A Statement ... by Bob Nelson
This image is a statement . It says two things:
- Black people should be slaves to White people. That was the cornerstone of the Confederate States of America.
- If you do not agree... Fuck you!!
If I were to use this image in an article, it would get the expected reactions. Decent people would be rightly disgusted and angered, and racist bigots would obfuscate to hide their racism. But no one would imagine that comments of either kind were "off-topic", regardless of the title of the article .
But what if I found a way to post this image all over NewsTalkers ... in such a way that if anyone made a comment, it would be declared off-topic? For example, I could use this as an avatar. Then... even if my article was about, say, gardening, I could still make my statement: " Black people should be slaves to White people. If you do not agree... Fuck you!! " ... while having any reaction to it deleted as "off-topic". Cool!
I would be abusing the spirit of the CoC, but hey! That's standard practice on NT. Everyone knows that respecting the letter is all that's really required.
I hope that The Powers That Be (hiya, Perrie! 
) think long and hard about this.
Letting me use the above symbol -- or letting anyone else use symbols that are highly controversial -- would open a very nasty can of worms:
If The Powers That Be decide that "controversial symbols are OK but insults are not"... then we would begin the stupid game of "how close to the line can I get before TPTB decide that it's too far"? And of course... some members are already using despicable, controversial symbols in their avatars... so they have already begun the stupid game of abusing the CoC.
It seems impossible to set any rule concerning what may or may not be put in an avatar. An offender would immediately begin the stupid game of skirting the limits. On the other hand, I think we could put an end to abuse of avatars by considering them to always be part of "the topic".
For example, a "guideline" for creating an avatar:
It is preferable to create an avatar that no one will find offensive.
A controversial symbol in your avatar will leave you open to incessant comments on your avatar,
regardless of the topic of your seed/article .
Tags
Who is online
596 visitors
I wish us all good luck...
This is quite a question you’ve posed. Hahaha For me, I would think it would be difficult to put parameters on what is defined offensive because as we all know many times it’s subjective. Part of what I think these forums are for is to be provocative in a sense that it stimulates conversation. It’s good to put yourself in uncomfortable discussions because it allows us to hear different perspectives. It would be immensely boring if we all thought the same way. Take the example you’ve used, a hand brandishing the middle finger with the design of the confederate flag. Some would find the middle finger more offensive than the design itself. An avatar is an extension of the person behind it and sometimes it’s a symbol of what someone wants to be and I find that very interesting. I wouldn’t want to censor someone expressing themselves but that’s just my 2 cents and 2 cents doesn’t buy anything these days. Thanks for the post!
Bravo for this article Bob! Perfect!
Black people should be slaves to White people. That was the cornerstone of the Confederate States of America.
Not entirely . That was an overreaching generalization . There was an economic component which is being ignored .
From time-to-time I see this …
… and more-or-less understand both the externally-precipitated paranoia behind the statement as well as a paranoia that might be either inherent and internal, or, a sincerely held expression/explanation.
But I begin to question sincerity and candor when I see this on a vehicle in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in rural towns above the Mason-Dixon Line or anywhere in America where one's heritage (unless that of a transplant from the South) is "adopted" rather than legitimately ascribed!
Will someone make the distinctions for me?
Who cares?
I do. All decent human beings are offended by the idea of race-based slavery.
I understand that that does not include you.
Keep flailing at straw-men.
Somdeday, hopefully, you might grow up and make an intellectually honest argument. But I doubt it.
Why is race based slavery worse than regular old slavery?
I nominate Bob Nelson as asshole in charge of all avatar approvals . All NT members will be required to submit their avatars for approval to His Bobness . Why ? He threw the biggest longest tantrum on this topic . You win Bob . Let the rest of us know if our tars meet with your approval !
“[Confiscating a book and punishing its author] is a sign that one does not have a good case, or at least doesn't trust it enough to defend it with reasons and refute the objections. Some people even go so far as to consider prohibited or confiscated books to be the best ones of all, for the prohibition indicates that their authors wrote what they really thought rather than what they were supposed to think . . .”—Johann Lorenz Schmidt, 1741
“If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”—U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis (1856–1941), Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357 (1927) .
“Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us.”—Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas
The Constitution means many things to everyone and for each of us, we walk away with what we find to be the most important freedom. To me, it's the 1st Amendment, in its entirety. It is what makes America truly unique. The right to express ourselves, freely. It is easy to have freedom of speech when we are not offended, but the 1st only means something when it is tested. When it makes us uncomfortable, even to the point that it offends. The great minds that wrote the opening quotes to my comment understood that, as did the cartoonist at Charlie Hebdo. It is only when we don't like what we are reading or seeing that the 1st really means anything.
When the Westboro Baptist Church held their disgusting protests as an afront to the grieving families of our dead, brave, service men, the courts ruled in favor of the church. They were exercising their freedom of speech, no matter how horrible the message was.
When Neo-Nazis wanted to march in Skokie, Ill., it was the ultra liberal ACLU who defended their right to do so. They understood the right they were protecting, no matter how offensive the individuals protesting were.
The issue here is not if that avatar is offensive or not. Nowhere in our Constitution does it say that we have the "right" not to be offended. Something is going to offend someone somewhere. But it does guarantee the right to express ourselves.
An avatar is just that. An expression of oneself. What you take away from it, is up to the individual. It matters not how I feel about it, but I am also allowed to form my own opinions about what I see. And in that, is the beauty of freedom of speech.
The few limitations we have on this site, are there to keep discussion flowing. Hurling insults at each other inhibits discussion. On the other hand, hurling insults at comments is an expression of our freedom of speech. There is a subtle difference, but one none the less.
Bob, if you are asking me if I endorse that avatar... I have my feelings about it, but it matters little. In the context of this site, it is the right of that individual to express his/herself so long as it isn't an overt personal attack made on a member and it isn't.
The day that I feel any differently, is the day that I should change our tag "Speak Your Mind", and prohibit articles like this.
If I chose to, could I use a Swastika as my avatar?
Or are all things Nazi off limits? If so, why? If not, then thank you for answering.
I never really expected an answer Perrie.
I miss your Hitler avatar.
Perrie,
NOWHERE in this article did I call for censorship.
On the contrary, I stated very clearly that any attempt to regulate avatars is doomed to fail.
I do, however, feel that it is an error to not include a seeder's avatar in the "debatable domain". Allowing a member to constantly post an offensive symbol, while preventing the rest of us from commenting on it... is seriously in violation of the spirit of the CoC. Once again, NT rewards the members who are most talented at respecting the letter of the CoC while trampling all over its spirit.
Comments or articles... which... are... abusive, ... or offensive, ..., hateful, racially or ethnically are prohibited, and will be removed.
But racially hateful avatars may not even be discussed. They are "off-topic".
Anyone should be allowed to use any symbol as avatar. But then they should have to accept the opprobrium that they deserve for using it.
Allowing a member to constantly post an offensive symbol, while preventing the rest of us from commenting on it... is seriously in violation of the spirit of the CoC. Once again, NT rewards the members who are most talented at respecting the letter of the CoC while trampling all over its spirit.
I am not rewarding anyone for their avatars. In fact, today, we have an array of colorful avatars. We are not here to discuss each other's avatars. In fact, the CoC states:
Comments or articles... which... are... abusive, ... or offensive, ..., hateful, racially or ethnically are prohibited, and will be removed.
And therein lies the rub. Comments or articles... not avatars. We are a discussion site. We are here to discuss topics. The spirit of the CoC is intact. If someone writes a hate filled rant, and it considered hate speech, it is removed. If it doesn't meet the specs for hate speech, debate away about the content. But the moment we start debating each others avatars, the site disintegrates into personal attacks because there is always going to be someone who hates an avatar for whatever reason Did you not read that someone found jwc's "Liberal" avatar offensive? Do you not see the danger of going down that path?
You may despise an avatar, and you can filter anything that individual says through how they represent themselves, but other than that, an avatar is just an avatar... a matter of self expression.
Perrie - think we need to call his mommy and have her change his diapers - his shit is really getting old and smelly.
I disagree Perrie. Avatars ARE comments for the purposes of the CoC. They ARE "speech" for the purposes of the CoC. They should be considered as such IMHO. I consider them to be.
Randy,
For the most part, avatars are not covered by the CoC. And as I said, what one person finds offensive, another will not (as with the case with jwc's). The only hard and fast rule is that direct personal attacks are not allowed.
For the most part, avatars are not covered by the CoC.
I disagree. I believe they are covered as "Comments" as that is exactly what they are. They are a statement. They are unquestionably being USED as commentary by at least some members, so they have to be considered as such!!! They are speech. If you don't think that they are covered in the CoC then we need to have another rules debate on that.
Perrie,
Are you saying that I can use an avatar that is simply a text, "Xxxx is a vile racist"? That's OK?
No, because that would be a personal attack, Bob.
Perrie,
The letter of the law is important.
Fuck the spirit.
I understand now.
Thanks for making this clear.
You see the "spirit" the way you choose to Bob . Stop whining like a spoiled brat .
Bob,
Let me tell you a story.
There are no rules about avatars. In fact, when NT started, I wanted everyone to use their real names and their real faces as advised by the owner of my original platform, Grouply. They said it made for a better community and that people couldn't hide behind them. But the membership wanted to be able to use avatars and I got a lot of good reasons for not wanting to use their real names or faces, and over time, the issue of avatars disappeared into the past until now. There are still no rules about avatars. I am not about to invent them. If the group feels differently, we can vote. Neither you nor I get to make up the rules here, the group as a whole does. That was the promise I made when we all left NV. That the site belonged to group and that there would be full transparency. It is why the community votes on any changes to the CoC. It is why you can endlessly question me. It was because I made a promise and to me my word is my honor.
Then I request that the next time changes in the rules are considered as a group, that the question of avatars be placed on the agenda. For discussion and for a vote.
Fine Randy.
Fine Randy.
Thank you.
I'll be supporting you Randy in your freedom to use your great dictator avatar.
The middle finger confederate logo avatar is of course a statement. It is stating "fuck you" to people who object to the confederate flag.
It would be interesting to see if anyone would create a swastika or Nazi flag image with the middle finger extended, saying in effect "fuck you" to anyone who complained about the Nazis.
I don't think the confederate finger avatar should be banned, nor do I think that people should be prevented from talking about it in a derogatory way.
I do disagree though Perrie, with your assertion that everything is free speech except insults, which you then must delete. As I said the other day, you claim it is not allowed to say someone is racist, but it is allowed to tell someone they are a communist, or that they "act like a little girl", or they are a pussy, or that they are stupid, and on and on and on. I don't think the word "racist" deserves protection other words or comments don't get.
You say it shuts down dialogue. Why? People should defend their statements. To me, there is a very good chance that someone who defends the confederate flag like many do is racist.
What about the yahoos who drove their pickup trucks decorated with confederate flags through the little black girl's birthday party a few days after the Charleston massacre in the black church. Were these guys just celebrating their free speech rights? lol.
Yup.
Good summary.
BTW Bob. GREAT Avatar!