL break down. Trying to apply standards to that would be an excercise in futility, and any standards concerning offensive material would be entirely arbirary and open to wild interpretation.
There are standards set on that thread already and if you followed the 1st pic thread then you can easily say that difference is huge between pic thread no1 and 2. Those standards are rules to always post with a pic and do not argue. They are enough to do wonders. 4chan can deliver also a good stuff like bachelor frog meme, memes in general if not over used can be and are funny but I don't think they are anywhere close to be a majority of pictures. I don't really see more evil 4chan stuff in that thread.
On June 02 2012 01:54 JingleHell wrote: Well, partly, the SFW no porn requirement is part of google ads. I had to ask a mod about one of my tattoos in case I post pics in TLHF, and they told me that nudity is disallowed in the google ad agreement.
As for "offensive", well, humor tends to have the potential to offend. The majority of jokes are at the expense of a person or a group of people. If you ban offensive stuff, you're basically going to have knock knock jokes.
I'm talking seriously offensive shit here.
I'd say that if they were going to make a hard and fast rule for "too" offensive, it would need to be time related, and even that can't work, since it would remove any relevancy by the time we went back far enough to prevent holocaust jokes.
Can you explain what do you mean by the "need to be time related"? For me it's really simple - picture about Jewish kids getting killed in Auschwitz? KAFUCKINGBOOM, instant mod reaction.
In other words, leave it case by case, and get some thicker skin if you're going to participate in that thread. Humor will, by nature, be capable of offending someone. Frankly, I found all your comments in the ABL thread to be inanely egotistical (and if I think that, holy shit), implying that you should have veto power due to your contributions. It's a fucking joke thread. I don't go to a comedy club and expect not to have the potential to get made fun of. That's what you're fucking THERE for.
Can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
I don't have a problem with a majority of pictures there, if I don't laugh at some then I just scroll down and add my own. I'm getting personally connected to the thread I contribute to because it takes hours a day, that's why I may be over reacting. This is issue of more of a potential threat than currently existing, returning, big problem.
On June 02 2012 02:08 JingleHell wrote: I have to be vaguely curious why it's a guy from Poland attacking that anyways. Maybe if it was a New Yorker. Have those posters got any history, by any chance?
Special Endrey is from Germany, no less. I'm sensing some sort of shenanigans. Maybe I should go break out the tinfoil, but seriously, this strikes me as being more than meets the eye.
LMFAO, I will repeat myself - I'm getting personally connected to thread I contribute to. We can say that this thread in website feedback is a territorial threat display - if you are not going to post something funny in "my" funny pictures thread and post something causing trouble instead then fuck off here and now.
"Your" thread? I just checked, Intrigue is the OP.
I think you're failing to get the point. There IS no formula for "offensive" that's guaranteed to work. And judging by how many people seem to think you're utterly off-base and overreacting, I'd say that your papal decree to be the inquisitor of all that's offensive has been revoked.
Tell me again why you're so horribly offended on behalf of 9/11, while a lot of Americans are just shrugging it off?
On June 02 2012 02:51 JingleHell wrote: "Your" thread? I just checked, Intrigue is the OP.
I think you're failing to get the point. There IS no formula for "offensive" that's guaranteed to work. And judging by how many people seem to think you're utterly off-base and overreacting, I'd say that your papal decree to be the inquisitor of all that's offensive has been revoked.
Tell me again why you're so horribly offended on behalf of 9/11, while a lot of Americans are just shrugging it off?
That's why I put "my" in quotation marks, I mean myself and everyone else who invests his time to make the pic thread going. The formula is simple - if it's too offensive, punish it. Disregard everything less offensive. I never really considered myself to be an inquisitor, if it would be so then I would report the nyan - eleven post but I didn't because I knew there would be no reaction. So I decided to bring this to attention instead so future posts like this can be punished. I guess I overestimated the power of offensiveness that picture delivered.
I didn't really see a lot of Americans shrugging it off. I'm not terribly moved by that picture, it's just that for me there are some things you don't make fun of. Hey I even like to sometimes listen to the nyan cat.
On June 02 2012 02:51 JingleHell wrote: Tell me again why you're so horribly offended on behalf of 9/11, while a lot of Americans are just shrugging it off?
I wouldn't say I'm shrugging it off. That's a picture of hundreds of people being instantly killed, their bodies torn apart and burned beyong recognition.
But at the same time, it's become so prevalent in the US media over the past 10 years I think many of us have become desensitized to it.
On June 02 2012 02:51 JingleHell wrote: "Your" thread? I just checked, Intrigue is the OP.
I think you're failing to get the point. There IS no formula for "offensive" that's guaranteed to work. And judging by how many people seem to think you're utterly off-base and overreacting, I'd say that your papal decree to be the inquisitor of all that's offensive has been revoked.
Tell me again why you're so horribly offended on behalf of 9/11, while a lot of Americans are just shrugging it off?
That's why I put "my" in quotation marks, I mean myself and everyone else who invests his time to make the pic thread going. The formula is simple - if it's too offensive, punish it. Disregard everything less offensive. I never really considered myself to be an inquisitor, if it would be so then I would report the nyan - eleven post but I didn't because I knew there would be no reaction. So I decided to bring this to attention instead so future posts like this can be punished. I guess I overestimated the power of offensiveness that picture delivered.
I didn't really see a lot of Americans shrugging it off. I'm not terribly moved by that picture, it's just that for me there are some things you don't make fun of. Hey I even like to sometimes listen to the nyan cat.
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.
On June 02 2012 02:51 JingleHell wrote: Tell me again why you're so horribly offended on behalf of 9/11, while a lot of Americans are just shrugging it off?
I wouldn't say I'm shrugging it off. That's a picture of hundreds of people being instantly killed, their bodies torn apart and burned beyong recognition.
But at the same time, it's become so prevalent in the US media over the past 10 years I think many of us have become desensitized to it.
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.
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 02:51 JingleHell wrote: "Your" thread? I just checked, Intrigue is the OP.
I think you're failing to get the point. There IS no formula for "offensive" that's guaranteed to work. And judging by how many people seem to think you're utterly off-base and overreacting, I'd say that your papal decree to be the inquisitor of all that's offensive has been revoked.
Tell me again why you're so horribly offended on behalf of 9/11, while a lot of Americans are just shrugging it off?
That's why I put "my" in quotation marks, I mean myself and everyone else who invests his time to make the pic thread going. The formula is simple - if it's too offensive, punish it. Disregard everything less offensive. I never really considered myself to be an inquisitor, if it would be so then I would report the nyan - eleven post but I didn't because I knew there would be no reaction. So I decided to bring this to attention instead so future posts like this can be punished. I guess I overestimated the power of offensiveness that picture delivered.
I didn't really see a lot of Americans shrugging it off. I'm not terribly moved by that picture, it's just that for me there are some things you don't make fun of. Hey I even like to sometimes listen to the nyan cat.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
On June 02 2012 02:51 JingleHell wrote: Tell me again why you're so horribly offended on behalf of 9/11, while a lot of Americans are just shrugging it off?
I wouldn't say I'm shrugging it off. That's a picture of hundreds of people being instantly killed, their bodies torn apart and burned beyong recognition.
But at the same time, it's become so prevalent in the US media over the past 10 years I think many of us have become desensitized to it.
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.
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.
i cant really say i was offended but i am still disgusted by it? im not sure that makes sense even to me. I mean no offense to plexa or anyone that did think it was funny, but I guess it really makes me think poorly of your sense of humor, really. just blind new york pride probs
its hard to defend the position that you shouldn't make jokes out of it when people sometimes proudly make holocaust jokes.
for the record though I'd like to have drawn the line with both subjects on the wrong side as far as what we as a community would like to condone, personally. I guess that's what the vote is for though.
On June 02 2012 02:51 JingleHell wrote: "Your" thread? I just checked, Intrigue is the OP.
I think you're failing to get the point. There IS no formula for "offensive" that's guaranteed to work. And judging by how many people seem to think you're utterly off-base and overreacting, I'd say that your papal decree to be the inquisitor of all that's offensive has been revoked.
Tell me again why you're so horribly offended on behalf of 9/11, while a lot of Americans are just shrugging it off?
That's why I put "my" in quotation marks, I mean myself and everyone else who invests his time to make the pic thread going. The formula is simple - if it's too offensive, punish it. Disregard everything less offensive. I never really considered myself to be an inquisitor, if it would be so then I would report the nyan - eleven post but I didn't because I knew there would be no reaction. So I decided to bring this to attention instead so future posts like this can be punished. I guess I overestimated the power of offensiveness that picture delivered.
I didn't really see a lot of Americans shrugging it off. I'm not terribly moved by that picture, it's just that for me there are some things you don't make fun of. Hey I even like to sometimes listen to the nyan cat.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
On June 02 2012 02:51 JingleHell wrote: Tell me again why you're so horribly offended on behalf of 9/11, while a lot of Americans are just shrugging it off?
I wouldn't say I'm shrugging it off. That's a picture of hundreds of people being instantly killed, their bodies torn apart and burned beyong recognition.
But at the same time, it's become so prevalent in the US media over the past 10 years I think many of us have become desensitized to it.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
I don't know how you came to this conclusion. I think I made my OP pretty clear - offensive pictures may lead to people getting offended and arguing about it, which only ends in warnings and bans and getting offended and banned is not what those people come for when they visit the thread.
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 05:47 beetlelisk wrote: 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.
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.
On June 02 2012 06:03 beetlelisk wrote: I don't know how you came to this conclusion. I think I made my OP pretty clear - offensive pictures may lead to people getting offended and arguing about it, which only ends in warnings and bans and getting offended and banned is not what those people come for when they visit the thread.
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 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.
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.
.... 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 02:51 JingleHell wrote: "Your" thread? I just checked, Intrigue is the OP.
I think you're failing to get the point. There IS no formula for "offensive" that's guaranteed to work. And judging by how many people seem to think you're utterly off-base and overreacting, I'd say that your papal decree to be the inquisitor of all that's offensive has been revoked.
Tell me again why you're so horribly offended on behalf of 9/11, while a lot of Americans are just shrugging it off?
That's why I put "my" in quotation marks, I mean myself and everyone else who invests his time to make the pic thread going. The formula is simple - if it's too offensive, punish it. Disregard everything less offensive. I never really considered myself to be an inquisitor, if it would be so then I would report the nyan - eleven post but I didn't because I knew there would be no reaction. So I decided to bring this to attention instead so future posts like this can be punished. I guess I overestimated the power of offensiveness that picture delivered.
I didn't really see a lot of Americans shrugging it off. I'm not terribly moved by that picture, it's just that for me there are some things you don't make fun of. Hey I even like to sometimes listen to the nyan cat.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
On June 02 2012 03:30 TheToast wrote:
On June 02 2012 02:51 JingleHell wrote: Tell me again why you're so horribly offended on behalf of 9/11, while a lot of Americans are just shrugging it off?
I wouldn't say I'm shrugging it off. That's a picture of hundreds of people being instantly killed, their bodies torn apart and burned beyong recognition.
But at the same time, it's become so prevalent in the US media over the past 10 years I think many of us have become desensitized to it.
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.
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.
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".
You aren't reading between lines, you were trying to warp the meaning of my case, for whatever the reasons are. First you are talking about shrugging it off and once I explain to you what you are doing by shrugging it off you say I put words in your mouth but then, immediately, you say "so what" which shows you have the exact attitude I described in those 2 last lines in my last post to you.
For the record, we aren't talking about any picture here, I keep on talking about having no problem with majority of pictures in the thread and talking about posts that do are blatantly offensive.
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.
Did you not read the OP? Consider blatantly offensive pictures NSFW. It's easy to take action against those pictures because they are blatantly offensive. TL moderation staff decides, by voting if needed. Case closed.
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.
Well now you truly are warping the meaning of my case. Yeah, close the thread with 27 million views because of 1 picture, fucking brilliant idea! Especially considering that negativism like "getting panties in a twist" is mentioned in TL commandments and bannable. I know it first hand because I was on the other side of the barricade too, there were people who didn't like my contributions to the pic thread and they were getting warned and banned.
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.
So only now you are realizing how exactly 9/11 looked like and what it meant? My entire response was an effort to twist your words into you being some sort of evil person? There is: + Show Spoiler +
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.
which doesn't say you are evil, it says you don't contribute. + Show Spoiler +
What is ridiculous in my eyes is you really don't see a problem with that picture. (...) What do you laugh to on a daily basis?
This is a genuine question. I would say you are evil by asking "do you laugh to videos of people's heads getting cut off". + Show Spoiler +
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.
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 05:47 beetlelisk wrote: 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.
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.
And that's what I'm talking about, joking about certain events is not a proper thing to do, I don't care about the rest of pictures. I made the polls to check what the community wants, if it doesn't find it to be a big deal then so be it, leave it as it is.
On June 02 2012 06:03 beetlelisk wrote: I don't know how you came to this conclusion. I think I made my OP pretty clear - offensive pictures may lead to people getting offended and arguing about it, which only ends in warnings and bans and getting offended and banned is not what those people come for when they visit the thread.
If people can't be bothered to read the note at the top saying no arguing then they deserve the warning/ban.
I think you wouldn't be saying that if someone close to you died during 9/11.
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.
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.
.... 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.
OK, then do it. I don't think you will find as many as you claim. For me it's different, posting a picture of a fat guy or your other examples and posting a picture that basically reminds of people getting murdered. Yes, you see 2 burning buildings there, you don't see people there. It doesn't change the fact of what was happening to those people.
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!)
hahahahahahha no the Nyan cat is not dangerous. But the ignorant people are.
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.
It may be full of stupid and idiotic pictures but I don't see many regularly offensive pictures. At this point I did let go, I'm only responding to clarify my point of view.
also, for every argument that says "its basically censorship," duh. it is censorship. but i'd rather have censorship than people going around calling people faggots niggers, making holocaust jokes, and again, making that kind of mockery of 9/11. The first two being things I think we've thankfully decided to ban.
jus sayin. and not personal cokefreak, you just reminded me.
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.
What's ironic to you? Instead of generalizing defend your point of view because otherwise you are showing you have no arguments.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Lol, where did I show any German fixation? Also if the thread wasn't valuable then TL staff would close it.
Anyways, since you're not interested in debating the point, just stirring the shit pot, I'm done here.
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 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.
What's ironic to you? Instead of generalizing defend your point of view because otherwise you are showing you have no arguments.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Lol, where did I show any German fixation? Also if the thread wasn't valuable then TL staff would close it.
Anyways, since you're not interested in debating the point, just stirring the shit pot, I'm done here.
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.
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. 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?
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).
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.
What's ironic to you? Instead of generalizing defend your point of view because otherwise you are showing you have no arguments.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Lol, where did I show any German fixation? Also if the thread wasn't valuable then TL staff would close it.
Anyways, since you're not interested in debating the point, just stirring the shit pot, I'm done here.
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.
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.
I told you you were wrong in your statement about the picture thread. If you are unwilling to scroll up then here it is.
On June 02 2012 03:38 JingleHell wrote: 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.
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.
And this is supplemented by what I said in my last post: "if the thread wasn't valuable then TL staff would close it.".
This is the only part where I call you wrong. In other things our opinions differ so I can explain to you my point of view and try to change your mind but I can't tell you you are wrong just because your opinion is different.
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.
I or someone I know wasn't in the WTC on 9/11 nor in New York nor anywhere is US and I'm not American so I can't get offended by a picture that makes fun off 9/11 and death of so many people? According to your point of view, what requirements do I have to meet to be allowed to get offended? I was more offended by the fact the picture was offensive to people who were struck by 9/11 way stronger than me, then by the picture itself. That's why I didn't report it but asked for views of others on this, in the form of a poll.
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.
You definitely prove something is wrong with you when you say something that never happened. I replied to AmericanUmlaut with "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." I didn't compare people, I compared event (9/11) to phenomenons and ideologies (nazizm, communism). Also I never used words "concentration camps". Good luck in finding those words in this thread to quote them and to give link to the post, in which those words are. In case you get paranoid and you are seriously convinced you saw them then contact a moderator to check edit histories in my posts in this thread. LOL
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.
You first do something and then accuse me of doing it. Seeking ulterior motives and now, backing that up with words I didn't write is an inadequacy.
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.
It's not about wasting your time, it's about not being able to show it. Quote my words with which I was supposed to be doing personal attacks, add links to posts you took it from and explain why do you feel attacked.
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.
I already explained what I meant by saying it's "my" thread. Nice, so you do in fact contribute. Now tell me if you have ever seen anyone do something, in the threads you give advice in, that you disagreed with or were displeased with. You wrote yourself in the post you gave link to that you tend to be a dick so I guess that has happened. You should understand what fellow contributor feels in those situations then.
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 that polls showed that half of the people who saw the pic laughed, 70% opposes prohibiting that sort of pictures and 90% wasn't offended, compiling any sort of a list has no point. I meant my OP to be more of a suggestion than trying to enforce a rule. And even if people didn't find the pic funny but offensive enough to be prohibited then still compiling any list wouldn't be necessary. What do mods use in most of ban reasons? Common sense, they don't point to the TL commandments thread. Exception are bans that came from disregarding or not reading the warning at the top of a page but those warnings also originate from using common sense. Like I already wrote, don't make a specific rule for offensive pictures. Consider blatantly offensive pictures NSFW. It's easy to take action against those pictures because they are blatantly offensive. TL moderation staff decides, by voting if needed. Case closed.
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?
I'm not grossly offended by your lack of offense at the picture, I'm offended by you trying to downplay the meaning behind burning towers and treat it like any other picture. Try to get them banned sounds sufficient. I bet any victim would feel good knowing that people making fun of their tragedy are being hunted down and punished. And we aren't talking about victims of 9/11 here, we are talking about other users that may get offended. Polls say they aren't offended so the case is dropped by me.
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.
Again, quote my words with which I was supposed to be doing personal attacks, add links to posts you took it from and explain why do you feel attacked.
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.
Keep on trying.
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?
Well, so far I don't think I dismissed any of your points other than me supposedly doing personal attacks on you.
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).
Said someone with 7000 posts. I guess it's not just a gamer website to you if you spend so much time on it. No further comment, read the thread.
I suggest when you wake up, you re-write that without validating every single thing I've said about putting words in my mouth and ascribing reactions to me without any basis in reality.
Just as a hint, when I talk about SpecialEndrey, and you respond to that paragraph talking about Umlaut, it really provides stark evidence that you're reacting to an utterly inaccurate perception of what I said.
You can't decide what is and isn't offensive for other people. Obvious guidelines can be drawn (no gore, no NSFW content, no thinly veiled images to argue with other images and derail the thread) but what is tasteless and what is genuinely offensive is a line everyone must draw from themselves. Most importantly, if you find something to truly offend you, try sending a PM to the person that posted it explaining why you feel that way and asking them if they would remove it. If not, use a greasemonkey script to remove the picture or simply don't visit the thread.
On June 02 2012 15:33 Probe1 wrote: You can't decide what is and isn't offensive for other people. Obvious guidelines can be drawn (no gore, no NSFW content, no thinly veiled images to argue with other images and derail the thread) but what is tasteless and what is genuinely offensive is a line everyone must draw from themselves. Most importantly, if you find something to truly offend you, try sending a PM to the person that posted it explaining why you feel that way and asking them if they would remove it. If not, use a greasemonkey script to remove the picture or simply don't visit the thread.
Welcome back, Probe! :-D
Also, I think beetlisk is making a pretty huge logical mistake in accusing those of us who found the NYAN-ELEVEN picture funny of laughing at 9/11. Like I said in my original post in this thread, I found the jarring juxtaposition of the Nyan Cat and 9/11 funny, and I thought the pun was clever. Was it in bad taste? Of course. But it's not laughing at 9/11. If someone simply posted a picture of the events of 9/11 in the funny pictures thread, the implication of that would be that 9/11 was funny. The NYAN-ELEVEN picture is funny because of the jarring juxtoposition of themes, the cleverness of the title, and the shocking nature of the joke's source material.
On June 02 2012 15:33 Probe1 wrote: You can't decide what is and isn't offensive for other people. Obvious guidelines can be drawn (no gore, no NSFW content, no thinly veiled images to argue with other images and derail the thread) but what is tasteless and what is genuinely offensive is a line everyone must draw from themselves. Most importantly, if you find something to truly offend you, try sending a PM to the person that posted it explaining why you feel that way and asking them if they would remove it. If not, use a greasemonkey script to remove the picture or simply don't visit the thread.
Welcome back, Probe! :-D
Also, I think beetlisk is making a pretty huge logical mistake in accusing those of us who found the NYAN-ELEVEN picture funny of laughing at 9/11. Like I said in my original post in this thread, I found the jarring juxtaposition of the Nyan Cat and 9/11 funny, and I thought the pun was clever. Was it in bad taste? Of course. But it's not laughing at 9/11. If someone simply posted a picture of the events of 9/11 in the funny pictures thread, the implication of that would be that 9/11 was funny. The NYAN-ELEVEN picture is funny because of the jarring juxtoposition of themes, the cleverness of the title, and the shocking nature of the joke's source material.
Don't want to start an argument or anything, but I don't think that replacing "nine" with a vaguely similarly sounding word constitutes as cleverness. Also, the same jarring juxtaposition could be made by simply photoshopping Nyan Cat into gore, or making Nyan cat fly out of a persons private parts. Would those be allowed in the thread? That does fit all of your qualifications. Is it enough to just mask it with a shocking juxtaposition?
On June 02 2012 15:33 Probe1 wrote: You can't decide what is and isn't offensive for other people. Obvious guidelines can be drawn (no gore, no NSFW content, no thinly veiled images to argue with other images and derail the thread) but what is tasteless and what is genuinely offensive is a line everyone must draw from themselves. Most importantly, if you find something to truly offend you, try sending a PM to the person that posted it explaining why you feel that way and asking them if they would remove it. If not, use a greasemonkey script to remove the picture or simply don't visit the thread.
Welcome back, Probe! :-D
Also, I think beetlisk is making a pretty huge logical mistake in accusing those of us who found the NYAN-ELEVEN picture funny of laughing at 9/11. Like I said in my original post in this thread, I found the jarring juxtaposition of the Nyan Cat and 9/11 funny, and I thought the pun was clever. Was it in bad taste? Of course. But it's not laughing at 9/11. If someone simply posted a picture of the events of 9/11 in the funny pictures thread, the implication of that would be that 9/11 was funny. The NYAN-ELEVEN picture is funny because of the jarring juxtoposition of themes, the cleverness of the title, and the shocking nature of the joke's source material.
Don't want to start an argument or anything, but I don't think that replacing "nine" with a vaguely similarly sounding word constitutes as cleverness. Also, the same jarring juxtaposition could be made by simply photoshopping Nyan Cat into gore, or making Nyan cat fly out of a persons private parts. Would those be allowed in the thread? That does fit all of your qualifications. Is it enough to just mask it with a shocking juxtaposition?
I don't have qualifications, I just find some things funny. You're free to disagree and think that those things aren't funny. Nyan Cat photoshopped over a scene of gore doesn't sound terribly funny. Nyan Cat flying out of a person's private parts could be pretty funny, I think, depending on how it was done. Neither one should be posted in the Funny Pics thread, though, because there are rules against that.
On June 02 2012 12:22 JingleHell wrote: I suggest when you wake up, you re-write that without validating every single thing I've said about putting words in my mouth and ascribing reactions to me without any basis in reality.
Wat????? Jesus Christ and Holy Mary, quote that shit I was supposed to be doing because I have no idea what are you talking about. It's sounds like instead of replying to my last post you scrolled up and replied to my previous post. What I can tell is you used only 1 ad hominem, which was the first post of yours, with the poll added, saying I had an ulterior motive behind this thread. Your other posts show misunderstanding at worst case. Like the worst reaction I ascribed to you was saying "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." I do wonder what are you supposed to be keeping to yourself.
Just as a hint, when I talk about SpecialEndrey, and you respond to that paragraph talking about Umlaut, it really provides stark evidence that you're reacting to an utterly inaccurate perception of what I said.
This is the sentence about SpecialEndrey: "The poster happens to be German, you happen to be Polish." end of sentence about SpecialEndrey. The next sentence is "You compared the people behind 9/11 to Nazis, and you've compared making light of 9/11 to making light of concentration camps.". Holy fucking shit, you made me check my OP. Oh God. Nope, not a word about nazis nor concentration camps anywhere in my OP. I did write about nazizm and communism but in response to AmericanUmlaut. What you are doing here is calling your made up lies "an utterly inaccurate perception" of what you said. I don't really know what to say more about it. Are you a troll?
So in your 4 lines post, 2 lines don't even address my last post to you and the other 2 are trying to cover lies, or whatever the reason is you said that I did something that in reality I didn't. I'm too tired to laugh about this because of the constant checking of our posts to give quotes and first of all, to understand what the hell do you mean. My post was pretty long and you completely dodge majority of what I wrote in it. This is the debate you wanted?
On June 02 2012 15:33 Probe1 wrote: You can't decide what is and isn't offensive for other people. Obvious guidelines can be drawn (no gore, no NSFW content, no thinly veiled images to argue with other images and derail the thread) but what is tasteless and what is genuinely offensive is a line everyone must draw from themselves. Most importantly, if you find something to truly offend you, try sending a PM to the person that posted it explaining why you feel that way and asking them if they would remove it. If not, use a greasemonkey script to remove the picture or simply don't visit the thread.
I don't try to decide what is and isn't offensive for other people, I say I'm offended enough to propose a different approach to the problem I see and I ask for views of other people to see if my proposal has any back up, because if it does not then there is no reason to change anything. I can try to PM the poster of offending pic next time but I'm not convinced it would work and offending posts are very rare. I don't know how greasemonkey is supposed to help me if I already saw the picture. The thread is too good in general to not visit it.
On June 02 2012 15:33 Probe1 wrote: You can't decide what is and isn't offensive for other people. Obvious guidelines can be drawn (no gore, no NSFW content, no thinly veiled images to argue with other images and derail the thread) but what is tasteless and what is genuinely offensive is a line everyone must draw from themselves. Most importantly, if you find something to truly offend you, try sending a PM to the person that posted it explaining why you feel that way and asking them if they would remove it. If not, use a greasemonkey script to remove the picture or simply don't visit the thread.
Welcome back, Probe! :-D
Also, I think beetlisk is making a pretty huge logical mistake in accusing those of us who found the NYAN-ELEVEN picture funny of laughing at 9/11. Like I said in my original post in this thread, I found the jarring juxtaposition of the Nyan Cat and 9/11 funny, and I thought the pun was clever. Was it in bad taste? Of course. But it's not laughing at 9/11. If someone simply posted a picture of the events of 9/11 in the funny pictures thread, the implication of that would be that 9/11 was funny. The NYAN-ELEVEN picture is funny because of the jarring juxtoposition of themes, the cleverness of the title, and the shocking nature of the joke's source material.
There are already a rule (Unwritten rule but still.)about no blatantly offensive pictures in the sfw pic thread. some time ago, maybe a year, someone thought it would be funny to Photoshop a pro gamers head into a bucket of shit. (I think that was Painusers, but I don't remember). Now that person was banned and the picture removed. There was also this picture with breivik as braveheart (I think it was anyway, I'm not one for movies) who was banned as well. So yes there are some offensive materials that is banned. But as someone said, it is more about the time then anything. If someone made the Nyan-Eleven post a few days after nine-eleven it would have been different.
And with that said I don't think there are anything wrong with the moderating in the sfw pic thread. I think a lot of it is shit, but there are a few occasional gold nuggets that is worth the time to check the thread from time to time.
Some of the most horrific tragic things in life, are generally made fun of. . . The dictator, making a wii game about Munich where you get to play the terrorists and in the end unlock a prize (exploding vest) after you kill the isreali team...
If you can't handle offensive pictures, then move along, one mans joke is another's misfortune and that goes for everything... The fact you're so offended is just adding to anything that happened that day, I can't recall the quote, but the second you are prepared to change your daily life/routine/personality and let things lke this affect your mood, is the day the terrorists win... So start enjoying life, and stop hating on others ingenuity... The people who died that day aren't coming back, so move on, life is process.
EPT![[image loading]](http://img.pr0gramm.com/2012/05/246451-370669689664867-516952268-n.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/vDV1r.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/UaB5c.png)
![[image loading]](http://www.traemcneely.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/wpid-offended-e13324479039041.png)
![[image loading]](http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lgr0kxV1lt1qa0o9zo1_500.gif)
