What is acceptable?

[Ford Fairlane]

http://bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=897845&page=23

Yeah the families of friends of the 3000 who were killed would be rolling on the floor.

I think it's in poor taste and I know I'm not the only one.

I realise we get a tough time from the media but some of the attempts to portray this as hyperbolically as possible are bordering on offensive and maybe we could do without them.

Just my opinion, but that's what this is about.

 

[Honeyboy Wilson]

Re: The media ... *Shakes Head* pt 2

I'm not offended. It was a public event that happened over 10 years ago. If "grassy knoll" jokes are allowed, which has become commonplace these days, then what is the difference?

 

[Ford Fairlane]

Re: The media ... *Shakes Head* pt 2

Call me old-fashioned but I find the comparison of media treatment of our football club to the brutal slaying of fellow human beings inappropriate, even offensive. I'm simply advising that is my opinion and is shared by others.

So you can include the Kennedy assassination and references to the Holocaust (wow that was 70 years ago surely we can joke about that now! ) in that category. And really how do you define commonplace these days? Jokes about Whitney and Jacko were circulating the world within minutes so they were commonplace despite their recency. That didn't make them any less offensive to some people.

You're not offended and that's fine, I'm not being prescriptive, just saying that maybe there are people that will be offended and that we should sometimes stop and think before posting. Just because you can doesn't always mean you should.

 

[dav3]

Re: The media ... *Shakes Head* pt 2

I'm not offended. It was a public event that happened over 10 years ago. If "grassy knoll" jokes are allowed, which has become commonplace these days, then what is the difference?

Agreed, even Germans are laughing about the Nazis now

 

[finbarr]

Re: The media ... *Shakes Head* pt 2

Yet it's apparently acceptable on these boards to post picture after picture of the so-called Iraqi Information Minister, hands raised in the air, while his country lies in smoking ruins behind him? I guess it all depends on ones perspective on these matters.

Without turning this thread into a political debate, I want to say that I disagree too.

 

[tribey]

Re: The media ... *Shakes Head* pt 2

Wasn't offended but can see why people could be.

Personally thought it was a clever manipulation of what is the iconic image of disaster for our times, yes we know the fate of those on the plane and in the building, but then the same goes for those on the Hindenberg which led to the mainstream parody of the accompanying tear-stained commentary, or those on the Titanic and its 'deckchairs' which have become a metaphorical standard for those failing to avoid failure.

More recently the Internet and the public in general took great mirth at the expense of the bumbling Iraqi Information Minister who ultimately was only doing his job while his country was in flames behind him. Why not righteous indignation for what is the iconic symbol of the thousands upon thousands of Iraqi dead?

Port Board @ Bigfooty.com political roundtable ftw.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

Ye olde English spelling was probably Controryversial.

 

[Eddie Dingle]

I seem to cause more controversy than Andrew Capel.

Ye olde English spelling was probably Controryversial.

All true Ford in fact after a bit of research I have uncovered that in ye olde times it was spelt controryversial but as the scribe in those times was known to exaggerate and some times outright lie the RY you speak of was added to the name of the scribe and removed from the word we now know as controversy hence the, common amongst scribes, name of CRapelY.

Of course when crap attained its more recent meaning of shit the Crapely's went back to the ancient spelling of Capel.

The infanet knows everything.

 

[Honeyboy Wilson]

Re: The media ... *Shakes Head* pt 2

So you can include the Kennedy assassination and references to the Holocaust (wow that was 70 years ago surely we can joke about that now! ) in that category.

[youtube]_Y35Lewh-LM[/youtube]

It's not about the event - it's about the context of the joke.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

Re: The media ... *Shakes Head* pt 2

It's not about the event - it's about the context of the joke.

I think putting up a picture of a man shot in the head or a jet about to fly into a building to deliver the coup de grace to the lives of 3000 people is in poor taste. And as I stated previously I'm not the only one who has expressed some unease at the use of these images.

As a moderator for this board I have to take into account what others think to make this as agreeable a forum for as many people as possible. I haven't edited or censored those particular images just asked people to consider what is appropriate for the wider audience.

 

[spookism]

As the 'unofficial' starter of this thread, I can only say it was meant to be seen in context.

Would there have been as much discussion if Rory and I had only mentioned the Grassy Knoll and 9/11 instead of adding pictures???? Should I have just gone with a moon landing reference instead?

Anyways, it was only meant in the context, that it seems that everything that is wrong with the AFL/SANFL these days is Port Adelaide's fault.

So, apologises if anyone was offended.......

 

[Portia]

Re: The media ... *Shakes Head* pt 2

As a moderator for this board I have to take into account what others think to make this as agreeable a forum for as many people as possible. I haven't edited or censored those particular images just asked people to consider what is appropriate for the wider audience.

No offense Ford, but hacking them completely off from their original context and dumping them into a thread about unacceptable behaviour on a subforum is pretty much censorship. One could even make the case that its nanny-stateism.

"I'm not saying you're wrong, but go stand in the corner and think about what you did."

 

[Ford Fairlane]

I might contend in rebuttal Porthos that what I did was move a conversation that had moved off-topic to an appropriate thread and included the posts under discussion to provide the context that some are so precious about.

I might also contend that there is no censorship as the posts have not been deleted or altered in any way, are as accessible to the population as they were in their original location and if anything are provided greater prominence by getting their own thread rather than eventually being buried in a mega thread.

In any case, I don't need to stand in the corner to think about it because I know exactly what I did.

 

[Portia]

I might contend in rebuttal Porthos that what I did was move a conversation that had moved off-topic to an appropriate thread and included the posts under discussion to provide the context that some are so precious about.

I like that I'm being precious about context, and people claiming to be offended by a joke jpeg's context presumably aren't.

I might also contend that there is no censorship as the posts have not been deleted or altered in any way, are as accessible to the population as they were in their original location and if anything are provided greater prominence by getting their own thread rather than eventually being buried in a mega thread.

And if the pictures were moved to the Tallangatta & DFL board, by themselves but technically in tact, into a thread with a subject completely different to that of the original thread, would that also not be censorship?

"But Mr Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine months."
"Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them, had you? I mean, like actually telling anybody or anything."
"But the plans were on display ..."
"On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them."
"That's the display department."
"With a flashlight."
"Ah, well the lights had probably gone."
"So had the stairs."
"But look, you found the notice didn't you?"
"Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'."

 

[WhyAlwaysMe]

So I spose I better not shoop Dom Cassisi captaining the Costa Concordia

 

[Ford Fairlane]

I like that I'm being precious about context, and people claiming to be offended by a joke jpeg's context presumably aren't.

I can't control what you infer from my comments. But you're also implying I'm being precious by your comment. Being Gentleman Jack tho I'm not taking offence.

And if the pictures were moved to the Tallangatta & DFL board, by themselves but technically in tact, into a thread with a subject completely different to that of the original thread, would that also not be censorship?

But they weren't so it's an irrelevant proposition. The posts weren't hidden away and people are free to comment.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

So I spose I better not shoop Dom Cassisi captaining the Costa Concordia

How much damage do you want to cause?

 

[ClintEastwood]

I can't control what you infer from my comments. But you're also implying I'm being precious by your comment. Being Gentleman Jack tho I'm not taking offence.

lol, the irony was not lost on me either Ford

 

[Portia]

But they weren't so it's an irrelevant proposition. The posts weren't hidden away and people are free to comment.

If I go to the original thread, you know, with the context, those images are no longer there. Its censorship.

cen·sor   [sen-ser] Show IPA
noun
1.
an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

You weren't arguing definition of censorship you were arguing location which I responded to.

If now you are arguing censorship, I will point out from your definition that the images were not suppressed. They are openly viewable for discussion in an appropriate thread in a readily accessible Port forum sub-board.

 

[Portia]

Actually, in the first post of this particular line of conversation, I did in fact mention censorship, and I'll continue to point out that moving the pictures to another board (while simultaneously removing them from the thread that was their original context, thus removing their discourse from the forum in which it was intended to be heard)) is absolutely censorship and I don't see how or why you are trying to deny that.

 

[70sDinosaur]

I posted a comment to the original thread yesterday that seemed to quickly disappear so I presume that I was censored.

 

[FishingRick04]

Re: The media ... *Shakes Head* pt 2

I asked Ford about these pictures privately.

I also expressed concern about them. I can understand many may view them a humourous or light hearted. But for those of us who laugh at these images, even in a fun form we must remember there are people out there who were directly and indirectly influenced and how would this make them feel.

I noticed the other day the term suicide was flipantly used. Many, many people use it light heartedly, but it's a senstitive term to those who have lost someone directly from the event. If they are still grieving how would they feel. We could argue they need to toughen up and take it on the chin, but some people struggle with loss. My mother died 3 years ago from natural causes, but I still grieve daily for her.

The trade centre, the hallocast affected many, many people. JFK affect one family directly really and scared thousands of politicians. The risk is par for the job. Go to work and having your building demolished whilst in there isn't, being a certain race isn't justifiable. Maybe society takes things too seriously now.

I'm not defending Ford as I'm new to modding but I agree completely with this decision to move. We have to think of other people and the senstivities.

It was once cool to joke about gays and depressed people. Now those jokes aren't cool. Statsically there would be users on our forum that are or have suffered.

I just use the rule of thumb, if I post this how is it affecting people.

The only people I don't think of are English teachers.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

Actually, in the first post of this particular line of conversation, I did in fact mention censorship, and I'll continue to point out that moving the pictures to another board (while simultaneously removing them from the thread that was their original context, thus removing their discourse from the forum in which it was intended to be heard)) is absolutely censorship and I don't see how or why you are trying to deny that.

If you are arguing censorship, I will point out from your definition that the images were not suppressed. They are openly viewable for discussion in an appropriate thread in a readily accessible Port forum sub-board.

 

[Portia]

Re: The media ... *Shakes Head* pt 2

I asked Ford about these pictures privately.

I also expressed concern about them. I can understand many may view them a humourous or light hearted. But for those of us who laugh at these images, even in a fun form we must remember there are people out there who were directly and indirectly influenced and how would this make them feel.

Really? By JFK's death? On the Port board? 49 years after the event?

The trade centre, the hallocast affected many, many people. JFK affect one family directly really and scared thousands of politicians. The risk is par for the job. Go to work and having your building demolished whilst in there isn't, being a certain race isn't justifiable. Maybe society takes things too seriously now.

You bet.

As has already been pointed out, the use of neither of these pictures was to make fun of the event that they reference, but instead to point out the hyperboles visible in SA media in humorous context. These events, and those like them, are as much a part of our cultural history as anything else, and are absolutely fair game to be referenced.

Should TSW's image of Matty Broadbent's head on a Benson & Hedges ad be removed because people might know someone who died of lung cancer? Would anyone here even want to suggest that TSW was trying to make fun of lung cancer at all, or was he referencing an off-field incident and making light of it?

At a certain point, people need to deal with how easily they are offended for themselves. Have any of the complaints about these images come from people who have been personally affected by JFK or the WTC issues, or are they from people who are just naturally more prudish?

I think most people on this forum are proud of the fact that this Port board is the more `mature' one, where controversial opinions can be debated and covered, as opposed to the fairy-floss, over-censored nature of a certain other board that starts with `The' and ends with `Port'. Shutting down humour attempts in line with that more edgy atmosphere that has been cultivated sends entirely the wrong message, and if anyone is genuinely offended by what the see here, the best response they can make is to go elsewhere - there are options.

Our censorship rule of thumb should be: if you can see something like it on the ABC, its probably OK.