SRL Archive - Senior News and General

Refering to this thread I adressed an issue after the thread was closed:

it really necessary to use signatures to advertise political/religious/philosophical views? SRL signatures should not be the place to promote political/religious/philosophical views of any kind. There are places @ SRL where you can freely advert your views, but not in your sig. I would like to see Seniors giving out the right kind of signals to the community. Don't use SRL to impose your political/religious/philosophical views on others. It is… unwise. It doesnt serve any purpose other than polarizing the community.

Also: IRC should be used with caution. You never know what people copy/paste. It is dangereous to speak out loud at public channels. It will only cause trouble. Thats why you'll never see me there.

Also I have been "quoted" more than once in public from a PM or a private chat. There was even a guy that put a private quote in his sig. This is entirely unethical. Don't.

Stay on the right edge of morality dudes. Exercise caution in your affairs. Speak you truth gentle and quietly, things can get real messy in no time. If this gets out of hand there will be a new rule stating: "no political or religious or philosophical views in signatures". Lets not do that, shall we?

I am completely behind the removal of such personal views being expressed in sigs/avvys.

The following is an excerpt from a speech made by Justin Trudeau, son of an ex Canadain prime minister.

From: Justin Trudeau
But at eight, I was becoming politically aware. And I recognized one whom I knew to be one of my father's chief rivals.

Thinking of pleasing my father, I told a joke about him – a generic, silly little grade school thing.

My father looked at me sternly with that look I would learn to know so well, and said: `Justin, Never attack the individual. We can be in total disagreement with someone without denigrating them as a consequence.'

Saying that, he stood up and took me by the hand and brought me over to introduce me to this man. He was a nice man who was eating there with his daughter, a nice-looking blond girl a little younger than I was.

He spoke to me in a friendly manner for a bit and it was at that point that I understood that having opinions that are different from those of another does not preclude one being deserving of respect as an individual.

Just because someone has opinions that you don't share doesn't make them a bad person. And SRL is NOT a place for advertising political alignments/beliefs. We can debate, but no attacks.

If politics is a large part of your life, or religion, you should be able to express it.
But ok, this seems completely bs, but I won't argue it.

From: Ejjman1
If politics is a large part of your life, or religion, you should be able to express it.
But ok, this seems completely bs, but I won't argue it.

No man, you can express it, just not in a way that is oppressive to others.

Che Guevara is offensive to some people, and Che has been in "someone's" Avatar for a LONG time.

Heck we even have a COMMUNIST label. If that's not making a political statement, I don't know what is.

As long as we're purging ideological statements, there's much more to do than bash Ejjman.

From: tarajunky
Che Guevara is offensive to some people, and Che has been in "someone's" Avatar for a LONG time.

Heck we even have a COMMUNIST label. If that's not making a political statement, I don't know what is.

As long as we're purging ideological statements, there's much more to do than bash Ejjman.

But then you forget that stating 'NO OBAMA' is quite different than having in image of Che Guevara in your avatar and/or signature.
"NO OBAMA" is aimed at a specific person, and attacks specific groups.
Simply expressing your political feelings in a light way, like having a picture of Che Guavara, or any person you might like, isn't an attack on very specific groups, nor insinuating that a certain person is bad, or must die, et cetera.

When something is deliberately designed to incite hate or anger, it shouldnt be allowed. For example - posting the nazi symbol is usually banned because of the hate it incites. Obviously the "no obama" images and slogans are intended to be controversial and "cause a stir", and cause people to take offence and become angry, and therefore should be banned.

More simply…

The Che picture doesn't say anything its just a picture of him. The Communist one as well doesn't have a direct insult does it?

The "NObama" is a direct insult to the individual.

In any case bashing a individual in your sig/Avatar is just a big target to you. If you want to bash/give input on someone use the Discussions/Debates or BBQ forum w/e.

From: Wizzup?
But then you forget that stating 'NO OBAMA' is quite different than having in image of Che Guevara in your avatar and/or signature.
"NO OBAMA" is aimed at a specific person, and attacks specific groups.
Simply expressing your political feelings in a light way, like having a picture of Che Guavara, or any person you might like, isn't an attack on very specific groups, nor insinuating that a certain person is bad, or must die, et cetera.

Che Geuvara was the one after the Cuban Missile Crisis that was angry he didn't have control of the Russian nukes, and said he would have immediately launched them at the US.

Who knows how many millions of Americans would have died? Who knows if the entire world would have survived the ensuing global nuclear war?

Anyone with a picture of someone that thought all Americans must die is FAR, FAR more offensive than a NOBAMA picture. It's like having a glamorous picture of Hilter. But I guess hating America is "cool", so it's tolerated here.

I've never cared either way, because I didn't let someone else's political beliefs offend me. But as long as we're purging the forums, let's purge them of all these hateful thoughts.

From: tarajunky
Che Geuvara was the one after the Cuban Missile Crisis that was angry he didn't have control of the Russian nukes, and said he would have immediately launched them at the US.

Who knows how many millions of Americans would have died? Who knows if the entire world would have survived the ensuing global nuclear war?

Anyone with a picture of someone that thought all Americans must die is FAR, FAR more offensive than a NOBAMA picture. It's like having a glamorous picture of Hilter. But I guess hating America is "cool", so it's tolerated here.

I've never cared either way, because I didn't let someone else's political beliefs offend me. But as long as we're purging the forums, let's purge them of all these hateful thoughts.

I don't think the Che Guevara picture resembles hatred against America to most of the people. It doesn't resemble that for me, and I don't think it does for most of the people who use that picture as an avatar, or generally a picture. It may resemble a political view, but not in an offensive way.

you could use tarajunky's logic to remove pictures of Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt, for they wanted millions of Germans to die.

but them two are seen as one of the greatest leaders in history. This is because textbooks are written by the winners, and Germany lost.

almost all other leaders would be gone as well, they all have skeletons in their wardrobe if you look at it from a certain angle.



in all my years, I've never seen anyone bring up Che Guevara like this, it was mostly only people who found the picture familar, and were asking who he was.

the picture has been printed on shirts and jumpers for decades, various companies have used it to promote their products. I once read an article about image compression that used the image.

If this picture was the symbol of hatred and nuclear war, not a single item of clothing or ice cream would be sold. This is why i find the argument so hard to believe.

If people tried the same trick with a portrait of Hitler, there would be outrage and people would buy it only to publicly burn it.



To be honest, I've got nothing against the NObama pictures. The dude won the election, let them say what they want.
Theres always an opposition against leaders, I actually think its a good thing, since the leaders have to really do a good job to try to prove their sceptics wrong.

I guess you are right. I will not bring the matter to further attention. Everybody is granted their freedom of speech… off course. Trying otherwise leads nowhere I suppose. It was silly of me.

Close?

i have got one thing to ask though,

From: WT-Fakawi
Also I have been "quoted" more than once in public from a PM or a private chat. There was even a guy that put a private quote in his sig. This is entirely unethical. Don't.

i once did this to you when i made a script called Radial Walking Aid, i copied the bit where you were celebrating, cause it was a good script apparently.
So if you're quote was partly aimed at me then sorry. :redface:

goodnight people im tired.

From: Yakman

So if you're quote was partly aimed at me then sorry. :redface:

Nah not at all. I don't have any trouble with devs/mods/ssrl's. I forgot who it was, wasnt you for sure :)

Why close? This is just getting tasty..

Nah not at all. I don't have any trouble with devs/mods/ssrl's. I forgot who it was, wasnt you for sure

GoF has Che Guevara in his avatar… I don't see anything wrong with that.

Widget quoted WT-Fakawi, where he said 'poll pl0x?'. Somewhere in SSRL.

From: Wizzup?
Widget quoted WT-Fakawi, where he said 'poll pl0x?'. Somewhere in SSRL.

Relevancy?

From: n3ss3s
Relevancy?

That is what you were all talking about. This is who WT-Fakawi was talking about. Yes, Relevant.

Does this count as a private chat? =\ Wizzup reminded me to get rid of thing, but if anyone asked (which they didn't) I would have just said it was a really old post that probably got deleted or something (since Fakawi never says pl0x :p). I wasn't sure if he was talking about me though so I didn't post.