Just a quickey, was talking some chaps about what can post or not post on renderosity.
Now question's raised were if someone did historical art of SS troop's would it be banned, as if banned wont people say.
Ban any military pic of modern jewish solder's as arab's would not like, or especialy any american solders pictures as to what is happen in iraq.
Now 1 thing if someone posted an avatar of hitler would that be banned as 1 chap has an avatar of joseph stalin, the greatest mass murderer of the 20th century.
Even russians are saying he may have wiped out 40 million people instead 20 million.
Now my question is simple after all the butchers of the 20th century and some in power today where is the line drawn on what can be posted.
What is peoples thought's on the matter, if someone can post an avatar of stalin or the other great butcher, mao of china who wiped out 70 million people, if so then can an avatar of hitler be posted.
I hate to see someone post an avatar of bonzo george bush, and his hollynes jesus tony blair holding hand's.
Now that would be real horrific sight.

yes, I too abhor having to be politically correct, having to moderate my own speech. however, the membership here has shown in the past they don't have the latter capacity. so I reluctantly agree that it's necessary to be politically correct here, to avoid cliques and lynch mobs, in order to make this place welcome to the maximum number of people, regardless of race, nationality, or religion. privately we might harbour prejudices or misconceptions about the world as we perceive it, but nobody profits from expressing those negative feelings. there are some other poser-related sites where such behaviour is allowed or encouraged, so those places are always an option for the like-minded. they make a good argument for those who have no other way to work out their feelings than from the safety of the computer keyboard.

Would you both actually prefer to see me banned because of an avatar?  Haven't there been enough already, although I will say that I'd be in good stead if I were.
Dzhugashvili's Gerbille

David, I don't think anyone wants YOU banned in particular. But jugoth has a point though: If you can't use a pic of Hitler as an avatar (which BTW I don't know IF you can) then you shouldn't be able to use a pic of Stalin either. Or other heads-of-state btw.

I personally would feel odd if someone had a pic of Mary and Jesus as an avatar, too. Not because I'm a christian but because I'm not.

As for what you can use in the gallery here, it's more tricky. AFAIK you can't show swastika's here, but what if you made a clearly anti-nazi picture (which was the reason why I made the Exploding Swastika prop btw - and that WAS accepted in Free Stuff here)

Political correctness is always awkward because other people decide what is right and wrong. And because it all springs off a "be careful not to insult ANYONE", you end up insulting EVERYONE on their intelligence instead.

From my observation of having been on the net 7 years, there are 2 topics that you avoid like the plague ...

1. Religion;
2. Politics.

People's views and opinions  on religion and politics are stong and run deep and any discussions are likely to end up in name calling, fights and hard feelings because people haven't learned to respect other peoples'  views.  Instead of listening and accepting that someone has a different view than our own, many...ok, most...tell people their views are wrong and seek to try and convince them to change.

Those 2 topics are volatile and have a long, long history of war and blood shed and  I don't see that changing in the near or distant future.

As for pictures for avatars and sigs etc. From what I understand whatever you use has to comply with the site rules where copyright and nudity is concerned.

I don't really care who people worship as their heros. We are all adults and we all have choices and if someone chooses to admire someone that I don't, it's certainly not my place to tell them they are wrong for doing so.

BTW, Trekki, I used a couple of your props in my most recent upload.  You can see them here: http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=1343236
;=]
DPH
PS: Check out Wiktorija, the final legacy of 'The Steel Rat.'

Would it be a useful distraction if I started talking about anal sex or something?

The TOS states that images/writing must not attack or insult people (this would also include groups of people... so an avatar saying "All homos must die" would be out), nor should they be posted in an attempt to cause disruption.

Aside from that, things are decided on an ad hoc basis. We do allow the representation of historical figures/imagery as long as it's depicting a historical event (or commenting on current events) and not an attempt to glamourize or lionize the indefensible. Thus, an image showing SS troops fighting would be acceptable, whilst a dirigible-boobed woman wearing an SS cap, swastika armband and little else would not.

Hope this helps. Remember if you are unsure you can always contact a member of staff and we'll discuss and give guidance before you post.

I see my distraction worked perfectly!  Muahaha!

it don't matter to me what folks use in their avatars. I learnt, in the first week nic enabled 'em, that many were ugly or offensive, so I disabled 'em. same goes for tawdry giant-boobs, no-shadow nostril-glow renders, senseless violence, et al. - nobody's forcing me to look at 'em. :lol: however, it takes considerably less testicular fortitude to use 'rosity (or some other poser- related site) as a platform for one's hostility, than it does to set up one's own site somewhere else, and be prepared for the attacks by hackers and extemists. clearly, if one wants to use such a popular site as this for one's political platform, the only purpose is to offend the maximum number of people with the minimum effort.

Quote - ]an image showing  [...] a dirigible-boobed woman wearing an SS cap, swastika armband and little else would not [be acceptable].

Not that this is an image I would make, but why not?  I don't see what rule such an image would have broken.  Maybe somebody just thinks Nazi chicks are hawt....

Acadia wrote:

*From my observation of having been on the net 7 years, there are 2 topics that you avoid like the plague ...

1. Religion;
2. Politics.

*I think you have to walk a very thin line to avoid these items,even wishing "a merry christmas" can be offending to other religions.

There was an item on the dutch news that in some cities in the USA, the traditional christmas trees were removed, because some other religions (No, I don't call which one!) were complaining about them. Now, how far can you go?

Personally, I have no real problem with 'rosity's TOS. They are, after all, an international site and don't want to offend anyone.

Except, of course, that certain (major) religious sects consider the depiction of the human figure as being an insult to their deity. (Not naming them, 'cos I don't want to get into trouble).

Which means that members of those sects would automatically define 'rosity as a place of sin, and therefore a potential target for attack by the more fundamental members. Yet 'rosity continues to allow this...

Well, they have to don't they? Otherwise they'd go out of business....

Some of the other concerns of the TOS are about nudity. In my home town of Reading, UK,  there are at least two statues of what look like pre-pubescent naked girls on public display. Yet if I were to photograph them and post those photos here, they'd be against the TOS. As would a lot of main-stream masterpiece art showing the infant Jesus (with genitals) or cupids ditto. Or the "fairys/pixies" from the Victorian era.

Oh, well, it takes all sorts.

All of which might explain why I don't post many pictures here (and have no gallery), just stuff that might be useful as tutorials for effects in the mat room/cloth room etc.

'Rosity is, IMHO, a trifle over concerned with political correctness.

But that's the way it goes. Doesn't mean I'll leave. Just means I won't post anything that might possibly be against the TOS...

Cheers,
Diolma

I think a picture of the famous belgian little peeing man would be out of the question!

Most good art and most good speech is offensive in nature.  You can't please everyone, and the whole notion that you can do anything at all without offending anyone in the whole world is a pipe-dream. 

On my daily drive to work, the overtly sexual ad billboards are highly offensive, I hate the rewriting of Christmas carols and "Twas the Night Before Christmas" for radio commercials...

Twas the night before Christmas and we all need a car...

• you get the point.  It all offends somebody.  But life is not about not offending anyone, living is a series of things, some we enjoy and others we detest.  There is only one way to cleanse offense from the planet - and that's to get rid of the humans!

Merry Christmas (haha)...

Quote - There is only one way to cleanse offense from the planet - and that's to get rid of the humans!

Merry Christmas (haha)...

Or to learn tolerance! To appreciate the fact that we are all different and to graciously accept that.

Someone mentioned the removal of Christmas trees in some areas. That's happening in Canada too.  And to me that's just going too far.

I'm all for blending of cultures but don't stomp on the rights of people to celebrate their religion. First there was the elimination of the Lord's Prayer in school, and now Christmas trees. However, on the other side of the coin some cultures have fought and won the right to wear certain clothing items and carry certain types of  "weapons" in schools / work / jobs etc all in the name of their religious beliefs.  So how exactly is that different from putting up a Christmas tree at Christmas or saying the Lord's Prayer in a public school?

All of this political correctness is taking on a double standard, and that's what is truly offensive.

We all need to learn tolerance, and unfortunately I don't see that happening any time soon :(

Quote - *
*I think you have to walk a very thin line to avoid these items,even wishing "a merry christmas" can be offending to other religions.

This is a myth. Find me one person who is sincerely offended by "Merry Christmas" on religious grounds. Are you offended by Eid or Diwali?

Quote - Aside from that, things are decided on an ad hoc basis. We do allow the representation of historical figures/imagery as long as it's depicting a historical event (or commenting on current events) and not an attempt to glamourize or lionize the indefensible. Thus, an image showing SS troops fighting would be acceptable, whilst a dirigible-boobed woman wearing an SS cap, swastika armband and little else would not.

I'm really not seeing that such an image exactly glamorizes Nazism. I would suggest it rather parodies it.

There's a genre of comic art in which relic Nazis are the bad guys. If you are saying that Renderosity no longer allows depiction of any bad guys except in historical works, then things are getting a bit crazy.

Quote - > Quote - *

*I think you have to walk a very thin line to avoid these items,even wishing "a merry christmas" can be offending to other religions.

This is a myth. Find me one person who is sincerely offended by "Merry Christmas" on religious grounds. Are you offended by Eid or Diwali?

Oh gawd...

In the community I lived in before Hurricane Rita there were a few that gave me much venom for saying it.

One was a pagan that got riled up because I, also pagan, actually wished  Merry Christmas to a Christian..... I told them where to stuff thier rightious indignation, another was of a Judeo-Christian sect that does not observe Christmas, and they totally went off on me.  And these were in the deep south of Texas, somewhere I would have never guesses it to be un-safe to say.

This was two Christmas's ago and I still don't get it. :rolleyes:  Good thoughts for another are good thoughts for another, IMO, and if there is no thinly veiled insult (rare, but it happens) I will always give a sincere thanks.

Orchid - glad to be in a new place that she hasn't run into this in. :)

So weird, indeed.  I often wonder about people sometimes and consider how great this place would be (the world at large) if there was no religeon to be had at all.

I am not christian, jew, ........ basically no religeon persea, however I have never EVER been offended by anyone telling me "Merry Christmas" "God bless you", or saying "Mozeltov" (sp?) when we're having a drink.  I walk by lit crosses and think how pretty they are, Manorahs and respect them and count the lit candles as I walk by it.  I actually revel in the icons of mankind, because we seem so attracted to them, age after age by some primal recognition.

I Often wonder if a person needs to believe in "nothing" to not by offended by "anything".

I have found things in bad taste, in my OPINION, but not offensive.  If i see something that I do not like, I move on to something else i DO like.  I can understand why some images might offend some, if they have a background with the material in the image.

But as artists, isn't that the point?  To incite an emotion when one looks at it?  If their taste level runs them to disturb, then perhaps they are just doing thier job.

Tolerance is based off of being secure in your own beliefs.  What ever those beliefs are.  In general, if you are easily offended, you should look at WHY more than WHAT.....

I try to be accepting of other peoples foibles as much as my own fallibility.  No one is perfect.  God does not play favorites.

GET OVER IT.

Whatever bothers you.  Whatever drags you back or brings you down...GET OVER IT.

Life is too short to hold real venom about people playing about with poser when REAL people are dying in Darfur and other places world-wide.

GET OVER IT.

That's what I do.  I had a stroke in November.  I've been blind before for a year.  I've had far more than my fair share of problems in life.  They could have been one hell of a lot worse.

Do you know what I did to recover from all of the above?

I GOT OVER IT.

joel, I didn't know about that. sorry to hear it, and I hope the docs can help yer recovery to the best of their ability.

Quote - > Quote - There is only one way to cleanse offense from the planet - and that's to get rid of the humans!

Merry Christmas (haha)...

Or to learn tolerance! To appreciate the fact that we are all different and to graciously accept that.

Someone mentioned the removal of Christmas trees in some areas. That's happening in Canada too.  And to me that's just going too far.

I'm all for blending of cultures but don't stomp on the rights of people to celebrate their religion. First there was the elimination of the Lord's Prayer in school, and now Christmas trees. However, on the other side of the coin some cultures have fought and won the right to wear certain clothing items and carry certain types of  "weapons" in schools / work / jobs etc all in the name of their religious beliefs.  So how exactly is that different from putting up a Christmas tree at Christmas or saying the Lord's Prayer in a public school?

All of this political correctness is taking on a double standard, and that's what is truly offensive.

We all need to learn tolerance, and unfortunately I don't see that happening any time soon :(

I'm glad they eliminated the Lord's Prayer in school. Back when I was in grade school, I belonged to a religion which did not acknowledge the divinity of Jesus. I could either say the prayer, which would be against my religion, mumble, which would make me a hypocrite, or not say the prayer, which would single me out. This is the same school in which I was accused of being a Christ killer several times, once being jabbed with a pencil for it. (This occured after I was made to stand up in front of the class and explain why I didn't celebrate Christmas.)

Quote - joel, I didn't know about that. sorry to hear it, and I hope the docs can help yer recovery to the best of their ability.

I didn't bring it up for sympathy.  I brought it up to show a point.  A lot of tolerance is attitude.  If you work on having an upbeat attitude, you also tend to be more happy.  Happy and secure, I'm also more tolerant.

You get there by working on it.  Like recovering lost belongings after a tornado, or recovering yourself after a stroke.  Being tolerant doesn't happen overnight.  You work on it.  Being happy doesn't happen overnight.  You work on it.

There is a dark, easy, lazy part of human nature to hate and fear that which is different from us.

GET OVER IT!

Let that part go and work on being better than you are,  and the rest follows! ^__^ V,,

politically correct is a contradiction of terms, If it's Political it cannot be correct.

One mans terroist is another mans freedom fighter

Theres no such thing as rape just suprise sex

Anyone sneeking into little childrens bedrooms is a peadophile. Santa take note.

War a simple method to cull the stupid.

I'm not racist I own a colour TV

I really don't care what people think, If they don't like my attitude just walkaway. Thats what I do when I do not like what isbeing said.

Lifes to short to get upset about problems mine or anybody elses.

I agree that Joseph Solomon Davidovich was the worst criminal in human history that murdered 40 million people, but people don't care about him, they only care about a lesser demon Hitler. Hypocrits!!!
Even so, I don't agree on the banning of the use of Stalin neither Hitler, beside that were criminals freedom of expression is something important and must prevail.

Quote - Thus, an image showing SS troops fighting would be acceptable, whilst a dirigible-boobed woman wearing an SS cap, swastika armband and little else would not.

Oh no again, violence good, sex bad.
SS soldiers killing people, good
Big boobed women, what kind of harm they do?
Anyway, both big boobed SS and women troops must be allowed!

One can also question whether anyone has the right to be offended by something. If I claimed to be offended by the colour orange, should you henceforth remove orange from all your pictures to avoid offending me?

My grandmother always said, if you want to keep (or make) friends, never discuss religion or politics!!!! Although I can't help myself whe it comes to George W.

PS. I like cute animals as avatars - bunnies, cats, hamsters....of course we have all these critters at my house.

Quote - Tolerance is based off of being secure in your own beliefs.  What ever those beliefs are.  In general, if you are easily offended, you should look at WHY more than WHAT.....

Well said.  That's why certain groups can't stand to see/hear from others who aren't of their number.

"Tolerance" isn't free if it's imposed from the top down.  Top-down enforcement of "tolerance" (i.e. Political Correctness) is just a method of clamping a temporary lid onto a pressure cooker.  Sure, it holds the steam in -- for awhile.  Until such time as the pressure gets so intense that a violent eruption occurs.  Sort of like the pressure building over decades or even over centuries along an earthquake fault line. 

I can think of certain speakers being shouted down on college campuses -- shouted down by people who in other venues always loudly proclaim their support for the ideal of "tolerance".

"Tolerance" -- of course -- being defined as a total and complete agreement with and unquestioning adherence to their particular world view.  Any (defined by their enemies as) 'intolerant' types who take a contrary point of view will not be tolerated.  They shouldn't be allowed to speak........and we should kill their families, too.

It's quite possible -- in fact, it's practically guaranteed -- that the self-appointed enforcers of 'tolerance' will themselves become the oppresive enforcers of mental bondage.  Political correctness is nothing more than a means of attempting to get your opponent to shut up.

If tolerance is to be encompassed by the total acceptance of anything -- then we come to a place where nothing can exist.  Matter and anti-matter are -- by nature, and without exception -- utterly and completely inimical to one another.

So are certain world views and philosophies.

Why can't we all just "get along"?  Simple: because as Mark Twain said -- “There is nothing so irritating as a good example.”   Good examples can't be tolerated by those who are led by the irritating good example to subconciously understand -- or at least to be given a hint of -- their own lack.

Remove the good example (by whatever means necessary), and thereby eliminate -- or at least mitigate -- the intense personal discomfort of having a bright light shined in your eyes.

And thus: yet another source of mindless violence is in the world.  Sometimes it's physical violence, and sometimes it's verbal violence -- but it's always there.

Stalin was a horrible human being.  But he wasn't the only one.  It's just that he actually had the power to do what others can only dream of doing.  But they would: if given the chance -- like Stalin.

It's a mercy of God that few human beings achieve the type of power that Stalin did.

Very well stated, Xenophonz! I have one thing to add, though (not directed at you or your comment). Tolerance does not equate to approval. People forget that. Simply expressing disapproval or disagreement is not intolerance. I tolerate many things I don't approve of or aggree with but until I start trying to impose my beliefs (as opposed to merely expressing them) on someone else, I am still being tolerant. Tolerance is about action. Self expression is about ideas. @Phantast Regarding offending, another way of looking at it is what happens if I'm offended that you're offended by my art? (Not you and me personally) What a sticky wicket to be in!

Well said, Bob and Xeno!  I think we CAN "get along" to some degree by just not indulging our anger or hatreds to the point of verbal, or physical abuse or violence.  Disagreements are simply part and parcel of life.  If we can be polite during them and try to remember that other people have their reasons to disagree, we can step back and try to be accepting that they HAVE a different viewpoint.

We might never agree, but we can listen without trying to silence them.  Even if we don't approve! ^__^ V,,

I'll add this much: sometimes an over-emphasis on tolerance as a the ultimate virtue ignores the thought that it's just possible that (gasp) -- one party to a disagreement is right and the other party is wrong.

GASP!!!! No! Not that!! Say it isn't so!!! (grin)

"Quote - "Tolerance is based off of being secure in your own beliefs. What ever those beliefs are. In general, if you are easily offended, you should look at WHY more than WHAT....."" Actually I've been thinking about this statement and I'm going to muddy the water on it. It's true, in part, but there are also other factors. When I was a smoker, there were people who were justifiably secure in their belief that smoking was a harmful, destructive activity. However, in addition to being secure in their belief, they cared - about me, about themselves, and about others who might be affected by the smoke I spewed. Therefore some of them were not 'tolerant' of my smoking. Based on this example I'd have to say that sometimes intolerance is an act of caring. When things are clearly harmful it's easy to see that this kind of intolerance is probably a 'good' thing. However, some things aren't as clear as to whether or not they're harmful. Is intolerance a good thing when you care enough about some 13-year old to impose your views about sex upon them? You could be saving them from a very difficult life based on having to raise an unwanted kid or deal with an STD. On the other hand, maybe nothing will happen. Even adults make stupid choices - drunk driving, unprotected casual sex come to mind but there are other questionable choices we all face. Many times it's not just the one who made the choice but others also have to pay the consequences of those choices. Is it intolerance (in the negative sense) or is it caring when you prevent them from making those kinds of choices? Life is rarely black and white.

Quote - When I was a smoker, there were people who were justifiably secure in their belief that smoking was a harmful, destructive activity. However, in addition to being secure in their belief, they cared - about me, about themselves, and about others who might be affected by the smoke I spewed. Therefore some of them were not 'tolerant' of my smoking. Based on this example I'd have to say that sometimes intolerance is an act of caring.

Sorry, I disagree with you:
Based on this example I'd have to say that sometimes intolerance is an act of paranoia.

My comments about tolerance are not absolute.  Like Benjamin Franklin put it, "You should practice moderation in all things.  Sometimes including the practice of moderation, itself. "  Ben knew what was going on! :lol:

Judgements about safety and health shouldn't be based on intolerance any more than should based on mystic signs or uninformed opinions, but on the facts you can find out, and as sound of a judgement as can be made.

In the disscusion of what the thread is supposed to be about, we're drifting afield.

I like penguins.

Ooops, further drift detected!  :lol:

**I don't normally get involved with discussions about religion or politics as it generally ends up with arguments.
Firstly, how is it possible to be offended by another persons religion? I can only be offended when there is abuse involved, so it no ones getting hurt, what's the problem?
People have asked me what religion I am, I tell them I don't have one, it's amazing how many people can't accept this as an answer!  I am a person & I don't need or want to be anything else.
Regarding Xmas trees having to be pulled down, GET A LIFE!!! I wish the only problems I had in life was to be offended by Xmas trees.
I'm sidetracking here but I just thought while I'm here I'd mention it. I'm a vegetarian & the thought of animals being bred for slaughter upsets me greatly. Don't have a go at me saying it's normal for man to eat meat, yes it is, for survival!! Now, you'll see lots of adverts for turkeys this Xmas & no one bats an eyelid. Amazing isn't it, millions of creatures bred for suffering & slaughter, OK to show on TV nicely on a plate, but oh no, you can't insult someone's religion. The world is insane!
Sorry, I'm having a bad morning.
**

Quote - "whilst a dirigible-boobed woman wearing an SS cap, swastika armband and little else would not." - Karen

So, would a dirigible boobed woman wearing a Che Guevara t-shirt be acceptable, or not?

A very interesting discussion.

Well said, Xeno! Tolerance is about action, self-expression is about ideas. 

And indifference is about non-action.

Some time ago my country, the Netherlands, prided itself on being very tolerant. A misplaced pride, since we weren't tolerant, we just didn't care. And I'm fairly sure that this indifference has created the spawning grounds for fundamentalism. After all, if nobody cares about one's viewpoints, if nobody takes the time to listen and argue, is it so surprising that some people take things a step further and make a biiger noise (as in violent actions)? 
I'm pretty sure that if we had been less indifferent and more tolerant in the past, fundamentalism wouldn't be as big a problem as it is now.

To me, tolerance is about getting to know another's viewpoints on life, religion, politics, and respect the right to existence of those views. It has nothing to do with approval. 

And tolerance has its boundaries. In my opinion, a religion or political viewpoint that does not recognize the right to existence of other viewpoints has lost its own right to exist. I do not tolerate those viewpoints. 
Here we have the "just plain wrong" argument. Any viewpoint that does not tolerate the existence of other viewpoints MUST be wrong.

Quote - " Firstly, how is it possible to be offended by another persons religion? I can only be offended when there is abuse involved, so it no ones getting hurt, what's the problem?"

**It depends on how a person consider and deal with his own religion, if we start with this principles:

1- My religion is the absolute truth.
2- The world is divided into good and evil people.
3- Good people are who follow my religion, so the other must be evil.
4- Our duty is to fight the Evil.
5-  Evil people are our enemies, so they must be exterminated till the fifth generation.

Well you can see the result if someone follows these principles, and are not only principles, it are absolute dogmas!!**

Quote - > Quote - "whilst a dirigible-boobed woman wearing an SS cap, swastika armband and little else would not." - Karen

So, would a dirigible boobed woman wearing a Che Guevara t-shirt be acceptable, or not?

Well I'm pissed off about all the gay art in which the guys have really huge tally wackers and tons of muscles. That's exploitation and objectifying and men need protection from this. Showing unrealistic huge penises merely turns men into sexual objects for the gratification of others. Also I think Men's Health should be removed from the news stands and put behind the counter with the rest of the smut. What right does a gay man have to pick up a magazine and stare at the poor male model on the cover like he's an object. :tt2:

I believe Karen was being a bit tongue-in-cheek with the "dirigible-boobed" comment. 
Basically, posting an image that glorifies any atrocity committed by man is going to get removed.  It doesn't matter if it was committed by the Nazi's, Romans, Egyptians, Crusaders, Or other soldiers of any other nation, creed, etc.  If you want to create an image specifically created to glorify that sort of violence, that's your business.  Posting it here will most likely result in its' removal and a warning on your member record.

There will always be things that are unsuitable for this site.  If you have specific questions about any certain image that you are about to post, or have posted, feel free to contact a member of staff, and we'll do our best to answer you.
Also, as an aside, you may want to contact more than one member of staff at a time.  Especially when contacting me.  I've been in and out of the hospital so many times lately, I won't be surprised when they just keep me in the same room.  I may not always get back to you in a timely manner, and I apologize in advance.

Jeni

Quote -
 Showing unrealistic huge penises merely turns men into sexual objects for the gratification of others.

i'm not seeing the bad side to this??? :D

Quote - I believe Karen was being a bit tongue-in-cheek with the "dirigible-boobed" comment. 
Basically, posting an image that glorifies any atrocity committed by man is going to get removed.  It doesn't matter if it was committed by the Nazi's, Romans, Egyptians, Crusaders, Or other soldiers of any other nation, creed, etc.  If you want to create an image specifically created to glorify that sort of violence, that's your business.  Posting it here will most likely result in its' removal and a warning on your member record.

The question is, what counts as glorification. If you create a picture of Nazis standing in front of a swastika, with "KILL ALL JEWS!!" as a big legend, then that is clearly wrong, and probably also criminal. But take away the words, and the image alone is ambiguous. It could be construed as for or against. The same picture would make equal sense with the words "FACES OF EVIL" over it.

go figure. "The Producers", a comedy about a Nazi Broadway show, is or was raking in the bucks.

A dirigible-boobed Che shirt would make him look bug-eyed..;)

Lost in the last generation, is the ability to believe in something, yet still be able to laugh with (or at) it sometimes. To believe that something you hold faith with is so fragile that it will not brook questioning, is probably not a way of living. There used to be something called 'debate', where a thousand flowers blossomed, and a hundred schools of thought contended. People would listen to both sides of an issue, and *make up their own minds! * But that's too hard nowadays.

It's possible to find a niche media (TV, movies, blogs, papers, etc) that agrees with everything they think, so the need for thought tends to atrophy. Hence the present situation.

And it turns out Voltaire didn't say "I disagree with everything you said, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"..another useless fact from Pakled.

Quote - The question is, what counts as glorification. If you create a picture of Nazis standing in front of a swastika, with 'KILL ALL JEWS!!' as a big legend, then that is clearly wrong, and probably also criminal.

Should that be criminal? I'm not so sure the question is "what counts as glorification?".

Quote - I believe Karen was being a bit tongue-in-cheek with the "dirigible-boobed" comment.

I know she was being tongue-in-cheek, I didn't need the translation. I'm neither humour nor sarcasm impaired, Morrigan. I wanted to hear from her wether the fact that Che is popular chic as opposed to Nazi imagery being verbotten would have an effect: I can see large [and small] boobed young women wearing Che Guevara shirts in any major city or campus, none of whom would ever stick a swastika on their chest. Is one man's mass murderer another man's mass murderer - or does popular chic make a difference? Howzabout a Hammer and Sickle t-shirt? Or a Pol Pot flag? Or a Janet Reno banner?

Quote - > Quote - I believe Karen was being a bit tongue-in-cheek with the "dirigible-boobed" comment. 

Basically, posting an image that glorifies any atrocity committed by man is going to get removed.  It doesn't matter if it was committed by the Nazi's, Romans, Egyptians, Crusaders, Or other soldiers of any other nation, creed, etc.  If you want to create an image specifically created to glorify that sort of violence, that's your business.  Posting it here will most likely result in its' removal and a warning on your member record.

The question is, what counts as glorification. If you create a picture of Nazis standing in front of a swastika, with "KILL ALL JEWS!!" as a big legend, then that is clearly wrong, and probably also criminal. But take away the words, and the image alone is ambiguous. It could be construed as for or against. The same picture would make equal sense with the words "FACES OF EVIL" over it.

Therein lies the crux, Phantast.  We cannot judge a posters' intent simply on an image alone.  Now, should someone post an image where there is Nazi regalia, perhaps a parade, or even soldiers with guns, etc....that, in itself, does not make the image "offensive"....however, if the image were coupled with a description below (or above, thanks to the programmers) that delves into an anti-semetic tirade, complete with "KILL ALL JEWS", it's obvious that it's meant simply to provoke those of Jewish heritage, and is, in fact, glorifying the actions of the Nazis.
There is a huge grey-area that we have to look at when it comes to images of this kind, and we definitely don't make our decisions lightly.

Quote - > Quote - I believe Karen was being a bit tongue-in-cheek with the "dirigible-boobed" comment.

I know she was being tongue-in-cheek, I didn't need the translation. I'm neither humour nor sarcasm impaired, Morrigan. I wanted to hear from her wether the fact that Che is popular chic as opposed to Nazi imagery being verbotten would have an effect: I can see large [and small] boobed young women wearing Che Guevara shirts in any major city or campus, none of whom would ever stick a swastika on their chest. Is one man's mass murderer another man's mass murderer - or does popular chic make a difference? Howzabout a Hammer and Sickle t-shirt? Or a Pol Pot flag? Or a Janet Reno banner?

It's gonna be a couple days before you hear from her, as Karen is doing the Christmas thing with her family.  Once in a while, we loosen the chains on 'er ;)  Above that, you can always contact the admin ( admin@renderosity.com )

As for Che.....well, I can almost guarantee that 4 out of 5 people wearing a print of the photo of che on their shirts have not a clue who he was or what he stood for.  I could go off on a rant about how, less than 10 years ago, it was so very easy for me to find a group of kids in the 15-18 yr age range who could hold an intelligent conversation regarding politics and they'd actually know what they were talking about....and, now, I can barely find 3 adults (offline) with which to have a conversation that doesn't revolve around reality t.v.  But, well, I don't think there's enough space on the servers grin.  It's easy to try to use him as an example for a subject like this.  On the one hand, he was an intelligent revolutionary.  He was also a calculating soldier;  killer if you will.  Can you celebrate one aspect, while ignoring the other?  Some can, and do.  Some can't separate the two.  However, that's not the point, I just went off on a tangent.

The context of the image, as well as the content of the description, is really what we look at, not whether or not the image has someone who was violent in it.  For instance...in the Photography gallery, there are many human portraits.  We can't possibly know how many of the subjects, or even artists, of the photos are rapists, child molesters, wife beaters, muggers, thieves, etc.  But, we don't ask that in the upload process.  If the image doesn't depict the act, and the description doesn't tell of it, we have no knowledge of it.  I know we can't exactly do that with an image of Hitler, but we can look at the image, along with the description, and, using common sense, see whether or not the image is, indeed, glorifying any aspect of the holocaust, or whether it is simply an image of Hitler.  Or an image containing the Swastika.  Or (insert your imagery of choice).

Jeni