1 edit
Originally posted by cashthetrashThe idea that Roots was "racist" is moronic. Removing material from this site that came from Roots and portrayed a heroic black man hardly makes this site seem "non-racist".
I never said that was the "only reason", you really are being dense. Whether Roots is offensive or not has no bearing in this disagreement. A black man in chains is offensive. Chris himself was offended as anyone should be in this matter. If you are not then I, suggest you go find a more racist chess site.
2 edits
Hypothetically speaking, if you and your wife, daughter or son were brutally attacked beaten, raped and tortured. Would it be alright with you if I were to display those images in my profile on this chess site. Would that honestly be your wish? Would you want those images taken down or left up for people to joke about?
Originally posted by cashthetrashDon't try to personalize matters.
Hypothetically speaking, if you and your wife, daughter or son were brutally attacked beaten, raped and tortured. Would it be alright with you if I were to display those images in my profile on this chess site. Would that honestly be your wish? Would you want those images taken down or left up for people to joke about?
I realize that you are so idiotic that you think Schindler's List was "anti-Semitic" because it had scenes of Nazi extermination camp victims. What I am saying is that this extreme type of hypersensitivity is inappropriate as a guide for censorship on an internet forum who's purpose is to encourage discussion.
1 edit
Originally posted by cashthetrashYour premise seemed to be that Wal-Mart's didn't censor the "racist" content of Roots' DVD cover because they would make money off sales of the DVD. But this is quite simply wrong as the company has very often refused to sell material they found "offensive".
How does that make me misinformed? BTW-it's still irrelevant.
It's quite relevant to ascertain a reasonable standard of "offensiveness".
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderThis is absolutely incorrect. This crap came out of your own head. I have completely thrown out walmart and its sales as being totally a "red herring" and irrelevant as to why a black man in chains posted as an avatar is inappropriate. Where the image comes from makes little ...scratch that, it makes no difference in the perception. "Perception is reality." And the reality is that a black man in chains is offensive. Stop trying to blame walmart and the movie industry for slavery issues. It's a stupid argument.
Your premise seemed to be that Wal-Mart's didn't censor the "racist" content of Roots' DVD cover because they would make money off sales of the DVD. But this is quite simply wrong as the company has very often refused to sell material they found "offensive".
It's quite relevant to ascertain a reasonable standard of "offensiveness".
Originally posted by cashthetrashIt's the only sense I could make out of this post:
This is absolutely incorrect. This crap came out of your own head. I have completely thrown out walmart and its sales as being totally a "red herring" and irrelevant as to why a black man in chains posted as an avatar is inappropriate. Where the image comes from makes little ...scratch that, it makes no difference in the perception. "Perception is real ...[text shortened]... trying to blame walmart and the movie industry for slavery issues. It's a stupid argument.
This isn't walmart, RHP isn't advertising Roots for free.
So you weren't trying to make ANY sense. Gotcha.
A black man in chains isn't offensive in and of itself just like a black man behind bars isn't offensive in and of itself or a picture of Nazi camp victims isn't offensive in and of itself. IF your standard was adopted Roots and Schindler's List wouldn't have been allowed to be shown on network TV and conservative retail establishments like Wal-Mart wouldn't carry them. Your, ElameF37 and some others' standards are hypersensitive and ridiculous and inappropriate for a internet forum meant to encourage discussion and expression. It's also quite obvious that this "standard" was aimed at a particular group of users here as a continuation of a petty vendetta.
The Site Admins' decision remains unfortunate and counterproductive for the Forums, the users and the site in general.
4 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderYou often pull out your own, often fanciful, interpretations of the TOS to support some convoluted argument about what you believe the RHP rules ought to be.
A black man in chains isn't offensive in and of itself just like a black man behind bars isn't offensive in and of itself or a picture of Nazi camp victi The site Admins decision remains unfortunate and counterproductive for the Forums, the users and the site in general.
In this case, we don't need to rely on your misguided interpretation of the Admin's intent. They have spoken and spoken clearly. They found the avatar offensive.
As Chris pointed out to you, if you don't like it there are certainly "many sites where the decisions of the administrators align perfectly with own opinions." (Frankly, I think he was being extremely generous on this last point.)
Originally posted by Elamef37For someone who pretends to be black on the internet, you sure don't know much about black history. I learnt about Shaka Zulu in Grade 1, and the Roots series is so old that it should be put in a museum.
Perhaps, you can look at when I said, I didn't know who it was in a previous avatar, and don't know who it is in a current avatar.
1 edit
Originally posted by hopscotchSomeone displaying a South African flag learned about Shaka Zulu in history class? There's a surprise.
For someone who pretends to be black on the internet, you sure don't know much about black history. I learnt about Shaka Zulu in Grade 1, and the Roots series is so old that it should be put in a museum.
Implying that "black" in the history concept means "African" and only "African" - there's another.
"Someone who pretends to be black on the internet" is a cheap shot at a person who has always declared her ethnic origins here.
Anyone can post any rubbish in a forum, consistency in their statements is a way we can inform ourselves about their real character and motives.