Confederate Flag Avatars: Time to say Goodbye

[tgara]

And if someone knowingly chooses to use as an avatar something which is an utterly repellant and hugely offensive symbol to a significant percentage of his - or her - fellow citizens, does that individual not also stand in need of some sort of professional help for an arrogance and ignorance and lack of respect for others that borders on a state resembling sociopathy, or complete contempt?

First of all, Macrumors is a private website. Free speech as we know it doesn't apply. The administrators could allow or disallow any content they wished.

Second, the administrators here wisely have decided to abide by the community standards approach when judging whether content is acceptable or not. Here it is from Doctor Q earlier in this thread:

Whether an avatar is within the rules depends on their assessment of "community standards", which in turns depends on what we see and hear from forum users. In many cases an avatar is obviously over the line and most people would agree. In other cases we think a user who complains is being too sensitive about a slightly provocative avatar. The poll in this thread is the type of community input that helps define what most users consider acceptable.

In case you missed it, the poll that vrDrew started (as a witch hunt, really) has, as of this post, 59 votes in favor of allowing the Confederate flag avatar and only 26 against. By a wide margin of more than 2 to 1, the Macrumor community here does not have any problem with use of the avatar. So there you have it, the community has spoken, case closed.

At this stage the only arrogant people here are those that continue to make verbose posts blathering on and on and on why the avatar should be banned and that anyone who shows it is a menace to mankind.

If the avatar bothers you that much, there is a simple solution: Put that person on your Ignore list and their content, including their avatar, will not appear and offend your delicate sensibilities.

 

[Arran]

I second the suggestion to put obnoxious posters on your ignore list.

I just had a look at who's still on mine and it was an interesting trip down memory lane. Some have been there for years. Mostly maladjusted, tactless, discourteous jerks who think they're being edgy and badass but simply come across as inadequate attention-seekers, seriously lacking in social-skills.

As a potential forum improvement, I think it would be great if we could see who was on everyone's ignore list. Or at least publish "ignore counts" (this person is ignored by 10,256 members). Making it public would reign-in some of the deliberate jack-assery, since offenders would see their audience vanishing in a publicly embarrassing way.

They'd soon get the message.

 

[Arran]

So why are they using it?

Why do little kids scream? To get attention of course

And that's why grown-ups happily pop their shrieking offspring into the PlayPlace at McDonalds! It frees them to sip their coffee and get on with civilized conversation on the other side of the soundproof glass while the wee ones knock themselves out.

Little kids lean fast that nobody likes you if you're obnoxious.

I became a fan of MacDonalds just for their soundproof box. I also used to gasp in horror at the few parents who'd willingly enter the box to interact with their demanding little horrors: No, no and thrice NO!

 

[Scepticalscribe]

There is one thing that I have noticed. Quite a lot, actually.

There is a subsection of what I'll call the tech community that has some very poor interpersonal skills. These people are usually men, ranging in age from their middle teens to their early forties.

This is not to suggest that other industries (medicine, law, sales, manufacturing, finance) don't have men with obnoxious personalities. But the issue in technology communities is particularly bad.

Its one reason Reddit is in the process of tearing itself apart. Its why talented women are leaving the tech industry in droves.

And, to be honest, I caught just a whiff of that in this thread. Only a couple of posts. The virulent absence of empathy. The self-involved self-righteous rage. Borne out of god only knows what combination of sexual frustration and not enough exposure to natural sunlight.

Maybe its too much time living in a digital world, comprised of binary gates. Xs and Os.

Then again, maybe its the only sort of work that jerks who don't work and play well with others can get.

Excellent post.

First of all, Macrumors is a private website. Free speech as we know it doesn't apply. The administrators could allow or disallow any content they wished.

Second, the administrators here wisely have decided to abide by the community standards approach when judging whether content is acceptable or not. Here it is from Doctor Q earlier in this thread:



In case you missed it, the poll that vrDrew started (as a witch hunt, really) has, as of this post, 59 votes in favor of allowing the Confederate flag avatar and only 26 against. So by a wide margin of more than 2 to 1, the Macrumor community here does not have any problem with use of the avatar. Case closed. So at this stage the only arrogant people here are those that continue to make verbose posts blathering on and on and on why the avatar should be banned and that anyone who shows it is a menace to mankind.

If the avatar bothers you that much, there is a simple solution: Put that person on your Ignore list and their content, including their avatar, will not appear and offend your delicate sensibilities.

No, with respect, the case 'is not closed'. The debate remains very much open, and still rather raw, from what I can see.

Actually, a thread such as this allows for the expression of different opinions and views, from the sublime to the ludicrously delusional states of defensive denial. 'Witch-hunt'? Seriously? By whom?

For that matter, do please remind me again, - for clarification - just who enslaved whom, and just what was that foul failed state called the Confederacy established to preserve and protect? States' rights was the constitutional fig leaf to preserve slavery. The need to protect and preserve a feudal system of society and economy drove the political demand for states' rights, not the other way around.

Actually, since you are quoting statistics, I haven't yet voted on the poll started by @vrDrew, the OP.

At one level, I dislike censorship. However, I loathe institutionalised injustice and unfairness, and nothing that those seeking the right to use this disgraceful symbol as an avatar have said has persuaded me there is any good reason - apart from the desire to insult and offend and signal profound contempt - to use it as an avatar.

And the freedom of speech excuse does not really cut it here, not when this defence is being used in support of the right to use a symbol that is deeply, egregiously and profoundly offensive to many precisely because of the attitudes, beliefs and values that it is seen to represent.

 

[Blue Velvet]

Or at least publish "ignore counts" (this person is ignored by 10,256 members).

This is an insanely great idea.

What's more, if this feature doesn't already exist for mods at least, it's possible it may provide some harder data and quantifiable metrics for (ahem) mod discussions.

 

[ucfgrad93]

This is what happens when the everybody gets a trophy crowd grows up. If you don't agree with them you're a racist, homophobe, woman-hating bigot. Oh and not even close to as intelligent as they are, they will let you know.

Learn from this.

Agreed.

And, to be honest, I caught just a whiff of that in this thread. Only a couple of posts. The virulent absence of empathy. The self-involved self-righteous rage. Borne out of god only knows what combination of sexual frustration and not enough exposure to natural sunlight.

You posted an opinion poll (I know, its not a popularity contest) and so far, as of this post, the community has responded 60-27 in favor of allowing Confederate flag avatars. Now, I'm sure that this is quite a shock to you. You probably only expected a few votes to go against you. Instead of accepting the fact that not everyone shares your opinion, outrage, etc. you decide that there has to be something wrong with those who disagree with you. And thus, this steaming pile of horse manure I quoted from you was born.

First of all, Macrumors is a private website. Free speech as we know it doesn't apply. The administrators could allow or disallow any content they wished.

Agreed.

Second, the administrators here wisely have decided to abide by the community standards approach when judging whether content is acceptable or not.

Agreed.

At this stage the only arrogant people here are those that continue to make verbose posts blathering on and on and on why the avatar should be banned and that anyone who shows it is a menace to mankind.

If the avatar bothers you that much, there is a simple solution: Put that person on your Ignore list and their content, including their avatar, will not appear and offend your delicate sensibilities.

Agreed.

 

[tgara]

No, with respect, the case 'is not closed'. The debate remains very much open, and still rather raw, from what I can see.

Actually, a thread such as this allows for the expression of different opinions and views, from the sublime to the ludicrously delusional states of defensive denial. 'Witch-hunt'? Seriously? By whom?

vrDrew started it here started this entire thread because he took offense at user stroked (and presumably anyone else) when he used the Confederate flag avatar. He was so offended he felt there needed to be a poll about it. So here we are. I wonder what other "offensive" things he will poll about. Who knows, maybe he was the guy who called 911 recently:

http://www.theamericanmirror.com/re...king-very-deliberately-with-confederate-flag/

At one level, I dislike censorship. However, I loathe institutionalised injustice and unfairness, and nothing that those seeking the right to use this disgraceful symbol as an avatar have said has persuaded me there is any good reason - apart from the desire to insult and offend and signal profound contempt - to use it as an avatar.

Fine, use the Ignore User function so you don't have to see it. And what institutionalized injustice and unfairness are you referring to?

And the freedom of speech excuse does not really cut it here, not when this defence is being used in support of the right to use a symbol that is deeply, egregiously and profoundly offensive to many precisely because of the attitudes, beliefs and values that it is seen to represent.

There are plenty of other threads about the merits of the Confederate flag in the last month or two. But that's not what is at issue here. As I said, this is a private website, and content is controlled by the owner at their discretion. That's how freedom of speech works here.... sometimes you have to hear speech that *you* might find offensive, but as we have seen, is not offensive to others.

 

[ucfgrad93]

That's how freedom of speech works here.... sometimes you have to hear speech that *you* might find offensive, but as we have seen, is not offensive to others.

As I said, in post #4 of this thread, there is no right to not be offended.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

vrDrew started it here started this entire thread because he took offense at user stroked (and presumably anyone else) when he used the Confederate flag avatar. He was so offended he felt there needed to be a poll about it. So here we are. I wonder what other "offensive" things he will poll about. Who knows, maybe he was the guy who called 911 recently:

http://www.theamericanmirror.com/re...king-very-deliberately-with-confederate-flag/



Fine, use the Ignore User function so you don't have to see it. And what institutionalized injustice and unfairness are you referring to?



There are plenty of other threads about the merits of the Confederate flag in the last month or two. But that's not what is at issue here. As I said, this is a private website, and content is controlled by the owner at their discretion. That's how freedom of speech works here.... sometimes you have to hear speech that *you* might find offensive, but as we have seen, is not offensive to others.

But why use an avatar that you know some people will find offensive, just because you can? Why should your right to give historical offence trump the right of others to be respected?

Moreover, I confess myself surprised that you fail to see - and cannot see - why this flag is so offensive to many others.

Moreover, I will admit to no small worry at the fact that some do not find the flag of a star that was founded mainly to preserve and protect a feudal and monstrously unjust social, political and economic model (slavery) at best, an anachronism, offensive.

Apart from the 'freedom of speech' argument, - which I'll concede I am somewhat conflicted over - there are two other separate issues under discussion here, neither of which are the popularity cineast of which side obtained more 'votes' in the poll.

The first is why knowingly give offence when posting an avatar? Race relations in the US have long been a contentious issue, and to knowingly use an emblem which anyone of black ancestry must - at best - be profoundly uncomfortable with strikes me as extraordinarily insensitive.

The second is what message are those who fly this flag as a flag, or an avatar, trying to send? That they approve of the CSA? That they admire it, and have a suppressed but sneaking regard for the values and attitudes which buttressed it and gave expression to it? That they deplore social change and, deep down long for those languid days (propped up by the enforced labour of others) antebellum?

Re institutionalised injustice and unfairness, I refer to the South, on the matter of race relations, both before, during and for well over a century after the Civil War.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

As I said, in post #4 of this thread, there is no right to not be offended.

No. Agreed.

But, nevertheless, there are matters of courtesy and consideration and maybe the possibility of putting some thought into not deliberately setting out - by use of a known controversial and contentious emblem - to offend, or to give offence.

 

[webbuzz]

No. Agreed.

But, nevertheless, there are matters of courtesy and consideration and maybe the possibility of putting some thought into not deliberately setting out - by use of a known controversial and contentious emblem - to offend, or to give offence.

What are your thoughts regarding this statement?

New avatar for those who are sickened by the sight of the rainbow flag

 

[ucfgrad93]

No. Agreed.

But, nevertheless, there are matters of courtesy and consideration and maybe the possibility of putting some thought into not deliberately setting out - by use of a known controversial and contentious emblem - to offend, or to give offence.

People give offense all the time here. Religion and people of faith are regularly mocked, ridiculed, denigrated, etc. One poster went so far as to say all religious people had a mental illness. Did you call for them to be courteous?

Hillary Clinton got called a hag and you and several others are all over that like white on rice. But yet you are strangely silent about other threads targeting conservatives (American Dick, Cruz First Out of the Clown Car, etc.)

So, you will pardon me if I find your call to avoid knowingly giving offense just a tad disingenuous.

 

[haxrnick]

People give offense all the time here. Religion and people of faith are regularly mocked, ridiculed, denigrated, etc. One poster went so far as to say all religious people had a mental illness. Did you call for them to be courteous?

Hillary Clinton got called a hag and you and several others are all over that like white on rice. But yet you are strangely silent about other threads targeting conservatives (American Dick, Cruz First Out of the Clown Car, etc.)

So, you will pardon me if I find your call to avoid knowingly giving offense just a tad disingenuous.

Funny how the liberal mind works, isn't it?

 

[Scepticalscribe]

People give offense all the time here. Religion and people of faith are regularly mocked, ridiculed, denigrated, etc. One poster went so far as to say all religious people had a mental illness. Did you call for them to be courteous?

Hillary Clinton got called a hag and you and several others are all over that like white on rice. But yet you are strangely silent about other threads targeting conservatives (American Dick, Cruz First Out of the Clown Car, etc.)

So, you will pardon me if I find your call to avoid knowingly giving offense just a tad disingenuous.

No, it is not disingenuous.

Firstly, I am not from the US, I am a European, and the vast majority of the threads on PRSI are threads I stay well away from and never even alight upon, much less read. Much of what is discussed is stuff I know little about. Until recently, I had never even heard of Ted Cruz; he doesn't register much in Europe.

Indeed, much of what passes for debate in the US is deplorably uninteresting and extraordinarily parochial, and the threads on Cruz and 'American Dick' are threads I have not even read.

Moreover, while I personally am not religious, my argument with religion is a desire to keep it out of the public sphere and from having an overt influence on public policy.

What people choose to believe in their private space is not my business. However, both online and in life, I prefer to conduct discussions in an atmosphere of mutual courtesy and respect and try to enable a situation where disagreement and dissent can be expressed without rancour.

Re Hillary Clinton, she is an international figure, and - as it happens - I have met her husband. Now, I have no quarrel with those who dispute her politics, and offer reasoned debate as part of that disagreement; just don't attack her on the basis of her gender.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

What are your thoughts regarding this statement?

I thought my post might have made that clear.

Why post an avatar that anyone of Afro-American ancestry may view as racist, or supportive of racist views? Why would you want to do that?

Funny how the liberal mind works, isn't it?

Ah. Are you calling me a liberal? How kind.

However, in Europe, I'd probably be classed as a social democrat…...

 

[TheAppleFairy]

Funny how the liberal mind works, isn't it?

Or doesn't

 

[webbuzz]

I thought my post might have made that clear

Not really.

Why post an avatar that anyone of Afro-American ancestry may view as racist, or supportive of racist views? Why would you want to do that?

Why would I? I don't, I was asking you a question.

 

[ucfgrad93]

No, it is not disingenuous.

Firstly, I am not from the US, I am a European, and the vast majority of the threads on PRSI are threads I stay well away from and never even alight upon, much less read. Much of what is discussed is stuff I know little about. Until recently, I had never even heard of Ted Cruz; he doesn't register much in Europe.

Indeed, much of what passes for debate in the US is deplorably uninteresting and extraordinarily parochial, and the threads on Cruz and 'American Dick' are threads I have not even read.

Moreover, while I personally am not religious, my argument with religion is a desire to keep it out of the public sphere and from having an overt influence on public policy.

What people choose to believe in their private space is not my business. However, both online and in life, I prefer to conduct discussions in an atmosphere of mutual courtesy and respect and try to enable a situation where disagreement and dissent can be expressed without rancour.

Re Hillary Clinton, she is an international figure, and - as it happens - I have met her husband. Now, I have no quarrel with those who dispute her politics, and offer reasoned debate as part of that disagreement; just don't attack her on the basis of her gender.

so according to you, it still isn't wrong to mock religious people, but we shouldn't attack Hillary based on her gender.

Got it.

 

[stroked]

People give offense all the time here. Religion and people of faith are regularly mocked, ridiculed, denigrated, etc. One poster went so far as to say all religious people had a mental illness. Did you call for them to be courteous?

Hillary Clinton got called a hag and you and several others are all over that like white on rice. But yet you are strangely silent about other threads targeting conservatives (American Dick, Cruz First Out of the Clown Car, etc.)

So, you will pardon me if I find your call to avoid knowingly giving offense just a tad disingenuous.

Good post pointing out their hypocrisy. Now that some of the liberals are putting in ear plugs, like ignoring me for my avatar, and you for your opinion, it might be more civil here in PRSI.

 

[Renzatic]

Funny how the liberal mind works, isn't it?

The same could be said of the conservative mind, considering you and yours engage in similar tactics for much the same reasons, and are more than happy to cry foul when something rubs you the wrong way.

You can't claim the high ground on this one. Best you can do is admit you do it as well.

 

[haxrnick]

The same could be said of the conservative mind, considering you and yours engage in similar tactics for much the same reasons, and are more than happy to cry foul when something rubs you the wrong way.

You can't claim the high ground on this one. Best you can do is admit you do it as well.

Ah, yes. The "you do it too" that libs blast conservatives for doing in PRSI. If it fits your narrative, use it.

 

[b0fh666]

Funny how the liberal mind works, isn't it?

i take offense in you calling that the 'liberal mind'. those are marxists plain and simple

liberals (true) are a totally different animal, they would not call for censorship of anything for starters

 

[saturnotaku]

You can't claim the high ground on this one. Best you can do is admit you do it as well.

Get back to me when Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, or Ted Cruz says something like this about any leftist.

 

[Renzatic]

Ah, yes. The "you do it too" that libs blast conservatives for doing in PRSI. If it fits your narrative, use it.

You'd have a point if I were using it as an excuse to justify things others have done. I'm not. What I'm saying is that you don't have a leg to stand on, because you're usually just as bad as those you're railing against.

 

[Renzatic]

Get back to me when Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, or Ted Cruz says something like this about any leftist.

You mean like this?

A GOP spearheaded letter written sent behind the president's back during active negotiations basically poo-pooing everything he was trying to achieve? Hell, at least Obama had the decency to keep the partisan rhetoric spat in-house, rather than trying to embarrass a branch of the government in front of the leadership of a foreign nation.