Religious sigs and avatars

[Mornedhel]

Hello,

I used to have an avatar symbolizing atheism. I removed it after re-reading the forums code of conduct recently (notably the section about political and religious avatars, signatures and comments).

However a few signatures do have religious tones after all, some I see quite often. I don't have (too much of...) a problem with that as long as they're not violent or similar, but does that mean that I can keep my Invisible Pink Unicorn avatar* and not violate the CoC ?

I *think* this is the right section to ask in.

(*) No, the avatar isn't invisible, or even pink. It's the one at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Invisible_pink_unicorn.svg except that mine doesn't have the pink gradient.

[bodhi.zazen]

In general we try to be as tolerant as possible. If an avatar, user name, or sig is offensive or causes a disruption in the community we ask it be changed (or depending on the severity of the violation change it and/or issue an infraction).

If you wish you can post your avatar here and seek an opinion.

The take home message, if it is not offensive or disruptive it is probably OK.

[dmizer]

Hello,

I used to have an avatar symbolizing atheism. I removed it after re-reading the forums code of conduct recently (notably the section about political and religious avatars, signatures and comments).

However a few signatures do have religious tones after all, some I see quite often. I don't have (too much of...) a problem with that as long as they're not violent or similar, but does that mean that I can keep my Invisible Pink Unicorn avatar* and not violate the CoC ?

I *think* this is the right section to ask in.

(*) No, the avatar isn't invisible, or even pink. It's the one at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Invisible_pink_unicorn.svg except that mine doesn't have the pink gradient.

In addition to what bodhi.zazen indicated, I would personally like to offer my thanks for having the courtesy of:
1) removing the avatar on your own when you were in doubt
2) bringing it to our attention for further input.

Thank you.

[bodhi.zazen]

Looking at the link, logo, and licensing information :

I do not think that is a problem with the picture / logo itself.

Please note, however, there are terms and conditions with the logo. Those terms and conditions, clearly stating that you are an atheist in order to use the logo, could be problematic.

[JohnnySage50307]

Speaking mainly for myself, it takes alot to offend me. Personally, I don't like the idea of a logo/avatar that makes a mockery out of anyone's deepest beliefs.

I'm not exactly offended by it, however I can understand the reasons why anyone would take offense to it. The Ubuntu philosophy is to be accepting of those around you--IPU and FSM concepts go so far as to demonstrate a lack of acceptance.

[matthew]

In addition to what bodhi.zazen indicated, I would personally like to offer my thanks for having the courtesy of:
1) removing the avatar on your own when you were in doubt
2) bringing it to our attention for further input.

Thank you.
I agree with this statement. Thank you.


Back to the main question: I personally don't care if people use religious logos for avatars as long as they aren't rude about it. We're more concerned about people being polite and kind to other users than we are about preventing self expression or publicly identifying with a system of belief.

For the record, if someone uses a cross, or a Star of David, or a crescent, or something else, I probably won't care, unless the avatar somehow also says, "Anyone who is not affiliated with me and my beliefs is inferior." I will definitely care and deal with any user who uses words, etc., to express that idea.

[Mornedhel]

dmizer: Uh, whoa, you're welcome.

Looking at the link, logo, and licensing information :

I do not think that is a problem with the picture / logo itself.

Please note, however, there are terms and conditions with the logo. Those terms and conditions, clearly stating that you are an atheist in order to use the logo, could be problematic.

Apparently there are two logos with slightly different licensing. The one in the link is to be specifically used for Wikipedia. The one on the website is usable everywhere, as long as (like you said) it is used to represent atheism. I think this means it can't be used as an avatar, since avatars represent specific people (specific electronic accounts ?).

I guess I'll go look for another avatar, probably atheism-unrelated.

Speaking mainly for myself, it takes alot to offend me. Personally, I don't like the idea of a logo/avatar that makes a mockery out of anyone's deepest beliefs.

I didn't like either the idea of signatures making a mockery out of my own deepest beliefs as an atheist, which is partly why I removed the avatar -- since religious sigs unsettled me, I assumed atheist avatars would unsettle theists, and reading the CoC again made me decide in favor of removal.

Well, it's also unfair that theists get to display their beliefs with fishes and other logos and atheists can't :)

I'm not exactly offended by it, however I can understand the reasons why anyone would take offense to it. The Ubuntu philosophy is to be accepting of those around you--IPU and FSM concepts go so far as to demonstrate a lack of acceptance.

So do some religious signatures, in my opinion. Some draw parallels between FOSS and their own religion. It's like they're appropriating the open source movement.

I would like to point that I have absolutely nothing against individual theists, and I'm even tolerant of religions at large, as long as they don't force their beliefs on me. Likewise for religious signatures.

Back to the main question: I personally don't care if people use religious logos for avatars as long as they aren't rude about it. We're more concerned about people being polite and kind to other users than we are about preventing self expression or publicly identifying with a system of belief.

For the record, if someone uses a cross, or a Star of David, or a crescent, or something else, I probably won't care, unless the avatar somehow also says, "Anyone who is not affiliated with me and my beliefs is inferior." I will definitely care and deal with any user who uses words, etc., to express that idea.

I don't plan on discussing religion on the forums in any way unless a specific section is instated (which would in my opinion be a bad idea) : this is probably the most religion-oriented post I will write here. I don't plan on insulting people either, hence my removal of my avatar.

Thank you all for your time.

[lisati]

I'm watching this discussion with interest. There's an art to saying "this is who I am" (or making contributions in general) in a positive way without causing offense.


For the record, if someone uses a cross, or a Star of David, or a crescent, or something else, I probably won't care, unless the avatar somehow also says, "Anyone who is not affiliated with me and my beliefs is inferior." I will definitely care and deal with any user who uses words, etc., to express that idea.
Nicely said!

[JohnnySage50307]

I didn't like either the idea of signatures making a mockery out of my own deepest beliefs as an atheist, which is partly why I removed the avatar -- since religious sigs unsettled me, I assumed atheist avatars would unsettle theists, and reading the CoC again made me decide in favor of removal

I fully agree with you on this. I admit of myself being a theist (for lack of more proper terminology), however I do not feel it should be thrusted upon anyone. I'm on these forums to talk about Ubuntu, Linux, Programming, and Technology. Occasionally I visit the games just to see what anyone is doing because this is the first forum I actually ever signed up into (yes, I'm a workaholic while I'm in school--trying to change that).

I can understand the well-wishing of some signatures, because they are wishing well on an individual for the sake of wishing well, not for the sake of forcing a division. I tend to get jaded whenever someone uses his or her theological understanding (albeit atheist or theist) for the sake of forcing a division. Though I deeply believe in my understanding, I use it as a means to guide my actions, not force other people to follow whatever it is I believe. Nor to say "I'm right and you're wrong," because ultimately there is no way to prove it.

What I feel this boils down to is does it overtly force a division? I feel that if a comment/image is bona fidelis (e.g. "Happy Easter"), then let it be. If a comment/image is mala fidelis, it should be excluded for the sake of peace and civility. I do not like "The Fish" as much as I do not like "The Flying Spaghetti Monster" because they are often symbols of division rather than unification. As for Mathew's comment about offense, I generally agree with it--I am not offended by these symbols only so long as they are not to force a division.

[lisati]

I don't plan on discussing religion on the forums in any way unless a specific section is instated (which would in my opinion be a bad idea) : this is probably the most religion-oriented post I will write here. I don't plan on insulting people either, hence my removal of my avatar.


I applaud your courage in making the decision that you did.

IMO the forum rules about avoiding religious and political discussions are wise, and help free us to talk about Ubuntu.

[Mornedhel]

There's an art to saying "this is who I am" (or making contributions in general) in a positive way without causing offense.

It's harder for atheists, actually... Theists at least have reference books and stuff and widely-recognized logos. The closest things atheists have to logos and such is the FSM and its older, slightly more serious friend the IPU.

It's quite impossible to make bumper stickers for atheists, for instance, without offending theists. Not everyone recognizes the FSM at first glance ; the IPU is even less known ; and we don't have inspiring slogans or quotes that don't blatantly say "we're right and if you're not atheist you're wrong".

Now that I've looked around a bit more, this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atom_of_Atheism-Zanaq.svg looks like a somewhat widely used logo, actually. Does it look like it might cause offense ? (Also, it's CC-by-SA, which means it should be legally safe to use.) I won't be using a religion-related avatar, though. I think I won't use an avatar at all, actually.

I fully agree with you on this. I admit of myself being a theist (for lack of more proper terminology), however I do not feel it should be thrusted upon anyone. I'm on these forums to talk about Ubuntu, Linux, Programming, and Technology. Occasionally I visit the games just to see what anyone is doing because this is the first forum I actually ever signed up into (yes, I'm a workaholic while I'm in school--trying to change that).

Thank you. Apart from minor corrections (theist -> atheist, and I'm not in school anymore), I could have said that verbatim.

I can understand the well-wishing of some signatures, because they are wishing well on an individual for the sake of wishing well, not for the sake of forcing a division. I tend to get jaded whenever someone uses his or her theological understanding (albeit atheist or theist) for the sake of forcing a division. Though I deeply believe in my understanding, I use it as a means to guide my actions, not force other people to follow whatever it is I believe. Nor to say "I'm right and you're wrong," because ultimately there is no way to prove it.

For a very large value of ultimately, no, there is no way to prove or disprove the truth in religions (the larger ones, at least). Well, it's definitely a worthy debate, but I won't go there.

What I feel this boils down to is does it overtly force a division? I feel that if a comment/image is bona fidelis (e.g. "Happy Easter"), then let it be. If a comment/image is mala fidelis, it should be excluded for the sake of peace and civility. I do not like "The Fish" as much as I do not like "The Flying Spaghetti Monster" because they are often symbols of division rather than unification. As for Mathew's comment about offense, I generally agree with it--I am not offended by these symbols only so long as they are not to force a division.

So basically, "Do not troll". Yeah, OK, I can do that :)

[Viva]

Does my signature fall under the religious category?

[matthew]

Does my signature fall under the religious category?
If no one complains, I don't care. It is borderline, though. :)

[bodhi.zazen]

Does my signature fall under the religious category?

No but it does fall under "OS Bashing". Some people think OS bashing is immature and inappropriate.Others think is it hip or cool.

The thing is, it is your space and you get to decide.

As matthew indicated, so long as there are no complaints or disruptions we do not care how you wish to present yourself.

[Viva]

No but it does fall under "OS Bashing". Some people think OS bashing is immature and inappropriate.Others think is it hip or cool.

The thing is, it is your space and you get to decide.

As matthew indicated, so long as there are no complaints or disruptions we do not care how you wish to present yourself.

OS bashing?:confused: Are you referring to the closed mind line?

[bodhi.zazen]

OS bashing?:confused: Are you referring to the closed mind line?

I am referring to the words on your avatar "Bad Vista" and the Microsoft windows icon being tossed into the trash. Sorry to have shifted the topic a bit /me bad.

I prefer to promote Ubuntu by simply stating the strengths and advantages of Ubuntu, no need to mention the nameless or the thousands of evil deeds. Doing so only distracts form the message I wish to promote.

But don't take it personally, it is your choice. I can not tell you the number of people who do not like my current avatar =)

[Viva]

I am referring to the words on your avatar "Bad Vista" and the Microsoft windows icon being tossed into the trash.

I prefer to promote Ubuntu by simply stating the strengths and advantages of Ubuntu, no need to mention the nameless or the thousands of evil deeds. Doing so only distracts form the message I wish to promote.

But don't take it personally, it is your choice. I can not tell you the number of people who do not like my current avatar =)

Fair enough, I thought you were referring to my signature. The avatar is the official logo of the bad vista campaign by the Free Software Foundation. http://badvista.fsf.org/

[Giant Speck]

So... can my avatar be one of Raptor Jesus?

He did go extinct for our sins.

[schauerlich]

So... can my avatar be one of Raptor Jesus?

He did go extinct for our sins.

I second this motion.

[dmizer]

Unless I am mistaken, the question has been answered satisfactorily so I'll consider this matter closed.

Thank you all for your participation.