Can We Cut It Out With The Racy Avatars?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by samhell
Not cool swede. I've met Ken at Blade and got to know him in chat. He is a good guy and a well respected member of the forums.
I don't think this issue has anything to do with morals and Ken certainly didn't deserve what you said about him.
Click to expand...
As much as I hate to agree with Samhell, I have to admit he is right on. Shame on you swede.
Btw reading this thread gives me a hard on. :)
 
Originally posted by The Tourist
It's been my experience that guys that like stuff like this really haven't seen many REAL women in any state of undress.
Click to expand...

Keep it up, Tourist. Keep showing us how much of a dumbass you really are. :rolleyes:

As for avatars, I have yet to see any that would 'cross the line'. Since a few of you have seen these type of avatars, please let me know where I can view them. And, no, Ken Collucci's do not cross the line at all.


EDIT:

Swede, you are way off base here. I suggest you step back, and think about what you are going to write BEFORE you actually do it. Degrading any firefighter, police officer, paramedic, EMT, or any other public servant is just plain hateful. Firefighters and other emergency workers often place themselves at great risk so that others may live. Think about that next time you see a firefighter, police officer, or other emergency worker, and maybe even thank them for the job they do.
 
The racy avatars are not in violation of any written forum rules, other than offending you on your own personal view points.
Click to expand...

If you will go back and review everything I've posted in this thread, you will see that I have not once, not once, argued that just because Chuck Gollnick finds a certain image personally offensive, that that avatar should be removed. NO! I have not said that once. Not once! Why? Because that would be selfish, egocentric, inconsiderate, and immature... not to mention hippocritical.

No. If that were the problem, I would do exactly as Mr. Escobar suggests: I'd buck up.

From the very first post that I made in this thread, I have tried to raise the issue of how these avatars may affect and restrict and discourage other people.

It is quite a bunch of other people here who are trying to cast this as, "Gollnick's personally feelings got hurt." I have never said that! Never.

Go back to my first post: "some people here read bf.c at work whether the boss likes it or not. Having -- shall we say? -- "adult oriented" pictures on your screen at work can prove -- shall we say? -- career-limiting in many work environments these days." That's about the affect and the limitation that these avatars may have on other people.

Nobody has refuted that. Instead, they've tried to imply that Gollnick is upset because he's personally offended.

Go back to my first post: "That sort of thing can make some other people, especially women and parents of small children, uncomfortable and discourage them from participating here." That's about the affect and the limitation that these avatars may have on other people.

Nobody has refuted that. Instead, they've tried to imply that Gollnick is upset because he's personally offended.

Go back to my second post: "the public at large will form their opinions about knives and knife knuts based on what they see here. Many of these people come here with predisposed stereotypes. And questionable pictures displayed all over the place only reinforces those stereotypes." That's about the affect that these avatars may have on other people and on the public's perception of knives and the knife community.

Nobody has refuted that. Instead, they've tried to imply that Gollnick is upset because he's personally offended.

Go back to my third post: "This is a knife-discussion forum. People who come here come expecting mention of knives. Knives are the topic at hand." That's about the fact that these avatars are irrelevant and superfluous to the discussion of knives.

Nobody has refuted that. Instead, they've tried to imply that Gollnick is upset because he's personally offended.

Gollnick is NOT upset because he's personally offended. Gollnick is upset because these avatars are irrelevant and superfluous to the discussion topic at hand, offensive and, therefore, discouraging to large and significant portions of society, and create a negative image and reinforce negative stereotypes about knives and the knife community.

Nobody has refuted any of that.
 
If it is possible, I would be all for having the avatars displayed only too registered persons who choose to have them shown. I think that would solve everything to everyone liking.

I have not seen anything I find to be offensive or that I feel would be deemed offensive to the general population (as shown by the overwhelming support in favor of keeping the avatars as they are) Innappropriate for certain times and situations, maybe. That is up to the user to decide upon and choose when to acces this site and when not too.

We can't go around trying not to offend anybody and everyone, it just won't work. There are way to many things that people seem to find offensive these days. I'm guessing there are some people who may even find the existance of this disccussion forum offensive, others who may find some of the things said in people sig lines offensive and the list goes on.

The images in question are just pictures of women. None are displaying any nudity, indecent acts, etc. Just pictures of attractive women. If an attractive women was a member of this forum and wished to post a picture of herself as her avater would you have a problem with that? As long as she was clothed it is hard to deny her that right since many people have pictures of themselves up as their avatar. Is that really all that different from someone else having a picture of an attractive women posted?
 
Gollnick - while overall I frind you to be one of the more thoughtful and well-written posters here at BFC, and while I appreciate your resolute (and polite) persistance in trying to explain your position carefully, I find there to be a problem with one of the main pillars of your position. You state:

"And don't give me a bunch of crap about self-expression or freedom-of-speach. Part of being a member of a community means sometimes subordinating your own desires for the overall good of the community. If you want to put up a website of your own full of whatever pictures you want to fine. Charge admission of you want to. But this is a community and sometimes some people need to be considerate of the needs of others."

and

"Likewise, there's nothing wrong with these avatars; they are just in the wrong place. And those who insist on keeping them there even after being shown how they may be offensive to some people and how they may have a negative impact on the knife community in general, are being selfish and immature."


If your thesis is that people need to subordinate their own rpeferences to what is best for the public good, then it is important to determine what the public good actually is. Since not everyone will have the same definition, and since those definitions may often be contradictory, the only way to resolve assigning a definition is by looking at the preferences of the majority of the community. In this instance, based on the replies that this thread has generated, it appears that the majority values freedom of individual expression over restricting that expression to Disney-compatible forms. Therefore, restricting this expression to protect the minority that finds it disturbing would be harmful to the overall good. Ergo, those who would restrict the expression of others are in fact the ones who are being selfish, because they value their comfort over that of the majority.

In addition, and as some others have alluded to in this post, this sort of restriction of expression creates a slippery slope. Granted, SOME expression will be curtailed - exactly how much & what expression is a function of Spark's whim, as the owner. And certainly recognized national community norms play a role in that (no obscenity, no hate speech). But beyond that, when the test for suppression becomes "any expression that might offend or discourage some (prospective) BFC member should be prohibited," then you've opened a serious worm receptacle. For instance, there are plenty of religious comments/tag-lines present amongst the forumites. An athiest, or someone of a different religion, might be made to feel "unwelcome" by such writings. And indeed, the combination of religion & weaponry - THAT fits with a lot of people's pre-conceived notions about knife-&-gun-weilding wackos. Talk about "confirming negative stereotypes"! However if some a$$clown came in here telling members they should remove their religious references from their posts, my ACLU-luvin' self would be the first to invite them to go blow.

References to political beliefs are another example - they come up all the time, and they are certainly rarely knife-related. But that's life. Religion, politics, boobs, each have value - exactly how much value depends on the individual. We could try to police it all to ensure that no one gets offended, but this isn't a 6th-grade library, with some librarian shushing everyone and keeping order so we can get our homework done - it's a lively community of individuals, here because we enjoy being here. "Irrelevant" avatars and tag-lines, as well as miscellaneous off-topic babblings, makes this place a collection of interesting individuals, a community if you will, and are a significant contributor to the liveliness that keeps the community going. As with any ecosystem, nature teaches that diversity is the path to success.
 
Gollnick
It's good to try to consider everyone's feelings, but what it really comes down to is this: What is the main purpose of this web site? If it is to be a public relations instrument designed to persuade all those who visit this site that blades and blade enthusiasts are PC and not to be feared/loathed, then this site will have to be heavily censored...pics, words, beliefs, so as not to not offend anyone out there who drops by. If it is to be a site for the enjoyment of the real enthusiasts who come here repeatedly to share their passion/knowledge, learn, and have a good time interacting freely, it's going to be pretty much like this. We all know knives are not PC, so it stands to reason that the true enthusiasts who frequent this site don't put political correctness at the top of their priority list. I think Spark provides ample room for "individuality" knowing that people here are a little more sensitive than most to people telling them what's ok and what's not ok. So it's not really realistic to expect members to say, "Heck ya, we'll modify this site to try to make everyone who visits here like it." I think they're more, "Here's our site. If you like it, you're more than welcome to join and be a part of it. If you don't, there's plenty of other sites out there to browse, hope you find what you're looking for!" Sometimes a line has to be drawn. If enough people like a site as it is, if it works for them, then it really ain't broke so don't fix it. There's a fix in place for the avatar dissatisfaction, let's continue enjoying this site.
 
From the very first post that I made in this thread, I have tried to raise the issue of how these avatars may affect and restrict and discourage other people.
Click to expand...

I can only speak for myself, but, I would not be interested in having these people participate on these forums. There is nothing offensive or unusual in any of the images in question; these are the types of images that are commonly shown within the US and certainly within Western culture. If religious fundamentalist from the Middle East, were to link in and find it offensive that we are displaying images of women without their burkas; I would be happy to accept their participation, but not at the cost of sacrificing who and what we are.

Tolerance is a two way street. We can not hope to remain tolerant of the wide span of values held by the many people who participate on this site if we become overly sensitized to injuring any one of them. The culture on this site is a winner. We have accomodated a broad spectrum of views and have gone further then most places in respecting divergent minority opinion. That is what we should focus on.

If your boss can make out the image on a 120x120 pixel photo, then they are probably standing close enough to read your response to the latest "what's the best angle of attack to use to sever someone's aorta?" thread. The picture is going to be the least of your problems.

n2s
 
what it really comes down to is this: What is the main purpose of this web site?
Click to expand...

From the opening page of this site:

"Here you can discuss all facets of knives, from construction to materials to sharpening methods, all in a friendly environment"

I say again, these avatars are irrelevant and superfluous to the discussion topic at hand, offensive and, therefore, discouraging to large and significant portions of society, and create a negative image and reinforce negative stereotypes about knives and the knife community. Therefore, they are contrary to the purpose of this site.

Nobody has refuted that.
 
Wow, maybe the pen is mightier than the sword. I do not believe that we have ever had such an arguement over steel.

Collucci, I can not disagree with a single word in your last post. And you have made several if not many very valid points.

I figured there was a fair chance I would get banished for stating my opinion, but this is getting rather rediculous.

I can understand being called names for stating a contrarian position, but lets at least make them true names and not slander. I have basically been called a fascist and a censor. This is rather untrue according to strict definition first of all. I have not the physical means to censor this forum, I am not a moderator nor am I the owner of this forum nor do I have any personal or political pull with those in control or ownership. In fact, they are probably wishing I would just disappear even now. Further, the worst threat I have given is that I would go away, withholding my company and friendship, and not mention this forum again. This is the exact opposite of either censorship or statist control. Perhaps the big question is whether this would be a childish or a mature response.

From the first I have affirmed my belief that each of you has not only the right to do what you see is right, you each have the responsibility to do what you see as the right thing. If that is to continue posting "artistic nudes", than you should be true to your conscience. I would disagree on this point, but you should do what you believe is right. Please read that as disagree, not ban, censor, fight, prosecute, or blacklist.

I might reserve the right to make fun of your position but the only time I would actively oppose your position is if it was causing or solidly threatened to cause actual measureable harm or damage to others. This topic might fall in that category if it was driving Spark out of business, or caused a national anti-knife movement, but I hardly see the latter and only Spark himself can judge the former. Since all newcomers do not have the ability to deactivate any features, there is a small chance that some percentage of potential paying customers would be turned away, and indeed some may have been already. The current poll related to this topic is showing the opposite, but does not take into account those that MIGHT not be here now because of this or other unrelated issues.

This forum bills itself as the premier knife forum. So far history has proved this to be true. The quality of information and helpfulness that I have found here is unquestionable. I had become distressed that this community appeared to be edging towards being the premier blade and babe forum, and that both my enjoyment and my ability to comfortably participate has been declining with the shift in the character and nature of this forum as a whole.

I have stated what I am and am not willing to tollerate in my community. Each of you also have thresholds of standards, and we are all different. As one poster pointed out, if the avatars started trending to the homoerotic, there might be quite a few bailing. There would probably be quite a few complaints also. This is not a question of whethere there should be comunity standards in this forum. There already are standards. Spark and the moderators impose their standards whenever they feel they have no other choice. We all accept their authority to do this. In fact we rightly expect them to excercise their responsibility to do this. So the question is not whether some topics are off limits, or some level of pictures are not allowed in the general forum, but rather where the lines are.

So lines and standards of acceptable versus "censored" already exist at this time, subject to magement decisions. Now the question becomes twofold. First, do we push everything to the edge of the allowed, or do we place the goals and focus of this forum above our other personal agendas. Do we put up avatars and signitures that push the envelope for evangelism, or artistry, or shock value, or racism, or Zionism, or Jihad or whatever our first love and focus besides blades and tools is, or do we try to be a community that supports all knife knutts whether they be men or women, married or single, gay or straight, Christian or Jew or Muslim or Pagan or whatever without knowingly or even intentionally helping create an environment that makes it either uncomfortable, unethical or even actionable or illegal for them to participate and contribute.

Is this PC? Well, it does qualify on some points. But then so does common courtesy and decency. My politics are far from politically correct. My views on rights and responsibilities are absolutely not politically correct. My stands on marriage, chastity, schooling, taxes, Bill of Rights, prohibited substances and tools, and many other topics are so old fashioned and politically incorrect that many of you would be shocked in disbelief judging just from your responses. This is not about pc or feminism or villages of children or any other newfangled idiocy.

So what is this all about? It is about knives. It is about taking my 11 year old son into the shop and hacking and grinding a knife out of an old saw blade. Man was he excited about this. It is about talking about knives and camping and working among mature men and women, though the latter do seem somewhat underrepresented at this time. It is about bringing my children to the best knowledgeable blade men I have ever "met" to answer their questions and try to fuel their interrest in history and freedom and self sufficiency and life. As with any meeting with men gathering, there will be pockets of off color jokes and stories that my children do not need to hear IMHO. These are fairly easily avoided as we seek out knowledge and wisdom from those that are here to share such valuable commodities.

Then this woman comes walking into the room. She is topless but is partially covering her breasts in her hands. Many of the men turn from my son and gawk. Other women walk or slink through the meeting in various forms of dress, and some of them start acting up with eachother. Few if any of them seem to care anything about the meeting's purpose. One of the guys says that he does not really know any of the women, but he brings different ones to these meetings because he needs some beauty in his hard life. I have to acknowledge that she is indeed beautiful and that he has a right to have her around, and as long as the community rules allow this, I have only a few things I can do in good conscience. I suggest that this behaviour is not conducive to the stated goals of the meetings. I had known that there were private rooms where the family was not invited, and I purposely stayed out of them, but this was no longer totally effective. I even tried blindfolding the kids, but the blindfolds would occassionally fall off. I got called everything from a child abuser to a book burner. I and my family were verbally abused and even threatened. A few other people suggest that some of the extremes of behaviour and display are not conducive to the forum's purposes, and they are also subject to some level of criticism and even abuse. I take my family out of the meetings. And I stop mentioning the meetings to others.

I have no authority to change the forum, and to try to coerce any of you guys or gals by force to behave according to my ideal, even if I did have the power, would be as bad or a worse fault than any of the others mentioned. All I can do is appeal to decency and to beg the participants to avoid, at least in the front hall, activities that in my mind really detract from the common goals of the group. Did any of the men or women in the story above really do wrong? Maybe not, except for the occassional abuse and threat. Maybe it is my fault for trusting too much in others to have the group's and my family's best interrests at heart. I start looking for another group that would be so helpful and supportive, but I fear that I will fail.
 
You know, once upon a time in America, it was just a normal thing for men to be interested in firearms. In the town where I grew up, the hardware store sold guns and ammunition and this was Southern California! (Not anymore, though...) Now, when people learn you like guns (or knives), they're practically handing you cards from psychiatrists! "You like guns?! Why?!" In some places, just eating meat is enough to get a crappy comment or response---"Meat is dead!" Yeah, well, so are those damned chunks of tofu, but I'm not over here insisting you eat meat, though you certainly look like you could stand to eat some.

Once upon a time in America, when a man asked a woman out on a date, if she wasn't interested, she said no. The National Organization for Women didn't get involved and call for the guy's cojones on a recycled paper plate for "sexual harrassment".

Once upon a time in America, people didn't go looking for BS hidden meanings behind every-frickin'-thing: "Oh, you used the word "niggardly"! Racist! Racist!!"

...

Well, I for one, want my country back.
Click to expand...

I want my country back, too.

Once upon a time in America, men didn't talk about sex in public or swear in front of women, let alone post pictures of semi-nude "ladies" in public places. Once upon a time in America, ladies didn’t allow such pictures of themselves to be taken. Once upon a time in America, it was possible to disagree with someone without insulting them or swearing at them every other sentence. Chivalry is, of course, dead. Who knew that common courtesy died with it?

Alexis de Tocqueville said "America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America
will cease to be great." I always thought the members at Bladeforums, by and large, were not only good, but some of the "best" in America. Judging by the posts of many in this thread, if this is the "best" America has, then she has long since ceased to be great.

Grommit and Gollnick, bravo.
 
What a big thread! I will not even enter it (however I am agreed with both Gollnick and KTP).

Lets run contest for best and worst Avator? Or it may be more categories there.

Mine I design and draw myself.

What do you think?

Thanks, Vassili.

P.S. It is democracy, right?
 
Ken:

I apologize for that hole Swede79. That's what drove me over the line.

What a douche.

Some people have to get their facts straight, and realize that not everybody who cares about the Trade center attacks is a Fox News correspondant with a flag on their lapel.
 
Swede79..with regards to you post about firefighters etc..man are you a retard! I know Ken and Code 3 and met them personaly at Blade..In a pinch..those guys are the fellas you want watching out for you..INMHO you owe them an apology for that retarded statement..

If you really beleive that drivel..then come on over to Whine and Cheeze so I can properly introduce myself to you!!
 
Originally posted by Matteo Escobar
Swede79,
Although I agree with you mostly (in the past), I think that you are WAY off base with this one. The men and women who responded to and dealt with the GROTESQUE scene on 9/11 have A LOT of breathing room here. Let some phucking maniacs kill 3000 people from your town in one day and lets see if your perspective changes.
Click to expand...

I think you are missing the point. This forum is about blades. So now we aren't allowed to disagree or take someone to task because they were at ground zero? Talk about censorship!

There are many here from all walks of life, and many posters who are veterans - myself included Airborne qualified. We don't wear those accomplishments out on our "lapels" so to speak, we are here for knife talks. I have been privileged to know many true heroes, including members of my own family who were on Omaha Beach on D-Day. But I don't ever use that as a method of implying that you'd better agree with me.

That's my point.

It's also interesting to read all of the postings by people who are offended (on both sides) and note the civility or lack thereof.
 
When I became the father of a daughter, I gained a new perspective on the public display of women in a determined sexual manner. I realized that it sometimes is objectifying and a put down by men. I no longer go to strip clubs or Hooters. However, the women allow it, I just deign not to participate for their own good. I respect your right to your titillation or porn, call it what you want. Don't forget, sex is a way women use to control men. It's very effective, that's why Hooters is a success. I have a coworker who wears a slit skirt everytime she has a meeting with the boss.

Having a daughter, I learned that there is nudity, there is art and there is pornography. If you see a picture, put your daughter's face on the nude. If it's HoHum, its nudity. If it's, boy she's beautiful, its art. If it's OHMYGOSHGOLLY, it's pornography. So Mr. Colluci and others, if you don't mind putting your daughter, sister or mother's face on your avatar's body, it's clearly art and not pornography.

But I don't understand why those who don't like the avatar's don't turn them off.
 
I haven't bothered to read the last 28 billion pages of this thread, but I'll chime in. I personally think that the more racy avatars should be left in whine&cheese. I find the avatars very helpful in finding the posts of certain contributors, and much of this occurs in my workplace. Sure I could turn off the avatars at work, but I don’t think I should be penalized for the indiscretions of others.

Am I offended by some avatars? Hardly. I love that kind of stuff. I just think it should be kept in the appropriate place. With every freedom comes the need for a certain amount of responsibility and discretion. I’m just not seeing a whole lot of that responsibility and discretion lately.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top