PDA

View Full Version : Offensive screenshots



Meskarune
April 24th, 2008, 09:06 PM
I've come across more than one screenshot that I've actually found offensive.

Like, when I'm browsing gnome-look or following a screenshot install guide...The desktop backgrounds in the shots will have naked or masterbating women or even comics with derogatory jokes. Is anyone else bothered by this?

I have no problems with people puting those things on their personal desktops. But I think it should be kept off tutorials and theme previews.

Heres an example of what I'm talking about: http://b.imagehost.org/0610/Ubuntu_by_Homergitude.jpg

That image is NSFW.

Stefanie
April 24th, 2008, 10:25 PM
oh come on do you really think this is offensive? it's just a picture of a woman's body, nothing denigrating or sexist...

Hooya
April 24th, 2008, 10:51 PM
Anyone know where I can get that wallpaper?

Only kidding a little, my wife probably wouldn't approve. ;-)

The comics thing I can understand I suppose, but I guess I'd just take it this way: the screenshots are not meant for political commentary, and unless it pictures illegal activity (child porn, murder) I should hope you would be able to ignore it for the sake of the intended content. Adding "NSFW" tags would be a courtesy of those posting though.

And I agree with the above post that the linked picture isn't really offensive, but I can also see why you wouldn't want to link to ones that are, so I'll take that screenshot you mention as a mild example.

If you really have problems, report the post and move on your way.

bapoumba
April 25th, 2008, 05:25 PM
Agreed with the posts above. If there is a reporting system on a community site, use it and let the admins deal with the post, screenshot etc. If a site does not meet your standards, just do not go there and do not contribute. That's my own policy.
There is a report system here on UF. Every report is read and taken into account.

Meskarune
April 26th, 2008, 04:17 AM
I can also see why you wouldn't want to link to ones that are, so I'll take that screenshot you mention as a mild example.

If you really have problems, report the post and move on your way.

Yeah, I mean I've come across anime girls in bondage and stuff...But I didn't want to link something totally graphic. There are also people under the age of 18 who use those sites and come across the images.

And I do use the reporting system, but I think this needs to be talked about anyway. I'm sure many of the people who post screenshots don't even take their background image into consideration before posting. So I think maybe if the issue were "out there" and known, people might be more considerate.

Stefanie
April 26th, 2008, 06:57 PM
Yeah, I mean I've come across anime girls in bondage and stuff...But I didn't want to link something totally graphic. There are also people under the age of 18 who use those sites and come across the images.

And I do use the reporting system, but I think this needs to be talked about anyway. I'm sure many of the people who post screenshots don't even take their background image into consideration before posting. So I think maybe if the issue were "out there" and known, people might be more considerate.

i really don't think this is a major issue here. this is a computer-related forum, people don't post child porn or snuff vids (and if they do they'll get banned). you may come accross some screenshots, that's true, but nothing that is really meant to be offensive or sexist.
There may be teenagers here, but those screenshots won't traumatize them. i'm sure they see far worse things elsewhere on the internet. i think it's wrong to try to keep them away from anything related to sex. it's all part of growing up, and you just can't censor everything.

Meskarune
April 26th, 2008, 11:17 PM
i really don't think this is a major issue here. this is a computer-related forum, people don't post child porn or snuff vids (and if they do they'll get banned). you may come accross some screenshots, that's true, but nothing that is really meant to be offensive or sexist.
There may be teenagers here, but those screenshots won't traumatize them. i'm sure they see far worse things elsewhere on the internet. i think it's wrong to try to keep them away from anything related to sex. it's all part of growing up, and you just can't censor everything.

It doesn't matter how people intend something to come across, what matters is how it does come across. And respect should be shown to all members of the community. If I posted something that people thought was offensive, but I did not think was offensive, I would still change it because others were offended.

And there may be "far worse things" on the net, but that doesn't mean consessions should be made for the things that are not as bad.

This is not about cencorship of the media and keeping teenagers away from sexual materials. This is about respect for women and others minorities. There is a time and place for porn, and a help topic isn't one of those places. People who do not want to have to look at something offensive while trouble shooting a problem should not have to.

And in the US at least, it is illegal for minors to be exposed to pornographic material.

All I am saying is this is something people should think about. And maybe more people will pay attention to the screenshots they post after reading this thread. Also the more people who are aware of this issue and report things, the better the linux community online will be.

spectrevk
April 27th, 2008, 03:19 AM
Two points:

One, I think that whenever you're going to be presenting something like a desktop screenshot to a wide community of people of varying ages and cultures, it's good to be mindful of "offensive" images. Obviously there's a limit; I suppose atheists might be offended by religious imagery in a background wallpaper, but if it's something as simple as a cross or star of David, well...that's not really something you should have to self-censor.

Two, on the subject of nudity in wallpapers, I think the context of the picture is very important. Whether we're talking about photography or drawn art, there are very fine lines between what I would consider to be legitimately "questionable" for public consumption, and what I would consider artistic nudity. I think that the pendulum has swung too far in both directions. Places where artistic nudity is to be shared often get clogged with more erotic/pornographic material, while at the same time images that are more tasteful, artistic, or at least of a more "teasing" variety, tend to get lumped in with material that is misogynistic or pornographic. There is also a tendency to consider the last two terms to be the same thing, often on dubious grounds.

Human nudity is not necessarily sexualized, and even when it is, I think there are degrees of acceptability. The example provided in the original post is, I think, in somewhat poor taste if that's the default wallpaper for a theme package someone has made, and I have certainly seen a lot of oddly nude-centric themes/wallpapers on gnome-look.org, but I would stop short of calling it "offensive". I can see an argument for it being misogynistic, as the cropping is objectifying, removing her face from the picture, making it more a photo of female parts than a photo of a woman per se, but I also think that level of analysis is inappropriate for the judgement of wallpapers on the internet.

I guess what I'm saying is that I see nothing wrong with wallpapers like the one in the original post, but I think that this sort of linux OS material should have its own section, keeping the general wallpaper/screenshot sharing areas "safe for work".

Toadmund
April 27th, 2008, 03:37 AM
That's not all of it either!
How many sexual references can you find here?

(see attachment) :shock:

Stefanie
April 29th, 2008, 09:35 AM
It doesn't matter how people intend something to come across, what matters is how it does come across. And respect should be shown to all members of the community. If I posted something that people thought was offensive, but I did not think was offensive, I would still change it because others were offended.

And there may be "far worse things" on the net, but that doesn't mean consessions should be made for the things that are not as bad.

This is not about cencorship of the media and keeping teenagers away from sexual materials. This is about respect for women and others minorities. There is a time and place for porn, and a help topic isn't one of those places. People who do not want to have to look at something offensive while trouble shooting a problem should not have to.

And in the US at least, it is illegal for minors to be exposed to pornographic material.

All I am saying is this is something people should think about. And maybe more people will pay attention to the screenshots they post after reading this thread. Also the more people who are aware of this issue and report things, the better the linux community online will be.

there's a difference between nudity and porn, like spectrevk said. it's also very difficult to define what is offensive and what is not. my wallpaper is a picture taken on a holiday. I'm wearing a tank top so you see my naked arms and shoulders. In a lot of cultures this would be extremely offensive. In my eyes pictures of (firing) guns are a lot more offensive than nudity (guns kill people but naked bodies don't), and slogans like "god hates fags" are totally unacceptable. still i don't think this should be censored.

i agree that people should think twice before posting pornographic material. but how often does that happen here? we shouldn't be too puritan and whine about some naked bodies, but rather insist on tolerance and open-mindedness.

itix
May 1st, 2008, 04:33 PM
I'm not sure that I may post here since I'm male, but what the hell => YES!
It is extremely bothering and I find it very immature. Gnome look must seriously be the worst place of them all. Sexist pictures all over the place and every other item contains nudity.
If we seriously want to attract women to linux, we MUST stop producing these stupid and offensive themes or if you individuals really MUST; do at least upload them to porn.ubuntu.net or some equivalent site and not gnome-look.

Fate Reconciled
May 1st, 2008, 04:47 PM
I'm not sure that I may post here since I'm male, but what the hell => YES!
It is extremely bothering and I find it very immature. Gnome look must seriously be the worst place of them all. Sexist pictures all over the place and every other item contains nudity.
If we seriously want to attract women to linux, we MUST stop producing these stupid and offensive themes or if you individuals really MUST; do at least upload them to porn.ubuntu.net or some equivalent site and not gnome-look.

Okay, it's getting difficult to reply to this without flaming.

Anyway, this is the internet. Probably the only place where people do have truly unrestricted freedoms in some form or fashion without being bludgeoned by their government. And to think that the human body is offensive is what is truly immature here.

If there was a picture of a naked Fabio with an "UBUNTU ROX!!1@#" sign over his crotch area, who the hell really cares? I'm a male and I don't find that offensive at all. Would you consider it to be subjugating the male body? Of course not, because he is a male. Not trying to sound chauvinistic at all, but it seems the whole "disrespect to the body" comes mostly from one gender -ahem-

Regardless, these are artistic expressions and whether or not any of you find them tasteless DOESN'T MATTER. If you don't like it, don't go there. Same with television or radio. There are other options.

howlingmadhowie
May 1st, 2008, 05:07 PM
meskarune:

i think you make a very good point. this is certainly an issue that deserves a lot of consideration. in general i would tend to say that my right to offend you is much more important than your right not to be offended. however, as you make clear, this isn't about you per se, but rather about minors coming to the sites.

personally i have never had a problem with images of naked men or women (whereby i do not expect to find an even mixture of these on gnome-look). images of violence i find more troubling.

one thing to bear in mind is that there are a lot of really nice people who have explicit images on their desktops. as long as they do not treat (invariably) women badly because of it, this shouldn't be a problem.

i must admit to a certain hipocracy here. i've just started a new job and one of the first things i did when i entered the office was remove the pin-up calender from the wall. one of my coworkers complained, but the others didn't. now i didn't do that because i'm gay and dislike explicit images of women. nor do i believe the models in the calender found it degrading (i expect they were well paid, if nothing else). i did it because i found it degrading to us. there is, as you say, a time and a place for pornography (which is a very good thing, if you compare this with the prudity of the 19th and 20th centuries), but the workplace isn't it.

maybe a good place to draw the line would be to decide upon where the image is hosted. if the image is hosted at an official site, it really shouldn't be offensive. if it's hosted at a private site, then we have no business censoring the site-owner.

itix
May 1st, 2008, 05:50 PM
Fate Reconciled:

I'm a libertarian (= Ron Paul, Penn Jillette, Billy Joe Armstrong... those kind of opinions) and I don't want to impose any restrictions at all. I HATE restrictions, and I agree with you on the government part, but that doesn't stop me from not wanting this stuff on such a mainstream site as gnome look.

As I said earlier; if you really do need to create, download and use porn material and material which I as an individual, and many with me, find offensive, do so on another web site, or at least on a subsection of that very same website and not on the front page.

I DO consider the human body and it's gentiles shameful and would not want to see them on my thread on how to mount a USB as a CD because I do not wish to have them there.

Therefor, as an individual, I plea to those who upload this material to upload them somewhere else where I, as an individual, can't be bothered by them if I do not wish to be so. I mean, if there is a section called nudity, or sexual content or so on gnome look, I definitely won't click there since I don't want that kind of stuff on my computer.

howlingmadhowie
May 1st, 2008, 10:16 PM
Okay, it's getting difficult to reply to this without flaming.

Anyway, this is the internet. Probably the only place where people do have truly unrestricted freedoms in some form or fashion without being bludgeoned by their government. And to think that the human body is offensive is what is truly immature here.

If there was a picture of a naked Fabio with an "UBUNTU ROX!!1@#" sign over his crotch area, who the hell really cares? I'm a male and I don't find that offensive at all. Would you consider it to be subjugating the male body? Of course not, because he is a male. Not trying to sound chauvinistic at all, but it seems the whole "disrespect to the body" comes mostly from one gender -ahem-

Regardless, these are artistic expressions and whether or not any of you find them tasteless DOESN'T MATTER. If you don't like it, don't go there. Same with television or radio. There are other options.


i think we're saying pretty much the same thing here. do have a look at the history of feminism though. if this were the best possible world, pictures of masturbating women would not be considered disrespectful, but it is not the best possible world and i would hesitate before ignoring the historical context here.

to put it another way, i can see a sexually explicit image of a man and it doesn't bother me ethically. when i see a sexually explicit image of a woman alarm bells do sometimes start to ring in my head. the alarm bells aren't very loud, but i've spent most of my life amongst scientists and artists in modern northern europe, where sexism is pretty much non-existent. i'm quite sure that if i had spent my life in an area where a girl's social standing is influenced by her bra-size and how far she goes on a first date, the alarm bells in my head would ring a lot louder.

in short, i do not consider this issue to be one which can be considered without regarding social and historical context, unfortunately.

(btw, are we talking fabio cannavaro here?)

Stefanie
May 3rd, 2008, 05:23 PM
Fate Reconciled:

I'm a libertarian (= Ron Paul, Penn Jillette, Billy Joe Armstrong... those kind of opinions) and I don't want to impose any restrictions at all. I HATE restrictions, and I agree with you on the government part, but that doesn't stop me from not wanting this stuff on such a mainstream site as gnome look.

As I said earlier; if you really do need to create, download and use porn material and material which I as an individual, and many with me, find offensive, do so on another web site, or at least on a subsection of that very same website and not on the front page.

I DO consider the human body and it's gentiles shameful and would not want to see them on my thread on how to mount a USB as a CD because I do not wish to have them there.

Therefor, as an individual, I plea to those who upload this material to upload them somewhere else where I, as an individual, can't be bothered by them if I do not wish to be so. I mean, if there is a section called nudity, or sexual content or so on gnome look, I definitely won't click there since I don't want that kind of stuff on my computer.

i don't agree with you. you say you're a libertarian, but freedom ends where you draw the line? freedom is not only about doing what you want. it is in the first place about letting other people do what they want, EVEN if you don't like it.
You consider naked bodies shameful. I, however, really dislike dogs, i'm allergic to them and i've been bitten by one, and I really don't want to see them on a thread on how to mount a USB as a CD. So i want a special section on gnome-look for dogs, so I can't be bothered by them. You see how silly this is? You'll end up restricting everything.

You only seem to hate restrictions when they restrict you, not when they restrict others. No, you are bothered by something so you want restrictions. That's not what i would call libertarian.

I'm a woman and pictures with naked bodies don't stop me from joining the Ubuntu-community. I just don't look at them. If I would be really bothered by nudity I wouldn't have an internet connection and join a monastery. Naked bodies are everywhere, so please stop making such a big deal about it.

What really matters if we want to attract more women is our attitude. I'm not accusing anyone (only good experiences here), but some people make fun of women because they like computers and stuff. "A woman working on a computer, oh no what a disaster", "how can a woman ever be good at this?" Well, that's sexist and discouraging. Not those pics of naked bodies.

itix
May 3rd, 2008, 05:55 PM
HEY!
Why is everybody against me suddenly??

I said that I hated restrictions and that it was a PLEA from my side as an individual, not an attempt to use the moral of majority to change things to the way I like it. I pleaded to every one who creates these images/themes to stop, but since I think that there actually exist a market for these things, I changed my plea to at least spare us individuals who didn't like human gentiles pushed to our faces every time we wanted to search for a theme that wasn't on gnome art by adding these images to some kind of subsection and no the main page.

Is your opinion that since I call myself a libertarian, I have no right to express my opinion regarding porn on gnome look?
Also, regarding the feminism debate; I wouldn't want to see male gentiles either. Our respective "sexual equipment" is in my opinion ugly and nothing I'd like to see. And for those of you who think that I'm asexual/virgin/other silly accusation; I'm not... I just don't like nude people on my Internet sites. Don't give me this "but you want to ban this and that"-s.h.i.t. again or I'll be mad for real. I've never sought a ban, all I'm seeking is a mutual agreement or some sort of compromise, one of such I suggested by suggesting that we'd put that kind of material in a sub section of the site.

RetiredInMaine
May 3rd, 2008, 06:52 PM
I read every reply in this thread from the perspective of an old (77) man who remembers when the question for teens was if it was OK to kiss on a first date. Times have changed, a lot. What I read was a tacit discussion of what Bill Oreilley calls "The Culture war". The real question posed by this thread is how far we are willing to coarsen our culture and what kind of culture we want to live in. I'll admit that the 40's, when I was a teen, weren't perfect, but we had far fewer single mom's and out of wedlock births, and no one worried about what the kids would see in the movies, and in the 50's on TV. Both sex and real violence were implied rather than specific. Each generation makes it's own rules, even the Romans complained about culture changes.

Having said all this, I think that anyone posting to a help forum should think about the world wide audience before posting nude, sexual, or violent graphics. Just one old mans opinion.

Stefanie
May 3rd, 2008, 07:39 PM
HEY!
Why is everybody against me suddenly??

I said that I hated restrictions and that it was a PLEA from my side as an individual, not an attempt to use the moral of majority to change things to the way I like it. I pleaded to every one who creates these images/themes to stop, but since I think that there actually exist a market for these things, I changed my plea to at least spare us individuals who didn't like human gentiles pushed to our faces every time we wanted to search for a theme that wasn't on gnome art by adding these images to some kind of subsection and no the main page.

Is your opinion that since I call myself a libertarian, I have no right to express my opinion regarding porn on gnome look?
Also, regarding the feminism debate; I wouldn't want to see male gentiles either. Our respective "sexual equipment" is in my opinion ugly and nothing I'd like to see. And for those of you who think that I'm asexual/virgin/other silly accusation; I'm not... I just don't like nude people on my Internet sites. Don't give me this "but you want to ban this and that"-s.h.i.t. again or I'll be mad for real. I've never sought a ban, all I'm seeking is a mutual agreement or some sort of compromise, one of such I suggested by suggesting that we'd put that kind of material in a sub section of the site.

Whether you're pleading or asking for restrictions, the point is that you are bothered by it so it has to be moved to a subsection. There are a lot of things which annoy me, but that's no reason to say things like you did. As I said, I might be pleading for a subsection for dogs so I don't have to look at those dogs anymore. Somebody else will be asking for a subsection for religious symbols etc.

@Retiredinmaine: this is not about coarsening. it's about open-mindedness and taboos. there is nothing wrong with sexuality and nudity, though there is sometimes a problem with the way they are represented. There is a difference between nudity and hard-core porn. It's important to tell children that porn does not represent reality, but it isn't a solution to ban images of nudity and sexuality. What you said about single moms and out-of-wedlock births is irrelevant, and certainly not an example of "coarsening".

itix
May 3rd, 2008, 08:10 PM
RetiredInMaine:
I love your signature =p

I think you're absolutely right about the fact that some people lack respect. I don't want any sort of ban since I live by the philosophy that the more rules and demands you impose on your fellow citizens, the less important each and every single rule becomes. I'm definietly going to raise my kids according to that philosophy, but that don't belong to the topic.

What people need to do is think. If this was a political forum, I'd be ok with such content to stir emotions, but this is actually a support forum. I always think carefully before I post anything that might offend someone and I never take screenshots where my desktop background is visible (alt + print screen). Especially things that obviously will offend people should not be posted. I was until about half a year ago a satanist. I wouldn't dream of posting satanic material on this page since I know that there might be Christians here that obviously will be offended by a goat pentagram in blood.

Stephanie:

the point is that you are bothered by it so it has to be moved to a subsection
Youre painting opinions on me that I don't have! It was a friendly suggestion, a compromise suggested by me. If you don't allow me to express my opinions or allow me to make suggestions, you're no better than the false image you obviously have of me. If you don't want dogs on the forum, then express that opinion for gods sake! I can't stop you and I won't stop you... please don't try to stop me from expressing my opinions.

Say I made a GDM-theme with Nazi-references and a picture of starving Jews at Auschwitz would you be fine with having that on the main page of gnome look? If so, I know a ton of people who wouldn't, and for their sake I wouldn't upload it to the main page. I'd have it on my own page and maybe link to it if I wanted my Nazi-friends to be able to watch starving Jews every time they log in. I'm just suggesting respect as a standard and begging people to think before they act so that they won't offend anyone. I mean, for my own sake, I'd never go to a Texas gun owners meeting and yell "I'm gay! Come mate with me, ye fine people!". I'd most probably get shot, and I use that as a reminder before I post anything anywhere. If I had been presenting my nazi GDM-theme on an Israeli military meeting, I'd probably get shot and therefor it's considered offensive.

Note carefully that I'm not doing anything un-libertarian by stating these opinions. Note that I don't want a ban from the websites owner/administrator. What I want is for every individual to think carefully why they shouldn't post items that might be considered offensive. First of all, we gain from having as much people in here as possible, all of us. The more there are here, the more bugs and problems with Ubuntu will be fixed, and Ubuntu will seam more stable, and more people will move to Ubuntu, and more applications and more games and more stability will be gained from a larger market. It's simple market economy principles.

Therefor, from a double gain perspective for me personally, and a single gain perspective for the most of the rest of you, try to respect differences. If you badly want porn, there's plenty of it on the rest of the internet, if you badly want Ubuntu and linux help, there's plenty of it here, and the barrier of separation should in my opinion stay that way.

Note: I'm not a Nazi either...

Stefanie
May 3rd, 2008, 08:52 PM
sorry i understood your post in a way you didn't intend, then. it's fine to ask people not to do something, but my experience is that this just doesn't help :) when i read you post i really had the impression that you really badly wanted to change people's behaviour, and imposed them a change only because of you.

you're accusing me of not giving you the right to express your opinions. i don't like that and it's not true - the point i want to make is that we should be more open-minded.

If i had a girlfriend (i'm a woman), i would want to hold her hand everywhere on this planet. If some people think that's offensive, that's their problem, not mine, i'm not causing any harm or doing anything illegal (note that i would of course be careful in countries like iran, but that's because i know that country doesn't respect human rights and not because i don't want to offend people). i'd NEVER stop myself from being who i am because that's bothering some people. we all have the right to be who we are.

i'm sorry, but you can't respect everybody's wishes. if you don't like what you see, then don't look. my muslim friends find pigs offensive, but that doesn't stop me from eating pork, even in their presence. people should be more tolerant.

pictures of extreme violence, torture and the holocaust are totally different because those are violations against human rights, against freedom itself. Those things should be banned, not because they're offending people but because they're not respecting basic rights.

the most important thing is that my freedom ends where yours begins. i have the right to post pictures and to offend you. you have the right not to look at them and to be offended. but i don't have the right to discriminate against you because you're gay or black, or to kill you. in my eyes that's a true libertarian philosophy.

itix
May 3rd, 2008, 09:19 PM
I'm sorry too then, because since I thought you understood that I didn't want it solely because of my distatste for human nudeness I thought that you didn't want to hear my opinions and tried to shut me up ;)

I'm also sorry for the delay. I've been despreately fighting to save the life of my 5 days old Asus Eee which due to a rather fatal bug in EeeXubuntu almost caught fire, and I can with the smile of a suceesful surgeon tell you that It's ok.

I do agree with you that people should be more tolerant. If I'm at my friends house and he has a desktop background that offend me, I don't tell him to change it, I just look away. It's just that I find my threads my property, and I don't like porn in my threads.

I also for the reasons I stated in my previous post wish everybody else to keep porn from the forum, but I don't wish to enforce anything.

I do agree with you that one should be able to express whatever opinions wherever one like, but you must also think of your own physical well being since the world isn't a perfect such.

Other than that, nice to have more libertarians on the forum :)

Stefanie
May 4th, 2008, 09:35 AM
good to hear that you saved your notebook :-)
it's true that people should respect it that you don't want porn in threads started by you. maybe you can add "no nudity please" to you sig :-)

i've got a question for everyone who says they find nudity shameful... do you think this (http://www.latribunedelart.com/Expositions_2004/Rubens_-_Adam_et_Eve.JPG) and this (http://jokers-blog.de/images/kunde/kunst/rubens.jpg) is offending? (it's not porn - to be very clear, i don't like porn at all. )

mrgnash
May 4th, 2008, 09:38 AM
PS: Naruto sucks.

howlingmadhowie
May 4th, 2008, 09:49 AM
the way i see it, there are a few things that should be mentioned here:

the ubuntu community (like all gnu/linux communities) is pretty left-wing. there are a number of reasons for this. firstly, gnu/linux is revolutionary (by definition non-conservative). the average user of gnu/linux is younger than the average user of windows (i'm sure you can think of a number of factors which cause this). the average user of gnu/linux is also male and straight.

as well as this, gnu/linux is still in terms of numbers a first-world phenomenon, and be it only because there are more computers in the first world.

comments like
this is not about coarsening. it's about open-mindedness and taboos. there is nothing wrong with sexuality and nudity, though there is sometimes a problem with the way they are represented. There is a difference between nudity and hard-core porn. It's important to tell children that porn does not represent reality, but it isn't a solution to ban images of nudity and sexuality. What you said about single moms and out-of-wedlock births is irrelevant, and certainly not an example of "coarsening". and
pictures of extreme violence, torture and the holocaust are totally different because those are violations against human rights, against freedom itself. Those things should be banned, not because they're offending people but because they're not respecting basic rights. from stefanie show a tacit acceptance that we are members of a liberal, first-world community. there is a lot of woodstock about gnu/linux (and about stefanie). live and let live is, as the name suggests, a modern, first-world concept born in the bloodbaths of WW1 and WW2. and who can read "die wuerde des menschen ist unantastbar" (the first sentence of the german constitution) without being transported in thought to the ovens of auschwitz?

up till now in this post i've been preaching moral relativism. in other words: with what right do we claim that "not being offended by images of nudity" is morally better than "extreme violence, torture and the holocaust"? The reason is the machine gun of flanders fields. when 20 million mothers and sisters were told that their sons and brothers lie rotting in trenches, while at the same time having access to modern technology allowing them to communicate with others is other countries (when my english great-grandfather fought in the first world war, he was shocked when he first saw a german to discover that he didn't have horns!), an establishment of a common understanding of our shared humanity necessarily follows. (the rise of rights for the financial minorities in the first world (women, blacks, glbt people) does of course also have a lot to do with first-world governments being scared of communism and therefore granting rights to these groups to diffuse the strength of communist political parties, amongst other reasons).

this is the cultural background upon which we are having this discussion. i thought it worth it being explicitly mentioned.

itix
May 4th, 2008, 12:48 PM
Stefanie:
For some strange reason; no...

I do however find the picture in the original post offending. That was a clear "ugh" and a quick kill move, perfected by too much UT2004.

mrgnash:
You suck :p
Naruto owns. So does bleach, death note, claymore and shakugan no shana as well.

GavinZac
May 4th, 2008, 12:52 PM
Fate Reconciled:

I'm a libertarian (= Ron Paul, Penn Jillette, Billy Joe Armstrong... those kind of opinions) and I don't want to impose any restrictions at all. I HATE restrictions, and I agree with you on the government part, but that doesn't stop me from not wanting this stuff on such a mainstream site as gnome look.

As I said earlier; if you really do need to create, download and use porn material and material which I as an individual, and many with me, find offensive, do so on another web site, or at least on a subsection of that very same website and not on the front page.

I DO consider the human body and it's gentiles shameful and would not want to see them on my thread on how to mount a USB as a CD because I do not wish to have them there.

Therefor, as an individual, I plea to those who upload this material to upload them somewhere else where I, as an individual, can't be bothered by them if I do not wish to be so. I mean, if there is a section called nudity, or sexual content or so on gnome look, I definitely won't click there since I don't want that kind of stuff on my computer.

Since you're a libertarian, I'm sure you'll appreciate me telling you to mind your own damn business and stop telling people what to do.

itix
May 4th, 2008, 01:08 PM
howlingmadhowie:
You have a too narrow perspective if you see the world in just socialists (or liberals if you like it that way) and conservatives (republicans).

You ignore the third ideology, namely libertarianism (you're far from alone). You can't count us as republicans since we're clearly agaisnt the Iraq war, against a democratic moral that restricts human actions, we don't like prohibitations like the famous war on drugs that is fought in every country except The NL, we don't like the church involving in society etc. We love freedom, something which we donšt have in windows.

Especially to my type of libertarians who doesn't like the right to intellectual property, the world of linux is a bliss and the ultimate extent of our society. S agrupo of people deciding that certain feature is missing from the community and cooperating to create it without any bothersome IT-state that restricts it's movements. If that is not capitalism, then tell me what ;)

itix
May 4th, 2008, 01:11 PM
YouWithLinkPicture:

If you follow the entire argument between me and stefanie, you'll see what exactly it is that I mean with that post. It seams that you two is clearly not the only ones misunderstanding that post, maybe I should edit it :-k

GavinZac
May 4th, 2008, 01:13 PM
You're swedish, why are you dividing the world into republicans, liberals and libertarians?

"Libertarianism" is anarchy for the tame.

itix
May 4th, 2008, 01:28 PM
I don't. I divide the world in socialists, conservatives and libertarians. I'm just too used to discuss with Americans that don't get that socialism might mean anything other that communism. I'm not so very swedish in heart, so I often internationalize my language.

Libertarianism has an anarchy branch actually (link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho_capitalism)) but you anarcho-communists/anarcho-syndicalists generally don't regard us as real anarchists for some strange reason.

RetiredInMaine
May 4th, 2008, 01:51 PM
howlingmadhowie: I flunk 2 of your 3 typical user profiles, age and political beliefs, so I guess I am not a typical user. But I knew that. :)

Stefanie: I REALLY disagree that out of wedlock births and rampant single motherhood are irrelevant and not indicative of a coarsening culture. But then I am prejudiced, I've raised 5 daughters (and 2 sons) and I want all my grandkids to have 2 parents. I also admit to being an unrepentant male chauvinist pig.

ITIX: Glad you like my signature. My claim to fame is that I invented 2 of the most hated aspects of modern technology, but compensated by pioneering a universally used application of modern technology. pm me if yoiu really want to know, I love to brag. :)


I think the real issue is consideration of the target audience. ubuntu forum exists to provide mutual support for ubuntu users. Readers are potentially of all nationalities and cultures. I submit that the graphic in the original post would get this forum banned in many countries. If the aim is to offer help and support, and to spread the gospel of open source software, then it simply makes sense not to deliberately offend people. Yes, it is THEIR problem, but it is still counter productive. Sure I know that sex is just "doin what comes naturally" and as a Korean war veteran I know and dislike violence, but why get in peoples face about either? Graphic depictions of nudity, sex, and/or violence are simply out of place in a forum devoted to computer software.

itix
May 4th, 2008, 01:59 PM
2 of the most hated aspects of modern technology

The atomic bomb and windows?? ;)
Sorry, just kidding.


pm me if yoiu really want to know

I think I'll do just that.

howlingmadhowie
May 4th, 2008, 02:00 PM
howlingmadhowie:
You have a too narrow perspective if you see the world in just socialists (or liberals if you like it that way) and conservatives (republicans).

You ignore the third ideology, namely libertarianism (you're far from alone). You can't count us as republicans since we're clearly agaisnt the Iraq war, against a democratic moral that restricts human actions, we don't like prohibitations like the famous war on drugs that is fought in every country except The NL, we don't like the church involving in society etc. We love freedom, something which we donšt have in windows.

Especially to my type of libertarians who doesn't like the right to intellectual property, the world of linux is a bliss and the ultimate extent of our society. S agrupo of people deciding that certain feature is missing from the community and cooperating to create it without any bothersome IT-state that restricts it's movements. If that is not capitalism, then tell me what ;)

as we have seen in this discussion up to now, everybody has there own definition of conservative, liberal etc. don't worry, you are all in good company here. the sociologists and economists tend to be able to change their definitions at the drop of a hat.

bearing this in mind, i find your rather buddhist "third way" argumentation not particularly enlightening, if you'll pardon the expression. borrowing the language of maths for a second, an attempt has been made in these forums to model political character in R2 (the dimensions being social and economic). this can of course only be a gross over-simplification, (to model political character accurately you naturally need an R_very_large_number space--one dimension for every issue there is) and the question must rather be: is this simplification actually useful?

apropos capitalism: i would have thought this point is quite clear, but i'll elucidate. in a purely capitalist system there is nothing to stop a company growing so powerful that it can interfere with the democratic principles on which the country stands. for this reason, the government, by definition a socialist entity (can there be a form of democracy without socialism?), must dive in and stop companies from time to time.

(btw, i very much enjoyed using the words 'socialist' and 'socialism' in that paragraph :) )

itix
May 4th, 2008, 02:11 PM
Thanks, but I do know the 2-dimensional political model. That's the one I find most accurate ;)
I'm in the far right, far libertarian corner of that model. But since we're getting a bit off topic, shall I suggest an MSN/pm session??

Stefanie
May 4th, 2008, 02:29 PM
howlingmadhowie: I flunk 2 of your 3 typical user profiles, age and political beliefs, so I guess I am not a typical user. But I knew that. :)

Stefanie: I REALLY disagree that out of wedlock births and rampant single motherhood are irrelevant and not indicative of a coarsening culture. But then I am prejudiced, I've raised 5 daughters (and 2 sons) and I want all my grandkids to have 2 parents. I also admit to being an unrepentant male chauvinist pig.

ITIX: Glad you like my signature. My claim to fame is that I invented 2 of the most hated aspects of modern technology, but compensated by pioneering a universally used application of modern technology. pm me if yoiu really want to know, I love to brag. :)


I think the real issue is consideration of the target audience. ubuntu forum exists to provide mutual support for ubuntu users. Readers are potentially of all nationalities and cultures. I submit that the graphic in the original post would get this forum banned in many countries. If the aim is to offer help and support, and to spread the gospel of open source software, then it simply makes sense not to deliberately offend people. Yes, it is THEIR problem, but it is still counter productive. Sure I know that sex is just "doin what comes naturally" and as a Korean war veteran I know and dislike violence, but why get in peoples face about either? Graphic depictions of nudity, sex, and/or violence are simply out of place in a forum devoted to computer software.

You should not, in my opinion, judge a priori. It's already difficult to judge about one particular situation you know very well.
Being married doesn't make you better parents.
Two parents don't always raise their kids in a better way than a single mom. You're generalising things. Some single moms are bad parents. Some couples are bad parents. Lots of single moms and lots of single couples are good parents. I know plenty examples... Widows, divorced moms, women who were abandoned by their men, women who chose to have kids on their own, etc. The kids, though, are very happy and well-educated. Loads happier than many kids I know who've got 2 married parents. My mother teaches little kids in kindergarten and she definitely can confirm this.

The picture shown in the first post was in fact ubuntu-related. it's a theme, probably from gnome-look.org (?). For lots of people support also means custom themes and login-screens like that one. The picture is not showing the woman's breasts (ok only a little bit) or genitals, so I really don't see what's the problem. In my latest post I included two links to paintings made by Rubens (ok I hope everyone knows Rubens). Those paintings are pieces of art and they're famous all over the world. They're far more explicit than the picture we're talking about, yet no-one thinks they should be banned... I definitely would not want to live in a country were art or this picture are banned.

I'm both progressive and liberal, but only where personal freedom is concerned. I don't mind the government imposing restrictions when those restrictions are about guaranteeing my (or other people's) freedom, general safety or public well-fare. So I think it's a good thing you're not allowed to have guns in my country (unless you've got a license).

RetiredInMaine
May 5th, 2008, 09:42 PM
Stefanie: You are absolutely correct that being married does not make you a better parent. There are always exceptions when speaking in broad generalities. And for the record I have nothing against single mothers, one of my daughters is a single mom with 3 kids. Does not change my opinion of what in general is best or on where the culture is going. But I do think out of wedlock births are just stupid. Birth control devices are wide spread so why not use one? For the vast majority of women unwed single motherhood means instant poverty.

However I really was not trying to start a flame war here, as I pointed out in a prior post I think this thread is an example of the current culture war that is happing here in the US, and maybe in other western countries as well, I don't know.

But you miss my main point. In a forum meant to attract a world wide audience posters should consider the appropriateness of the graphic to the subject matter. I don't really care what kind of graphic some one has on their pc, as long as it isn't kiddie porn, but there is no reason to shove it in my face IF it does not pertain to the topic being discussed.

Also please note the phrases "in my opinion" and "I think". I don't want to impose my views on anyone by government fiat. But here in the US, except for most college campuses, every one is entitled to their own opinion. And my own opinion is what I have been expressing. Readers of this thread will make up their own minds.

Stefanie
May 6th, 2008, 06:32 PM
But you miss my main point. In a forum meant to attract a world wide audience posters should consider the appropriateness of the graphic to the subject matter. I don't really care what kind of graphic some one has on their pc, as long as it isn't kiddie porn, but there is no reason to shove it in my face IF it does not pertain to the topic being discussed.


my point was that some pics, like the one mentioned in the first post, are ubuntu-related and thus not off-topic.
sometimes desktop pics are visible by accident (eg when posting a screenshot of an app), but well these are accidents that might happen.
i agree though that pics which are completely off-topic should be removed, but then that holds for any pic whatever the content is.

kreamibhutt
May 11th, 2008, 06:16 AM
I've come across more than one screenshot that I've actually found offensive.

Like, when I'm browsing gnome-look or following a screenshot install guide...The desktop backgrounds in the shots will have naked or masterbating women or even comics with derogatory jokes. Is anyone else bothered by this?

I have no problems with people puting those things on their personal desktops. But I think it should be kept off tutorials and theme previews.


:lolflag::lolflag:

Hmmmmm it's an interesting perspective of the world you have.

It gives me the impression that you don;t enjoy sex, don't appreciate other people, their bodies and what turns them on.

It also gives me the impression that your not happy with yourself, and your relationships or the lack thereof.

And it also gives me the impression that you lack the capacity to think for yourself, because it gives you a sense of importance and fake belonging, if you think it's clever to run around bleating silly feminist slanted diatribe.



She is young, fertile, gorgeous, sexy, in good shape....

The picture is both very sexy and I like it, and I feel excited and much pleasure from it.

I also have really nice sexual thoughts and feelings too...


I also really would much rather look at her, than the writings of silly bitter people, who try to take the pleasure and enjoyment away from others, because they lack the courage to take responsiblity for how they have chosen to turn out, and spend their free time, trying to drag everyone down to their level.

I also really don't like you shoving your oppressive opinions in my face.

I also don't like your attitude of "Just because you have CHOSEN to feel offended", that everyone else either has to bend over backwards just to keep you happy.

I also refuse to censor anything, just because you don't like it.

Personally, I really don't care for what you think.

Neither does the rest of humanity.

But then we can wait till YOU look at pictures of people YOU want to have or have had sex with - and all the sexual fantasies YOU have, and all your sexual techniques that you use to achieve orgasam...

And then watch YOU change your tune.... Ooooooo according to you, it's ONE set of YOUR you rules for everyone else, and another set of YOUR rules for you...

Oh the hypocracy.

Who are you to tell others what they can or can't do, and what they can or can't enjoy, or how they can or can't express themselves?


:lolflag::lolflag:

bapoumba
May 11th, 2008, 08:49 AM
Okay, let me make it clear: the policy on UF (http://ubuntuforums.org/index.php?page=policy) is that pics and comments should be safe for work, school, regardless of age, gender, sexual orientation, religion, location, politics etc. We aim at integrating everyone.
There is no problem with using the ubuntuforums for technical support, and grab other elements for yourself from elsewhere. UF has a policy, a Staff team, and is regulated. By registering, you agreed to the rules. Simple.

The post above mine is really borderline, making assumptions on who Meskarune is and feels, which is uncalled for, and may be hurtful. So, please read the UF CoC over again. Thanks.

We do not have connections with other site administration teams. They are the ones to be contacted if inappropriate content is posted.

PS: we have already asked members to post their screenshots again due to the wallpaper, or changed to links the less offensive ones (but still not appropriate) with a note). We cannot read everything, the forums are too busy. We rely on reports too :)
PS2: the Staff is concerned with women representations. They should feel welcome and comfortable here.

HunterThomson
May 11th, 2008, 08:54 AM
I just made that my desktop wallpaper:guitar:

Thank you for the link:guitar:

I in no way find the human body offensive. I find that thought to be vary Calvinistic.

imT
May 11th, 2008, 08:59 AM
cool wallpaper :) :guitar:

bapoumba
May 11th, 2008, 09:11 AM
The question is not whether it is appropriate for your own desktops. Women depicted as objects for others to use, not humans with heart, brain and feelings, shrunk down to a couple attributes is rather.. what? limited? exclusive?
I know we are around 1-5 % in here, according to the best estimations. Is that a reason good enough?

HunterThomson
May 11th, 2008, 09:17 AM
The thing is... that way of thinking about it that you described is merely one perspective and is not a thought you are born with it is a thought you were indoctrinated with over the coarse of your life. It is not right or wrong or good or bad.

bapoumba
May 11th, 2008, 09:24 AM
The thing is... that way of thinking about it that you described is merely one perspective and is not a thought you are born with it is a thought you were indoctrinated with over the coarse of your life. It is not right or wrong or good or bad.
Yeah, probably.
Would the situation be the same with a 50/50 gender distribution in Linux communities?

HunterThomson
May 11th, 2008, 09:32 AM
I guess I would need to see some studies on how many women put erotic wallpapers on there desktop and how many of them make and distribute them compared to men. But, if we want to assume the # are the same then I would guess there would be just as many erotic wallpapers of men. However, I have seen studies that show that men do have a stronger sex drive and are more apt to be open about it. So, my guess would be that there would still be far more erotic wallpapers of women then of men.

Edit-I guess you would also have to count guy men as well.

Edit- I also fell the same way about sex.

bapoumba
May 11th, 2008, 09:43 AM
That is also my perception. The numbers not being 50/50, the representations are a lot biased too, not balanced. And it is not easy to voice oneself in the overwhelming mainstream. I'm not talking about pics only, but representations as a whole (girls are bumb with computers for ex). Discrimination can be very subtle :)

But anyway, when something comes up on UF, and I'm not really sure if I would be pushing the limits, I ask my fellow Staff members for a general opinion and go with it, even if it is not my own. Team's work ;)

imT
May 11th, 2008, 10:03 AM
what the h*ll are you all talking about, is a screenshot for god's sake, the user can put whatever he wants on his desktop and if he wants to share it is more than ok, that way gives other users new ideas.

bapoumba
May 11th, 2008, 10:08 AM
the user can put whatever he wants on his desktop
Agreed with that part.

eragon100
May 11th, 2008, 10:13 AM
Good wallpaper, nice link :guitar:

But I like my fighting dragons better :)

HunterThomson
May 11th, 2008, 10:30 AM
Ya, I think we are on the same page.

As far as discrimination is concerned it is just the messed up society we are razed in. It is no different then a letter I read in 2600 Mag 24-4 about a article in 2600 volume 24-3 "Target: For Credit Card Fraud". Someone wrote a letter to 2600 saying that someone that works at Target must be to stupid to know anything about network security and "should just do the job he is paid to do". The 2600 people thought that this guy should not judge someone by there job. Trust me in Hawaii there is more discrimination then there was in the south during slavery. It is stupid now and stupid then, just a product of ignorance and indoctrination by the powers that be.

Where I come from (main land USA) girls are always assumed to be smarter then men???? It is hard to find girls that are into computers though. Not a one on the Big Island. Of course the Big Island is like 10 years behind in computers. There is only like two WiFi hotspots in town.

HunterThomson
May 11th, 2008, 10:38 AM
Owe Ya, I got lost in my ranting...

My point was that we are razed to be judgemental in order to dived the society (Sheep or Cattle if you wish)that way it is EZ'r for the powers that be to control us. We need to get together "United we stand divided we fall"

"Lets get together one more Time!... Come On!"
Jim Morrison

bapoumba
May 11th, 2008, 10:44 AM
Ya, I think we are on the same page.
I think so too, thanks :)


As far as discrimination is concerned it is just the messed up society we are razed in. It is no different then a letter I read in 2600 Mag 24-4 about a article in 2600 volume 24-3 "Target: For Credit Card Fraud". Someone wrote a letter to 2600 saying that someone that works at Target must be to stupid to know anything about network security and "should just do the job he is paid to do". The 2600 people thought that this guy should not judge someone by there job. Trust me in Hawaii there is more discrimination then there was in the south during slavery. It is stupid now and stupid then, just a product of ignorance.
Yes, ignorance, power of the mass etc. I did not want to draw a parallel with other types of discriminations (it could drive the thread away and start flames as well) but I really think the whole situation is driven by the same forces.


Where I come from (main land USA) girls are always assumed to be smarter then men???? It is hard to find girls that are into computers though. Not a one on the Big Island. Of course the Big Island is like 10 years behind in computers. There is only like two WiFi hotspots in town.
Okay, you ay be interesting into this (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=321626). I really think the issue can be made better with education :)

Stefanie
May 11th, 2008, 11:19 AM
the policy on UF is that pics and comments should be safe for work, school, regardless of age, gender, sexual orientation, religion, location, politics etc.

sorry, but i think this policy is a bit unrealistic. as i pointed out already, in some countries naked shoulders are extremely offensive and pics with e.g. the american flag are forbidden. even telling people to stop discrimination against women might be offensive in some parts of the world.
there are way too many cultuaral / religious taboos to take into account, and political situations are even more complicated.

these forums are simply not safe for work/school in every country.

i am a woman myself and i really do not care about pics like the one in the first post - that's just the way man are, and why should we try to stop them. i don't believe that these pics would stop women from joining the community.
i do care, however, about discrimination, eg denigrating remarks about women's capacities. this behaviour is far more intolerant and unrespectful than any pic can ever be and i hope the mods here do everything they can to avoid it.

HunterThomson
May 11th, 2008, 11:29 AM
I think so too, thanks :)
Ya:)


Yes, ignorance, power of the mass etc. I did not want to draw a parallel with other types of discriminations (it could drive the thread away and start flames as well) but I really think the whole situation is driven by the same forces.

I see your point. I just can't help but see out side the box on stuff.



Okay, you ay be interesting into this (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=321626). I really think the issue can be made better with education :)

Yes, it is all just a big fight for power that has been going on probably scents the beginning of man. We are all equal. I think for the most part it is all just a big scam to keep us divided. For the recorded I do vary much dislike how it TV and Holywood try to teach women to be objects but there are many thing that society gets men to believe that is just as unhealthy and I dislike them all. However, by the same logic I fell the same way about it vice versa, as I stated before. It is all a mind trip. As long as the person just sat down and thought about something considering all sides and decided for them self they are right. I think your are only wrong about something like this if you don't think for yourself and only regurgitated what has been drilled in your brain. Just like A Brave New World.

itix
May 11th, 2008, 12:09 PM
Sigh...
No wonder why there are so few women in linux when you read this thread. Had I been a househusband sitting on a forum for housewives, encuotering nude men everywhere, I'd feel a bit alienated.

Johnsie
May 11th, 2008, 03:17 PM
I looked at it and it didn't do me any harm. This topic is much ado about nothing.

bapoumba
May 11th, 2008, 03:45 PM
sorry, but i think this policy is a bit unrealistic. as i pointed out already, in some countries naked shoulders are extremely offensive and pics with e.g. the american flag are forbidden. even telling people to stop discrimination against women might be offensive in some parts of the world.
there are way too many cultuaral / religious taboos to take into account, and political situations are even more complicated.

these forums are simply not safe for work/school in every country.
What I was trying to say is that we intent to get on the middle, most friendly, most inclusive road. It means compromises, mostly from the extremes who would like to force the forums to be the way they want. I mean, somewhere between "hide any piece of skin" and "I want to be able to post any plumbing I want". The Staff team is multi-gender, multi-cultural, multi-religion, multi-timezones, you name it. When need be, we collectively give input and try to be on the most reasonable path.


i am a woman myself and i really do not care about pics like the one in the first post - that's just the way man are, and why should we try to stop them. i don't believe that these pics would stop women from joining the community.
i do care, however, about discrimination, eg denigrating remarks about women's capacities. this behaviour is far more intolerant and unrespectful than any pic can ever be and i hope the mods here do everything they can to avoid it.
As I said, if you see something that should be taken care of, please report it. We'll do our best :)

hvac3901
May 11th, 2008, 06:08 PM
This is about respect for women and others minorities.

I don't think women are minorities. If you pick a specific setting you might have an argument, but just as it relates to being a woman, in the US? NO i doubt it, not enough gay men around to support that argument.

LaRoza
May 11th, 2008, 06:13 PM
I don't think women are minorities. If you pick a specific setting you might have an argument, but just as it relates to being a woman, in the US? NO i doubt it, not enough gay men around to support that argument.

On this forum ;)

pbpersson
May 11th, 2008, 06:19 PM
Not thinking about politics or what is considered socially acceptable....

If I am at work, trying to view a tutorial on Linux, and there are naked bodies on my screen when someone walks past my desk......I can get in tons of trouble. Bottom line.....if Linux tutorials are to have naked bodies then it cannot be used in corporate America because someone in the office will be offended.

In my opinion, these images have no business being in technical documentation.

Also....if these servers contain pictures of naked bodies it means they are most likely filtered by my corporation - meaning I cannot even get to the documentation on those servers.

This is just a very bad idea.

Gunfreak
May 12th, 2008, 05:52 PM
sorry, but i think this policy is a bit unrealistic. as i pointed out already, in some countries naked shoulders are extremely offensive and pics with e.g. the american flag are forbidden. even telling people to stop discrimination against women might be offensive in some parts of the world.
there are way too many cultuaral / religious taboos to take into account, and political situations are even more complicated.

these forums are simply not safe for work/school in every country.

i am a woman myself and i really do not care about pics like the one in the first post - that's just the way man are, and why should we try to stop them. i don't believe that these pics would stop women from joining the community.
i do care, however, about discrimination, eg denigrating remarks about women's capacities. this behaviour is far more intolerant and unrespectful than any pic can ever be and i hope the mods here do everything they can to avoid it.


I would have to say the statement in bold is false. I am a man. Yes I enjoy sex and have a sex drive. Yes I have had wallpapers/Screensavers with nude women on them. And yes I enjoy sexual content. However none of that makes any difference.

All these things apply to both men,women,young and old. Humans are sexual creatures in my opinion and always have been and most likely always will be. Either way to clump "Men" into one giant group and say we are are all "like that" is far more offensive to me than nudity or violence.

If I see a nude picture of a man I just don't look at it. I am not disgusted by it or rant about it. Some people enjoy the content some do not. In the end each individual user controls what they see and do on the internet so to try to cater to every person is ridiculous. There are too many opinions to try to cater to them all.

My suggestion to those of you here is this. If you are offended by such material just look away. It is not a giant vacuum that sucks you in and won't let you go. if you are browsing for a wallpaper and an offensive one pops up just scroll down or move on. It won't kill you. I promise



Just a quick rundown of what I think. I didn't go into much detail on my beliefs so it quickly moved over a point or two but hopefully my words won't be twisted or misinterpreted in some way.

basotl
June 22nd, 2008, 03:13 PM
I stumbled upon this thread as I was reading through the forums and found it interesting. Personally I find it very easy to have screen shots be acceptable for any business environment.

If I am making a tutorial on a forum I switch my background to one of the default Ubuntu system backgrounds and themes. It provides the intended user of the tutorial with a background environment they are likely to be visually accustomed to and makes it acceptable for any business environment.

I find little reason for arguing issues of personal expression here. We are free to have what ever we want on our desktops but I just find when doing a tutorial that switching to a default theme and background is the way to go.

FrankVdb
June 22nd, 2008, 04:18 PM
I don't want to be rude, but someone from Europe wouldn't feel offended by that picture of a "masturbating" woman. If that is masturbation, then I'm the new Pope.

People from the US tend to be extremely prudish when it comes to nudity.

Btw, for a lot of men the "masturbating" woman is far too skinny to be attractive.

FrankVdb
June 22nd, 2008, 04:30 PM
i do care, however, about discrimination, eg denigrating remarks about women's capacities. this behaviour is far more intolerant and unrespectful than any pic can ever be and i hope the mods here do everything they can to avoid it.

I couldn't agree less. In fact, the situation in most countries is still not very different than, say, 1950. In most societies, women are STILL second-class citizens. As recently as yesterday there was a report in the Dutch-speaking press here in Belgium of the situation in India. Female foetuses are aborted on a huge scale. Like in China, parents only want to have boys. Girls are not only looked down at because of their sex, they are simply killed. Hundreds of thousands yearly. 7000 (seven thousand) each and every day. Things like that just make be incredibly angry. Is the average Indian REALLY SO STUPID?? Even Stone Age people didn't kill their own offspring.

To me it's mind-boggling why a boy child should be more worth than a girl child (I have a wonderful little daughter myself). Next to that, aborting female foetuses is incredibly stupid. In China, millions and millions of men are looking to find a suitable mate, whom they obviously don't find.
I remember an interview with a Chinese peasant some time ago on the news, stating proudly that in his village only boys were born thanks to echography.

Sorry, had to say it. I realise it may not be the right thread.

beartard
June 25th, 2008, 06:32 AM
I'm more upset that so many ubuntu users on the X-look.org sites think that slapping an ubuntu logo on something makes it art worthy of sharing. We definitely have the "kindergarten of all distros" perception from everyone else, and this is just one symptom.

animaniac
June 30th, 2008, 11:23 AM
if we include that wallpaper by default in ubuntu, and make the overly sensitive watch mtv for a week without pause, maybe we can avoid having people whining about a bit o skin.

@Meskarune: i assume you are new to the internet.

@FrankVdb: "People from the US tend to be extremely prudish when it comes to nudity." - indeed.

Bodsda
June 30th, 2008, 07:35 PM
I came across this thread and was amazed and disgusted by some of the posts people have made here.


First post

Yes it is a womens naked body. Congratulations. The problem with that is...? I agree that removing the head draws the viewers eyes to other parts of the picture but unless you didn't notice, the picture is perfectly 'censored'. Nothing which could be considered unacceptable for children's eyes is viewable. The picture was unlikely to be taken by the man/women (could be a womens wallpaper) who has the picture as there wallpaper, therefor he/she may not have removed the head themselves.


Degrading Material

I HATE sexism, discrimination, and the like, but a womens naked body, whether it be censored, partially covered or completely natural is not degrading. Nor is it (in my eyes) rude, the only reason people seem to take offense is because she's naked, but really whats wrong with that? You may say 'the law' says thats wrong which brings me to another point. Why is the most natural thing in the world illegal? you are not allowed to wonder the streets naked, why? surely its my god (just a phrase, im an atheist) given right to wear/not wear whatever i choose.

People who find female nudity offensive

I don't mean to be horrible here, but unless its your naked body somewhere, you really have no justification saying its offensive. It is the models choice to be in the picture, not yours. Finding offense in such a picture is like saying every male should be offended by the Statue of David, Michael Angelos most famous creation. http://www.destination360.com/europe/italy/images/s/italy-michaelangelos-david.jpg
No one seems to have a problem with this. But i suppose thats because its a stone statue, yes maybe, but a picture is a bunch of coloured pixels!!!

wenuswilson
July 6th, 2008, 08:05 PM
That's not all of it either!
How many sexual references can you find here?

(see attachment) :shock:

Haha. Very offensive. Tisk tisk.

Alex J.
July 12th, 2008, 09:29 PM
I know this is old but...some of the responses on here make me want to go punch something.

I'm a pro-porn feminist. I see nothing wrong in nudity/sex/human bodies. Whether or not objectification of the body is wrong or right is debatable and not a clear cut issue. I find that most of the nude/sexy desktops usually aren't offensive, just extremely tacky and 99% of the time used by creepy little mouth-breathers I wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole. Each to their nasty own I suppose.

That being said, I do find most Ubuntu-themed "sexy" desktops offensive. I'm a LITTLE alarmed that most people here think it's an issue of nudity, rather than the way this woman's body is portrayed. Most of the wallpapers I've seen are a woman, her head and other extremities cut off focusing on a single body part, usually the ***** or the butt. Many of these women are branded with the Ubuntu logo (that should be setting off red flags right there).

Please at least read some articles on women's bodies and advertising (http://www.ltcconline.net/lukas/gender/pages/writtenon.htm) before you start defending the desktops as a simple "expression of nudity." There are VERY good articles about gender and advertising at the link I've attached. Start looking at the context and content of these desktops instead of worrying whether or not you can see her cleavage.

I also find it odd that there are discussions about professional women in technology that very few men comment on or discuss (props to those who do), and yet we start talking about the possibility that their sexy desktops are in very poor taste and they start commenting like crazy.

FrankVdb
July 21st, 2008, 06:46 PM
Whether it's advertising or porn, the point is: to what extent you can put the female body at the center of attention? Where does it stop to be beautiful and start to be vulgar?

It no doubt depends on your education, i.e. to what standards you have been raised. And they differ thoroughly depending where you grew up. At the same time, a lot of hypocrisy surrounds these standards.

In the US, a lot of people are extremely prudish. At the same time, that country has a whole industry making the goriest of porn. The porn industry takes turning women into objects to the extreme.

In India, a public kiss on national tv is considered unacceptable. A famous American actor kissing a famous Indian actress sparks outrage. At the same time, killing hundreds of thousands of female foetuses doesn't, it's considered normal.

You also wondered why the male body is hardly focussed on... Well, in nature, everything revolves around female sexuality. Most societies are macho societies and most men simply don't get it.

YaroMan86
July 21st, 2008, 06:50 PM
Whether it's advertising or porn, the point is: to what extent you can put the female body at the center of attention? Where does it stop to be beautiful and start to be vulgar?

It no doubt depends on your education, i.e. to what standards you have been raised. And they differ thoroughly depending where you grew up. At the same time, a lot of hypocrisy surrounds these standards.

In the US, a lot of people are extremely prudish. At the same time, that country has a whole industry making the goriest of porn. The porn industry takes turning women into objects to the extreme.

In India, a public kiss on national tv is considered unacceptable. A famous American actor kissing a famous Indian actress sparks outrage. At the same time, killing hundreds of thousands of female foetuses doesn't, it's considered normal.

You also wondered why the male body is hardly focussed on... Well, in nature, everything revolves around female sexuality. Most societies are macho societies and most men simply don't get it.

What you explained here is differences in culture and social values.

The United States experienced a large-scale sexual revolution within the past 50 years, where the taboos and fears of sex are lifted.

This isn't quite to say, though, that Americans are sex-obsessed. It's rather unfair to judge based off of the popular culture of a society, as often times it doesn't reflect the true values of individuals and families.

Its all about values of an individual.

Alex J.
July 22nd, 2008, 04:05 AM
Whether it's advertising or porn, the point is: to what extent you can put the female body at the center of attention? Where does it stop to be beautiful and start to be vulgar?

I agree that it's a culture context which determines what is appropriate, and what is taboo. I certainly won't argue that. That the U.S is more prudish/sex-obsessed than any other country...that's really pretty subjective.

However, sexism does not exist solely in a cultural construct. I think that the desktop wallpaper can be evaluated on the portrayal of women and the context that it places them, rather than how "prudish" or "taboo" the women are. Like I said, I don't care how little or how much the women are wearing, I'm more concerned about the portrayal of the women.



Well, in nature, everything revolves around female sexuality.
...ummmm...what? This just leaves me baffled. Care to back up this quote with some sort of credible source?

YaroMan86
July 22nd, 2008, 08:08 PM
...ummmm...what? This just leaves me baffled. Care to back up this quote with some sort of credible source?

Dominant female meerkats strenuously take the right to mate for themselves. All social insects put queens in primary breeding positions.

What else is there?

Mothers give birth, not fathers?

Alex J.
July 24th, 2008, 03:51 AM
Mothers give birth, not fathers?
...don't you kind of need the sperm for this as well?

And not all animal societies place the mother in such positions. To say that all nature revolves around female sexuality is a huge stretch and frankly, not true.

Also, I like to think my sexuality(a term associated with expression and personality) is more than my ability to pop out babies(pure biological reproduction).

steveneddy
July 24th, 2008, 04:16 AM
....guns kill people....

Guns don't kill people, stupid people with guns kill people.

Cars kill people.

Airplanes kill people.

Smoking kills people (suicide).

A knife will kill a person.

If guns kill people, then spoons make people fat.

If the wrong tool is put into the wrong hands, it becomes dangerous.

The thread is about NSFW wallpaper.

This type of art is all over the internet. If you don't want to see it, don't look at it.

Don't go looking for the kind of art that you don't want to see.

If you don't like the thumbnail pic, don't click on it because it is usually the same offensive pic, just bigger.

CryptSphinx
July 25th, 2008, 07:20 PM
*sound of hat hitting ground within ring*

Context is important - an image of a naked woman with the head cropped and replaced with , say a can of coke, would be considered tasteless advertising by most , while the same image, depending on colour composition (etc) , could hang in a gallery as artistic photography.

My greatest criticism of the primary image is the location of the ubuntu symbol as it looks incorrectly aligned to me.
It would be better repositioned on the lower belly giving the image a more central position.
The orangey skin tone doesn't blend quite well enough with the red background (in my unhumble opinion)
and finally with the head and legs removed the image is almost just a torso - entirely unerotic and frankly kind of creepy (to me)

Why have I spent a paragraph treating the wallpaper as art?
because I'm not offended by it,
I just don't think its
of a good quality or an image I would want to use as a wallpaper.

----slight detour----


I recently set up Ubuntu Hardy on my friends family computer, they're Syrian Muslims and would find the image
pornographic - but that's because that's their whole belief set - what you believe will obviously dictate how
you react to the image.

I would agree that the image could upset some people, and I would further agree that better categorisation would be useful on
the site (gnome-look.org ?) so persons uncomfortable with suchlike material can avoid it.

[The sites wallpapers could be thematically tagged 'lolcats,matrix styles,nudes,windows-mockery,etc.' I am NOT calling for a
seperate area, just a more semantic website, this would aid in avoiding vista like themes as well or whatever you do/don't want ]

NSFW images or any images at all (unless relevant) probably should be kept out of technical discussions here , but there is no
reason for us all to wander around afraid of offending people on a site (like kde/gnome-look.org) with our images.

I think this discussion has probably run its course though, is there anything to say beyond;

'consider your audience and try be tolerant'?

simplebeep
July 26th, 2008, 04:46 PM
I don't think there is any problem at all. My mantra on this subject:

Censorship is bad. If you don't like it, don't look.

However, I can somewhat connect with how you feel. I don't particularly like that stuff, so it makes my browsing experience cluttered. Maybe there should be an opt-in system to block away this content from yourself, while still making it accessible to those who want it.

That's kind of like the "Vchip" system on televisions.

AnonCat
July 26th, 2008, 07:53 PM
It'd be a boring and stilted world if there weren't people out there gifted at offending the sensibilities of individuals and cultures. Societal evolution often depends on people sticking red hot pokers into areas where they hurt the most. Censorship only shuts up the people who need to be listened to the most.

Alex J.
July 26th, 2008, 10:52 PM
Censorship only shuts up the people who need to be listened to the most.

I completely agree. These definitely should not be censored, and I think that 99% of the people here agree with you. I don't think most people here are advocating censorship, they would just like to point out that there are a variety of reactions that women have to these sorts of pictures, and to say the least, they aren't maybe not in the greatest taste.

I think to say, "Well, if you don't like them, just don't look at them" is really pretty irrelevant to this conversation. Thanks, I know better than to click on something I'm not interested in in the first place. I think it would be more productive too look at WHY so many women are feeling alienated by this (and I don't think the "You just aren't liberated enough to appreciate woman's bodies" reason is going to fly guys)

Even the original poster said
This is not about cencorship of the media and keeping teenagers away from sexual materials. This is about respect for women and others minorities...All I am saying is this is something people should think about. And maybe more people will pay attention to the screenshots they post after reading this thread.

steveneddy
July 26th, 2008, 11:06 PM
Censorship only shuts up the people who need to be listened to the most.


I believe it is actually

Censorship only shuts up the people who want to be listened to the most.

Censorship is there for a reason and I prefer censorship over anarchy.

Having rules and someone to enforce them is a polite and civilized society.

People who feel that they have to have it their way and no other way, which includes images and unwanted exposure to offensive noises and sights, is the start of a society that is degraded.

As soon as society as a whole starts being tolerant of alternative lifestyles and behaviors is the day that civilized society crumbles.

What you do in private is a different matter.

Alex J.
July 26th, 2008, 11:26 PM
As soon as society as a whole starts being tolerant of alternative lifestyles and behaviors is the day that civilized society crumbles.

I know I might be ASKING for trouble. And I know it's probably WAYYYY off topic. And no pressure to answer this...but could you define "alternative lifestyles" for me?

steveneddy
July 27th, 2008, 02:49 AM
I know I might be ASKING for trouble. And I know it's probably WAYYYY off topic. And no pressure to answer this...but could you define "alternative lifestyles" for me?

I probably shouldn't be answering this, but in a nutshell, not wanting to ruffle any feathers, as this is only a discussion, right? and not a debate, OK?

Alternative lifestyles would be anything that a civilized society would deem as abnormal or devious.

Let's just say that since I live in the US, and our country is based on a Christian and God fearing legacy, that anything that conflicted with the "missionary" style of civilization would be considered "abnormal" or "alternative".

Being civil is conforming to the norm in a civilized society. A society with morals and ethics and the society lives by those morals and ethics.

Anything outside of that definition would probably considered alternative.

Now I ask you the question:

How do YOU define alternative lifestyles?

solitaire
July 27th, 2008, 04:21 AM
Safe definition of "Alternate Lifestyle":

A lifestyle or way of living which does not conform to, or is different from, the observers views and lifestyle.

:D:D

P.S.
Who owns the pic in the OP's post! i want a copy :D:D

Alex J.
July 27th, 2008, 04:24 AM
How do YOU define alternative lifestyles?
Erm. I don't. It's a vague term usually used to differentiate between a perceived normal that doesn't exist and "others." I don't use that term.
Thanks for answering though. That's my curiosity satisfied.

As for ruffled feathers, I wasn't trying to get into a brawl with you or anything, just wanted some clarification. ;)

CryptSphinx
July 27th, 2008, 10:34 AM
I prefer censorship over anarchy

Ill take Anarchy thanks :)

===shifting gears===

Honestly this entire discussion seems to have derailed itself but if i may persist in trying to dampen this fire.


Some people involved in this thread (I'm not pointing fingers)
seem to have the impression that the internet needs to conform the their set of standards/morality/ethics, and some here
understand that the goal of a lot of sites is to be as all inclusive as possible and that they are one group within many - to insist on restricting access to certain material makes for a "everyone follow my rules" kind of argument (to me)

hence my appeal for a more semantic search, the puritans can have their clean backgrounds, and the rest of us can unashamedly enjoy artistic nudes.

A ratings system on the site also would have hopefully condemned the original image with a low score, as I have previously stated, its lacking in appeal.

As it stands this in conjecture, the current state of affairs (for me)is: if I find an image I strongly disagree with (there are a great deal of misogynistic/racist/offensive images to be found all across the web) I stop looking at it.

Alex J.
July 27th, 2008, 05:49 PM
Heh. I agree, the argument has derailed a bit, but hey, for 8 pages on this, we aren't doing too badly (and I at least find it still interesting.)

I think it's interesting that most of the people who DID find it offensive also were against the censorship of it such as myself, spectrevk, itix, and others. (PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong...don't want to misconstrue comments)

But I think the whole derailment actually started in the censorship conversation. It was never about censorship from what the original poster said, it was about the general feeling of alienation that such desktops gave and often derogatory things accompanying them. I think a lot of the commentors were against even having to think of the consequences of their actions when they post such material. Not many are arguing against their complete right to post just things, just that they should be aware that a feeling of alienation from women was often the consequence, and that many of the posts weren't pro-woman to say the least. Even many of the commentors tried to dismiss the feeling of alienation by just saying that the women simply didn't appreciate and weren't comfortable with a woman's nude body.

Also:
I do enjoy artistic nudes(HUGE Dita Von Teese fan actually), but even the art world, that desktop would be called "masturbatory at best." And I as well would prefer anarchy to some Orwell-1984-lifestyle.

jmejedi
July 29th, 2008, 10:27 PM
....

I have no problems with people puting those things on their personal desktops. But I think it should be kept off tutorials and theme previews.

Heres an example of what I'm talking about: http://b.imagehost.org/0610/Ubuntu_by_Homergitude.jpg

That image is NSFW.

Absolutely agree with you! This type of image, for a tutorial, is a NO, NO!!!!!!!!

BUT.... It is most beautiful !!!!! THE FEMALE HUMAN IS THE MOST BEAUTIFUL CREATURE EVER TO EXIST !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

{ for an individuals' own personal use, this image is fine ! }

cprofitt
July 30th, 2008, 01:58 AM
I debate entering the thread... since it is usually a no win proposition.

Facts:


I do not want my kids seeing naked sexually explicit material on the web.
My kids will see that on the web
Offensive material is defined by the person who is offended... so it can be anything
The best form of censorship is the 'community' asking the person to take it down and that person agreeing to do so
The worst form of censorship is when the image / content is removed by force (though this may be necessary)

For an international forum I would think it is easy to offend... and easy to take offense. For that reason we should all try hard to neither take offense of give offense.

HappyHenry
August 15th, 2008, 08:30 AM
Really Pornography?
Ive seen more skin on most beaches.
We shouldn't ask for the beauty of our bodies to be hidden because we don't find them beautiful. That would mean its okay for us to demand that all persons remove all things we don't find beauty in. We would end up living in a great void. Not every one likes the same things and if we all must remove the things the others don't like we may have to remove our own place in there space, we lose our lives if we decide someone has the right to expect me to hind the things I think are beautiful based on the idea that they don't find the beauty in it.
So you don't see the beauty or care for the display of the beauty in the picture. Okay. But why ask for it to be moved from the space you occupy? You can change where you are looking, it is a open public space. Come and go as you please. To expect someone, that finds something beautiful enough to share, to move it, because you don't like it seems crazy to me. Would suggest that all photos be labeled? Moon, Tree, careful here if you don't like cats there may be one in this subdirectory???

As for children seeing this photo, so what?! They will see more skin than that at the supermarket checkout magazines. Why not sit down with your children and express your reasons and beliefs to them. If they accept them then you have nothing to worry about. If they do not accept them try to understand there reasoning and ...reason with them but please don't ask all of the world to catalog all the things you may experience with safe little labels to insure your senses are not offended. Thats more selfish than I think anyone could accuse the person that used someone else's photo, for his pasted logo.

As for if it is proper to have such on a tech tutorial what would you suggest? And who decides the names for the labels? We all know how we hate labels. There may be one that ends up an acronym that is offensive ethnic background. Can we make another sub directory for the directories? I want to look at a picture of , White Angora Stitched Pants but my white protestant boss may come up behind me and see the acronym and I could get fired. Maybe I could show him and explain but then he still may not be able to get over how his senses where abused and I may still get fired so please, make a subdirectory for the sub, sub sub, sub directories. but let me name them this time, so i wont get offended again.

Im sure you can see submitting to such a request would leave us all clicking and clicking through directories looking for the directory that explains the acronyms of the directories, so your senses are not offended. Does that really make reasonable, logical, common sense, to anyone?

Just don't ask.

zxscooby
August 15th, 2008, 08:46 AM
Some people want boobies on there desktop , i say more
power too them , but a NSFW or nudity tag would be helpfull
in maintaining respect. I feel it is important that censorship
is kept to a minimum on the net but as world citizens we should
be mindfull of other cultures and views.

iheartubuntu
August 15th, 2008, 09:42 AM
I do enjoy artistic nudes(HUGE Dita Von Teese fan actually), but even the art world, that desktop would be called "masturbatory at best." And I as well would prefer anarchy to some Orwell-1984-lifestyle.

Hell yah! BTW, you are beautiful. Unfortunately, 1984 is already upon us. Our Constitution in the USA has been hijacked. :(

And for all the people shocked at such photos. Its my experience that the people that claim to be one thing, are actually opposite. Example- One friend I used to have hated gay people with a passion and in fact destroyed one persons car many years ago. That hater is now gay and came out of the closet. Ha! Another example might be the priests in the Catholic church, or that child predator caught with a "worlds best dad" shirt on.

PS... did anyone provide a link to that cool wallpaper?

Bodsda
August 15th, 2008, 11:02 PM
I haven't got a problem with an NSFW tag but what i don't understand is how anyone, of any culture can take offense of a picture. They have no right to find that offensive, it is not aimed at you. The only person with a legitimate claim to being offended by the picture is the model. Everyone else needs to just except that images like this are all over the internet, media, and there's nothing wrong with it, that picture shows less that what you'd get a glimpse at at a beach.

cp1969
September 7th, 2008, 01:58 AM
All this talk of offensive screenshots...and I can't even figure out HOW to post a screenshot, offensive or not.

Sef
September 7th, 2008, 08:21 AM
All this talk of offensive screenshots...and I can't even figure out HOW to post a screenshot, offensive or not.


Post your question in Absolute Beginners. You will get an answer. This thread is about offensive screenshots, not how to post screenshots (offensive or not.)

Thank you.

cmay
September 7th, 2008, 08:39 AM
i agree 100 % with the #1 post.
tutorials should just use the official artwork.

CryptSphinx
September 7th, 2008, 09:12 AM
re happy henry - (sorry this took so long)

not proposing a hierarchal folder structure , proposing that the open board structure (in the case of gnome-look) bee kept but each image/bwindow decoration/whathaveyou be tagged with keyword tags (like they are now) with the advanced search having a simple checkbox option to 'omit' or 'include' specific tags - subfolders of subfolders would be too much work to cater to too few people and not what i was proposing at all.

sorry for the misunderstanding but I didn't want to overelaborate in the previous post.

Even at that its meerly a proposal that would cater to me = "offensive , whats that again ?" and my syrian muslim neighbours "why are there naked women on a computer site!"
a solution that doest exclude anyone - that's the whole ubuntu ideal

K?

:)

Starring_Emma
September 13th, 2008, 12:56 PM
oh come on do you really think this is offensive? it's just a picture of a woman's body, nothing denigrating or sexist...

I agree. I'm rarely ever offended by anything I come across online... it's just the internet.

Oplix
September 24th, 2008, 11:48 PM
Just happened to stumble on this thread, and it's an interesting issue.

Obviously we're never going to settle on guidelines or limits we can all be happy with morally.

I think the first thing that should be pointed out is that barely covered nudity is already on mainstream tv during prime-time hours. Minors are being exposed to it in magazines, billboards, tv shows, commercials, etc. It's not like a kid's going to see his first bare boob or bottom. Odds are he'll see another one somewhere within 24 hours.

Completely exposed nudity has a bit of a thinner line. What I call "art", you might call "porn" and vice-versa. And even then, I think we can also agree that there is mature art which, while not excessively violent or pornographic, depicts the image in a manner which may be misinterpreted by younger audiences. While adults may be able to see the artistic message in an image, kids generally aren't as aware of these things.

The fact is, you are right, these screenshots are being posted for support, not to show off. These screenshots are being posted in a support community, not a tightly knit community of friends and associates. Support forums are not intended to display pornography, or art for that matter.

It's not a question of personal taste, or ethics, or morality. It's a question of RESPONSIBILITY. Each screenshot that's posted in these support forums contributes in some minor way to the image and environment of our community. Do we want to look like a bunch of amateur friends helping each other? Or do we actually want to look like a support community?

Showing your wallpaper is perfectly acceptible in a social community where people engage in frequent casual conversation, and where people may be encouraged to upload their own wallpapers to comment and compare. However, in a support community, it serves no purpose.

The responsible decision is to just not show a wallpaper. You're not posting the image to show off your wallpaper, so why include it in the first place? It's not necessary, it's not practical, it's not needed, and as we can see, there's a potential to cause controversy.

Since we are not a community geared towards social or political commentary, we have no reason to provoke controversy.

Perhaps an alternate screenshot button would be useful? If one doesn't exist already. This screenshot would work much the same as the traditional one, except it would temporarily set a white background to the wallpaper just to capture the image.

It would help make screenshots look cleaner. But most importantly it would state that "we take this community seriously, we give our support with a serious and professional mentality". Ubuntu prides itself in being FOR people, not BY people, so why should support posts reflect that person's personality? Ubuntu is a system designed to be for all people. If we are for all people, we should take the goal to avoid discouraging or offending people.

Since we can never find a perfect balance of morals for everybody, the moral conflict has no place in this community and only hurts the goal which Ubuntu works towards.

It's not a question of what you like or don't like, it's a question of how we can cater to everybody without ignoring anyone. Your morals and values are worthless in this. All that matters is that the controversial subject is put to rest by a solution which we can all live with, and which doesn't limit anyone in their freedom. You may have a right to free speech or freedom of expression, but you do not have the right to provoke a disturbance of the peace. Rather than allowing this to become an ongoing debate, simply nip the problem in the bud.

davidryder
October 4th, 2008, 12:34 PM
I would like more links to offensive material to definitively make a judgement.

computakid
October 11th, 2008, 05:00 PM
I'm a 9-year-old with ubuntu and fedora on my own laptop. Sorta disturbing. u wood NEVER c me put that on my desktop!!!

HappyHenry
October 13th, 2008, 11:03 PM
....

Since we can never find a perfect balance of morals for everybody, the moral conflict has no place in this community and only hurts the goal which Ubuntu works towards.

It's not a question of what you like or don't like, it's a question of how we can cater to everybody without ignoring anyone. Your morals and values are worthless in this. All that matters is that the controversial subject is put to rest by a solution which we can all live with, and which doesn't limit anyone in their freedom.

Very well said!
I, however find fault in the oxymoron of, "...we can never find balance for everyone and.... cater to everybody." It can not be done. Either one statement is true or the other. We would become insane to believe both are possible. The argument of there being a way of offending some has been well stated in many different ways. The argument that we could some how cater to everyone with a simple blank wall paper is not true.

I would find it offensive. One of the great things with any modification of the O.S. is inherent in example. The person displaying his/her, instructional post has the right to exemplify truthfully his modifications. To ask the person to take extra steps to insure, "no one is offended." is insane, someone can and will find fault with anything publicly displayed. Abraham Lincoln said it well in, " You can make some of the people happy, all of the time but, you can not make all the people, happy all the time.

So then the argument to solve is, "how can we make MOST of the people happy." Sorry to burst the prudish bubble of some but the common population does appreciate the human form in all its nudity and glory. Before you logically try to deny that, and drive yourself crazy, ask yourself, would the Sistine Chapel be seen as the monument of art it is, if the majority of society really was offended by nudity? I think the history and contemporary art both prove, humans like each others beauty.

The idea that we can somehow form decisions that are separate from any moral influence is denial of reality. All logic, and reasoning, is based on right and wrong. The, "greatest," scientific minds twist and turn and yes even change on the choice of what is right and wrong. We once thought space travel was impossible. Only to be proven wrong by later scientific facts. We have done what was once called, wrong. Wrong and right are not totally subjective but are strictly perceived by humans that are subject to the knowledge they have available. There is absolute right and wrong but us being subject to the limits of our knowledge are only able to subjectively perceive our personal realization of what we call right and wrong. So please, don't tell me your realization is fact and mine is in error. It is fair to say we are both in a position of possibly being wrong to some degree since we are both limited by our own knowledge and perception.

There is the truth we all can accept, nudity is something we are born with. Why do we decide that is wrong? I think our choice to cover the way we come into the world as wrong.

The real battle i see is in the mind of the viewer. I have NEVER met a child that thought nudity was some how "wrong" or its mothers breast was obscene UNTIL society taught the child to think such thoughts. I came out of my mothers, vag*^$, sucked on her breasts, yet I cant photograph its beauty without some insane person screaming they are offended where they came from or where there lifes milk came from! That's is CRAZY!!!!!

No you aren't offended by where you came from. I think you are offended by the thought of the connection and where that line of thought leads. If I am connected I am part of a whole and in being such am in some way responsible to the whole. As much as a foot is responsible to the ankle, leg and whole body.You are afraid your thoughts may hurt the whole or not coincide with the purpose of the whole.Then you fear yourself, not nudity. You fear the thoughts that come to your own mind when you see the very thing you saw the first day of your life. Dont tell me it is obscene, please! You are free to express your delima. How you are confused by your emotions on such images and I think it is healthy to state such thoughts and listen to others but dont expect others to join you in the insanity. We dont ask psychiatrists to accept the patients thoughts as there own reality. Rather, we ask the patience of the doctor to accept it as the patient's reality and to draw an acceptable path to common thought so the patient can live in a world where common thought is accepted as reality. So, instead of trying to pull us into your insanity you may try to seek some path to common thought. Look at some museum works and see if you can understand why we hold nudity in such high esteem as to construct such fasinating building to house them. Or how magazine companies can sell so many copies as to allow Hugh Hefners of the world to live such extravigant lives? Or maybe the path for you is in understanding how just about any thing sold in the media uses sexual imagery. Each his own path but if you care to be on the common path you must learn to find some way of accepting the common vision. Stop thinking those "evil" thoughts that bother you so, and try to see the beauty we see.

all refrences to, "you" is not meant to refer to any person, but is, in reference to the thought of nudity as wrong.

HappyHenry
October 13th, 2008, 11:21 PM
I'm a 9-year-old with ubuntu and fedora on my own laptop. Sorta disturbing. u wood NEVER c me put that on my desktop!!!

Cleanest most truthful statement made, thank you Computakid! You have made a choice and stated your reason. Thank you! There are many more choices of things to put on your desk top. Please do share.

******Note to world******* He did not ask the other person change his vision of what he wanted on his screen but rather, stated HE himself would pick something else!!!! This is a perfect example of true society, "I am this and you are that." I wish we could live in a world of child like honesty as this. Anything more I could say would polute his perfect statement.
I think his statement should give reason this thread is, "solved.":)

k3lt01
October 14th, 2008, 01:11 PM
The real battle i see is in the mind of the viewer. I have NEVER met a child that thought nudity was some how "wrong" or its mothers breast was obscene UNTIL society taught the child to think such thoughts. I came out of my mothers, vag*^$, sucked on her breasts, yet I cant photograph its beauty without some insane person screaming they are offended where they came from or where there lifes milk came from! That's is CRAZY!!!!!The mere fact that the word naming your mothers bodily part was changed indicates that society finds this level of discussion offensive. The fact there is a 9 year old child who should be allowed to learn about these thing naturally, not with the help of absolute strangers who could very well be people we would want to keep our kids away from anyway, should indicate to all concerned that there are limits to what we can post/say/describe in open company and that the innocence of people in forums like this should be respected


No you aren't offended by where you came from. I think you are offended by the thought of the connection and where that line of thought leads. If I am connected I am part of a whole and in being such am in some way responsible to the whole. As much as a foot is responsible to the ankle, leg and whole body.You are afraid your thoughts may hurt the whole or not coincide with the purpose of the whole.Then you fear yourself, not nudity. You fear the thoughts that come to your own mind when you see the very thing you saw the first day of your life. Dont tell me it is obscene, please! You are free to express your delima. How you are confused by your emotions on such images and I think it is healthy to state such thoughts and listen to others but dont expect others to join you in the insanity. We dont ask psychiatrists to accept the patients thoughts as there own reality. Rather, we ask the patience of the doctor to accept it as the patient's reality and to draw an acceptable path to common thought so the patient can live in a world where common thought is accepted as reality. So, instead of trying to pull us into your insanity you may try to seek some path to common thought. Look at some museum works and see if you can understand why we hold nudity in such high esteem as to construct such fasinating building to house them. Or how magazine companies can sell so many copies as to allow Hugh Hefners of the world to live such extravigant lives? Or maybe the path for you is in understanding how just about any thing sold in the media uses sexual imagery. Each his own path but if you care to be on the common path you must learn to find some way of accepting the common vision. Stop thinking those "evil" thoughts that bother you so, and try to see the beauty we see. With all due respect why are you pycho-analysing people when the part I put in bold/italics/underlined clearly indicates that you as part of a whole should be respectful of other parts of that whole. Are you not a member of this community? If you are then don't you think you are responsible to the community for your very own wording?

Instead of pulling everyone else into your world maybe you should allow people to express their views of reality without suggesting they are insane.

I take you back to our 9 year old friend who posted above. Do you not feel a sense of duty to accept their feelings and not describe them as "evil" thoughts. Society is teaching kids, well we do in Australia, to be wary of people who thrust their overtly sexual thoughts into their life experiences. It is not because we are having "evil thoughts" but because we feel its better to preserve some level of childhood or innocence for the younger ones among us and respect the feelings of the those of us who are older yet feel uncomfortable about overt displays whether pictorial or descriptive.

I would make one last comment about the evil thoughts statement you made. If you believe this so strongly I would assume you are not at all embarrassed at the thought of going about your daily life without any covering. After all the human body is a thing of beauty so I am sure you would be willing to display your own beauty at every opportunity to your colleagues, your family and friends, the local constabulary! I am sure your countries finest would love to see you do an air guitar rendition in nothing but your finest attire which you were born wearing :guitar:

Have a good day :lolflag:

MyNameIsDerek85
October 15th, 2008, 04:10 AM
I'm sorry, but I have to agree with the original OP and I'm not even going to begin stating my opinions on society as some of you have clearly done.

Apple, Nintendo and other successful companies have a strong stance against anything that is not family orientated. Ubuntu, however, is community driven. So, technically, we are ALL the CEO's of Ubuntu. Which means that we are all responsible for the success and failures of the distribution. As a communtiy, we must all come together and keep the distribution safe for the family. Otherwise, that's only one more thing the corporate competition has on us, right?

So, let's keep Ubuntu family orientated and keep our sexual desires on a private desktop for our eyes only.

zmjjmz
October 15th, 2008, 04:22 AM
Hey, it happens a lot, really. I've seen it on WindowMaker themes (seriously, WindowMaker themes. And they aren't good themes either. The icon/window skin is just a resized/cropped version of the wallpaper, and is spam like in nature, yet I had no clue that spammers would be even remotely interested in WindowMaker themes.)
It's probably due to the major demographic of Linux users (i.e., males. No offense to any female Linux users, but you're just not the majority). I bet there will be quite a few perverts out there, and even people who would have naked women on their desktop (which I would never do because when someone sees my computer they'd instantly lose respect for me).

k3lt01
October 15th, 2008, 04:40 AM
and even people who would have naked women on their desktop (which I would never do because when someone sees my computer they'd instantly lose respect for me).This is personal choice and thus should be left as such. However, just because someone has a picture that is beyond the bounds of "societies public values" doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to share it with others, what it does mean that the others it is shared with should be willing participants (I am not talking about illegal activity either). This simply means there is a time and place for such things, and in my opinion places like Ubuntu forums and GnomeArt etc are not the type of places that this material should be displayed. It is obvious this is a "family" oriented site and because of this children visit here and they should not be subject to un-Ubuntu type material.

HornedOne
October 20th, 2008, 06:21 PM
For better or worse, we're all going to have our own thoughts regarding what is and is not appropriate on a forum or on one's own computer.

I, personally, have no issue whatsoever with nude pics of men or women. It is simply an aspect of nature, and that's it. The meaning you attach to the picture is on you. That said, I do not use pictures of scantily clad pictures of men or women on my desktop, because it doesn't appeal to me. However, I'm not going to tell someone else what they can do on their home PC.

That said, we should just stick with warning people when the site isn't safe for work, and if a kid is coming on a forum, its up to his or her parents to know what the kid is up to. Basically, its not my job to watch -your- kid. And no, I am not typing this out to try to flame any of those involved in this thread. Good thought from all, but, realistically, I doubt we will ever agree.

k3lt01
October 21st, 2008, 07:12 AM
That said, we should just stick with warning people when the site isn't safe for work, and if a kid is coming on a forum, its up to his or her parents to know what the kid is up to. Basically, its not my job to watch -your- kid. And no, I am not typing this out to try to flame any of those involved in this thread. Good thought from all, but, realistically, I doubt we will ever agree.I'm just wondering why a Respect orientated website should have to warn people that its content isn't suitable for others?

Part of the Ubuntu Code of Conduct (http://www.ubuntu.com/community/conduct)

Be respectful. The Ubuntu community and its members treat one another with respect. Everyone can make a valuable contribution to Ubuntu. We may not always agree, but disagreement is no excuse for poor behaviour and poor manners. We might all experience some frustration now and then, but we cannot allow that frustration to turn into a personal attack. It's important to remember that a community where people feel uncomfortable or threatened is not a productive one. We expect members of the Ubuntu community to be respectful when dealing with other contributors as well as with people outside the Ubuntu project, and with users of Ubuntu.Now considering the Ubuntu Community, at least, is supposed to be inclusive and not exclusive, shouldn't certain things be kept out of it. After all we do have children here, and children regardless of what their parents want will wander and look around.

HappyHenry
November 1st, 2008, 05:41 AM
INSANE OR NOT...
My use of the word, insane, is proper in its context.

I accept responsibility for my writing and apologize for any misdirection in logic. I reiterate, as stated in my closing line of the previous post, my statements are directed to the ideas and not an individual. You may choose to take them personally, in the sense that an idea in nature is formed by a person. Your choice, as to what ideas you agree with or not, is your responsibility. It seems I may have offended some persons and my logic and use of terms is in question.
To discuss this, it is apparent, we need a common definition of terms used.

Pornography: the UK is the Obscene Publications Act 1959 [OPA]. This defines an obscene article as one ‘tending to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant
circumstances, to read, see or hear the material embodied in it’. ...

Obscene: is a term that is most often used in a legal context to describe expressions (words, images, actions) that offend the prevalent sexual morality of the time.

Despite its long formal and informal use with a sexual connotation, the word still retains the meanings of "inspiring disgust" and even "inauspicious; ill-omened", as in such uses as "obscene profits", "the obscenity of war", etc. It can simply be used to mean profanity, or it can mean anything that is taboo, indecent, abhorrent, or disgusting.
The definition of obscenity differs from culture to culture, between communities within a single culture, and also between individuals within those communities. Many cultures have produced laws to define what is considered to be obscene, and censorship is often used to try to suppress or control materials that are obscene under these definitions: usually including, but not limited to, pornographic material. As such censorship restricts freedom of expression, crafting a legal definition of obscenity presents a civil liberties issue.

Wallpaper: Image or graphic on computer screen, when all programs are closed.
*I searched for a half hour, trying to find a common definition as to the purpose of Wallpaper. I could not associate a repeating trend. I purpose that the option and action of changing the image is, for expression of what a person considers the purpose of said space. Some see a blank wall as such and see no reason to change it. Others may see the blank space as a opportunity apply an image or graphic of there choice.

Insanity; Traditionally, insanity or madness is the behavior whereby a person flouts societal norms and may become a danger to himself and others.

Flout: An insult (also called putdown) is an expression, statement or behavior that is considered degrading. Insults may be intentional or accidental. An example of the latter is a well-intended simple explanation, which in fact is superfluous, but is given due to underestimating intelligence or knowledge of the other. This practice is also called flouting.

Law: is a system of rules, enforced through a set of institutions, used as an instrument to underpin civil obedience, politics, economics and society. Law serves as the foremost social mediator in relations between people. Writing in 350*BC, the Greek philosopher Aristotle declared, "The rule of law is better than the rule of any individual."

My statements was that the idea of nudity being an abnormal or an insult to society is insane.

My reasoning is;
Nakedness it is not abnormal in any society. We are all born naked and are unashamed by that state of being until, we are taught to be ashamed. Any one that has raised a child has witnessed how children have no concern for nakedness. We teach children to cover there bodies with clothes.
We spend much of our time naked, showering, bathing, changing clothes and engaging in other activities. Nakedness is a reality of our being. To deny that fact is, to flout the societal norm, insane.

Societal norm, would need definition and application to, the graphic in question. Is the graphic a normal publication? Every graphic, unless a direct copy, is not norm. It has unique qualities that allow us to define it as an individual form. In that sense, all uniqueness would be offensive and pornographic. The normal human mind seeks to define and classify all stimulus. To learn we must seek uniqueness. Uniqueness is not pornographic or an insult to societal norms, rather, it is required for individuals and society to learn.
The only way the graphic can then be defined as pornographic is if it is offensive to normal in the society of question. We are dealing with the, World Wide Web here. What is normal in regards to the graphic representation of the subject is in question? A WWW search of any of the words; female, nude, art, wallpaper I find many like graphics. I think any honest person will admit the same. It is normal to the society of the World Wide Web and therefor sane and acceptable to that society. If you differ from this societies standards then, within this society, you are insane, by definition of the word.
The choice then becomes, do you want to be part of the society that you find offensive? That is a choice. You may want to change the normal of the society. You may want to reconsider why you considered it offensive. If you desire to change it, I ask, will that change best happen by confining free expressions of others? If that is true the change may include the restriction of your ability to express yourself. In that case, the very actions of you, in society, allows you to be removed from the society. It is not normal to work within society in hope of improving it and thereby remove any effect you have on that society. If not insane, at the very least, it should be recognized as an oxymoron.
I propose the best way to change a society is not by denial of others expressions but by enriching others with our own expressions. So you are offended by the nudity used in this way. Feel free to express your view but to improve said society, add to it, what you consider reasonable alternatives. Show what you like. To ask a member of society to withdraw the freedom of expression is to deny you the very action in asking for such a change. Voice what you will but don't ask for another person to be denied the very same. Be your honest self and allow others to be honest about themselves.
If your view of Society is not WWW but only as it applies to the Ubuntu forums as a society then, I think the same applies. Do you want all freedom of expression striped from the forums. Do you really want to demand that others moderate, classify and associate for you? If you give that responsibility to others you give up your freedom of choice and it becomes there choice. You give up, by your demands, the influence in that society of your truthful expression and yourself in that society. To deny you a place in that society would degrade the whole by at least your honest voice and that is, as stated by definition, a pornographic demand. You become the very thing you fight against.
Again a child's simple honest words resound with truth, That is your choice, I don't like it. I will make another choice. He didn't ask that person to leave our society. Or ask someone else take there right to truthful expression away from them. I like to think every person, even if I disagree with them, adds value to society. I find it, by the very nature, use, and definition of the words, offensive, pornographic and insane, to ask a member of society to deny there truthful representation of there opinion.
Seeing value in the difference is not the same as agreeing to the others view. In answer to the flouting statement direct at me, “running around..air guitar..,” no, I don't run around filming myself nude playing the air guitar because, I do not see a beauty in it that would lead me to share it with the rest of the world. LOL I don't think I would even like seeing that, LOL! I don't have this persons graphic on my computer either, nor will I in the future. The colors, lighting and composition are offensive to me but hey, each to there own likes. Ill move on, like a child, and pick something I like. If I want to go through the tutorial but am offended by the art, move on. He isn't the only person with this knowledge. It can be learned from another. To ask him to leave or be moderated would work against the very idea of open free expression. If I was so deeply offended by it, and thought the tutorial was valuable in itself, I would make another tutorial with what I honestly thought the wallpaper should be. I really don't care about the tutorial or the graphic in or of themselves. I do care about the honest representation of self.

Protecting the innocents of children?

Innocence : A term used to indicate a state of moral purity or general lack of guilt, with respect to any kind of crime, sin, or wrongdoing.

I assume, by your statements, you feel this graphic has some criminal element to it that my lead to the decay of moral purity or a lack of guilt within the child. If this is your case, I would agree with you partly. It may lead to a lack of guilt within the child. He may not feel guilty that he finds the human form interesting. That is Because, someone else has honestly demonstrated an appreciation for the same. Most humans do, you know?. That's why there are children. That's is the truth about where children came from. No storks flew our babies into our lives.(not intended to be superfluous but directed at the illogic in denial of a common human activities and likes.)
I would disagree that this graphic does not fit the application of the word innocence. No kind of crime, sin, or wrongdoing is inherent in the image itself. My support in this are as stated above. No law was broken. No crime committed, no sin of wrongdoing in the application of the society that in lay. You can not break a law where there is no law. There is no crime where there is no law. There can be no punishment of disobedience if there is no law. There is no wrongdoing where there is no right defined. The internet is not my, or your countries, society. It is a society governed by all of us without a formal law by a central governing body. See the above statements for discussion on the inherent flaw, if we accept a governing body to govern our representation of ourselves. With the exception of individual countries censorship, the WWW is an anarchy. This seems to be working quite well for and by the people who define the role it plays in our lives, without relinquishing the freedom to a central governing body. Yet still, we are faced with the definition of moral and wrongdoing. But simply, it still boils down to, “ do we want a central governing body to tell us what is moral or right and wrong for us,” or, “do we want to retain that choice in ourselves?” A person that would expect any web sight to be able to protect there children from any “wrongdoing “ surrenders there own right to protect that child as they see fit and have given it to the parties that populate and govern that web sight. Expecting, by demand, a web sight adhere to my individual vision of moral right and wrong is not only placing an impossible task upon them but leads me into a false trust in that ability. Net hackers far out number security agents. The proof is in the viruses we all fear, (for good reason.) Would you turn your nine year old loose to travel to any culture they wanted and experience whatever is offered in that culture? Then why do parents set there children loose on the WWW? It is irresponsible to ask some strangers to accept the responsibility of adhering to the diverse individual standards set for all children by billions of parents. We should cherish our right to influence our own child and not relinquish it to some foreign body, trusting they have your child's best interest at the center of there choice in how they govern there own web sight. I think it logical to realize any business must have there full markets interest at the center of there choices in order to continue serving there full markets. If there markets demand truthful representation of the person and there market is the world, I think it logical to expect some nudity. I find nudity in my shower each day, why would I think turning my kid loose to enter anyones domain would produce anything different. Thats insane, by definition, not subjective psychological analysis.
So, instead of denying it, hiding it from the children. I will insist my children learn to express themselves honestly and expect the same opportunity be extended to the people they meet. In this, I also feel a responsibility, as a parent, to discussion with them for helping them to arrive at moral choices they can defend with reason. I feel it is also logical to ask that parents or guardians of children insure the children grow to form and defend there own moral values as well as defend the rights of others to do the same. This is the only sane path I see to preserving any avenue to honest personal representation. Again, by definition, it is insane to argue in voicing a point that the very avenue exercised should be striped of persons voicing honest personal content. The right to truthful representation you ask to be striped away or governed by others is, the right you're applying in your voice to the society. It's my hope everyone is comfortable enough with themselves to be able to honestly express themselves and in so doing allow others to do the same, with out shame in a normal environment. You can't get more normal than the WWW. Once again, not a personal subjective opinion but by definition. Normal; In behavior, normal refers to a lack of significant deviation from the average. The WWW is the largest body of people, far out numbering your country or mine and therefor a larger average of personal views than any one country's common view of normal. Normal, sane, by definition is what the WWW is, by average, on the whole, in definition of the word itself.

We don't have to continue revisiting the image or discussion about what some may claim are offensive. I know I have better things to do. I only thought it my responsibility, as a member of this community, to voice a honest, logical, defined argument on the subject of censorship of truth in common thought. The posting person honestly stated his computer screen. The content of the image was not contrary to common content of the society it is in. Like images and images showing much more of the human body are prevalent in the society of the WWW and therefor by definition, sane. Any thought or statement contrary to the common truth is, by definition, not subjective personal opinion, insane. I trust in truth and the contribution honest voices make to the whole as a WWW society. This is my last entry on this subject. I think the nine year old said it best, just move on and see some things you like. I will add, if you still find it so offensive, why not make a like tutorial with a different wallpaper and post a link, for the benefit of all. Make it a better place by addition of your view because you will not make it a better place by denying the ability to honest representation of individuals but will in affect deny yourself to voice such an opinion. Just like the code of conduct states, INcluesive. Does anyone else see the illogic of the statement, "...Now considering the Ubuntu Community, at least, is supposed to be inclusive and not exclusive, shouldn't certain things be kept out of it." That is a blatant oxymoron, completely illogical, lacking sanity. We must adhere to clear logical reasoning in order to classify associate and learn there by being inclusive, understanding...Ubuntu.
Oh, and for the record, the word vag$%* was not censored by anyone other than myself. It appears as originally written by me. It was not changed by a censorship board and does not prove anything accept that it is my honest view and I accept that responsibility as my own. I made the choice to replace some letters with other characters, because I understood some people may be offended by the graphic nature of the word. Some people don't care and you can not make them care by applying laws that limit all of our representations of self. You will only give them a law to break, if they don't care. Enrich the experience by contributing your honest representation of self and the norm will be what we all honestly want it to be. In this lay hope. May everyones honest voice always have the same concern for others voices as it is allowed to have. Tell a person, there voice has no value and that they must conform to your voice, they may conform, if punished enough. Then, being conformed to your voice, they will, just as you did to them, see no value in your voice. And the world falls silent.

k3lt01
November 1st, 2008, 06:55 AM
My goodness that was a long read. Henry, you most certainly have a way with words. I congratulate you on this last post. It has been a very long time since I have read such a well though out post full of an individuals personal perception. Now I will tell you how I disagree with it.

I thought about answering each part after putting it in a quote box, but have since thought that would just be a waste of time. Instead I will point out a few very simple things to you.

The innocents of children is paramount to me. I work with them everyday and I see the effects of society's, global society's. on them. Whether or not you find the public viewing of the naked human body, or any part thereof, a good or bad thing for yourself doesn't mean you are correct for everyone else. The simple fact is normalising something doesn't make it right. By your logic if the public display of nudity is ok on the internet then it is ok everywhere else. I don't agree with that thought.

Your use of Google, or what ever you used, to find the definitions is commendable. However, regardless of what your definitions state there are people who find such things offensive and that does not make them insane. Yes you posted these words but the context of them could be taken in many different ways.

Insanity does not mean someone is flouting societies norms. Insanity more often than not means the person is incapable of proper mental processes. Flouting societies laws is something completely different.

Your choice to write the word you used in a format other than its correct form you have shown indicates to you that there are some things that don't need to be in public discussion because people may take offence at its graphic nature. That is where you lose your argument. Pictures are graphics, so if a word that is graphic in nature can be considered to offend then a picture that can be considered to offend has no place in such a place like this.

I don't subscribe to the idea that rules limit what we can do, instead I subscribe to the idea that rules open things up for discussion and if appropriate the rules are modified to suit the situation. If you consider rules to be restrictive then I would ask you to consider how people feel when the actions of others make them feel uncomfortable.

I point you back to the Ubuntu forum guidelines, you can argue what being offensive is with the mods.

doublepedaldylan
April 26th, 2009, 06:57 AM
To all who are saying they are offended by this, I must disagree as well.

I actually believe this was VERY tastefully done. Do you know how much nude art there is?
I actually follow that kind of stuff closely. The human body is a beautiful thing and the "omg, nudity!!!" mentality is so middle-school.

(NSFW if you actually follow the links, AND create an account)
http://www.deviantart.com/
the have a section under photography>people for artistic nudes. IF you are of age, i would suggest checking it out. (IF OF AGE)

If I am correct, I don't think you are allowed to sign up for an account on ANY site if you are under 13. And if a minor is looking for that kind of stuff, I doubt they would be on the ubuntu forums :)

I agree, it is questionable as to whether the person SHOULD have posted, but defiantly should have used an NSFW, but it should NOT be offensive. There is a LOT worse out there, and this was done QUITE tastefully.

lisati
April 26th, 2009, 07:00 AM
I've come across more than one screenshot that I've actually found offensive.

Like, when I'm browsing gnome-look or following a screenshot install guide...The desktop backgrounds in the shots will have naked or masterbating women or even comics with derogatory jokes. Is anyone else bothered by this?

I have no problems with people puting those things on their personal desktops. But I think it should be kept off tutorials and theme previews.

Heres an example of what I'm talking about: http://b.imagehost.org/0610/Ubuntu_by_Homergitude.jpg

That image is NSFW.

:) Curiosity got me looking. Please excuse me while I have a cold shower and give myself a severe telling off.

BTW: I think you have a point: while people are free to choose what they do with their own machines, the image isn't exactly appropriate for tutorials.

elizabeth
April 27th, 2009, 12:15 AM
I think this discussion has been a good one, clearly there are some valid disagreements and good discussion, but...


The human body is a beautiful thing and the "omg, nudity!!!" mentality is so middle-school.

...don't you think it's a bit morally presumptuous of you to dictate what people should be offended by, and then call a mentality[0] "middle-school" when they disagree with you?

I'd appreciate it if we could keep this discussion on the side of not restoring to name-calling and telling people how they should feel, please have some respect for what other people find offensive and objectionable.

[0] I don't know who said "omg, nudity!!!" I think the OP was quite mature and clear with her objection.

k3lt01
April 27th, 2009, 11:12 AM
...don't you think it's a bit morally presumptuous of you to dictate what people should be offended by, and then call a mentality[0] "middle-school" when they disagree with you? There are always two sides to every discussion, unless of course you live in a dictatorship, and in this discussion we have had the 1 "I find this offensive" and the 2 "if you find it offensive thats your problem" or the "if you find this offensive your (insert any particular social insult here you desire)" sides.

People who find nudity offensive in such places are not socially inept, despite what some people may think. For these people to suggest such a thing takes away a basic human right of respect.

What is "tasteful" to some is a problem to others. This discussion could have a political or religious topic instead of a nudity one and the same thing would happen, you would have the people who wish to discuss and find a way forward and you will have the people who are bent on forcing their thoughts and moral processes (morality being a socially based construct) on others. Neither side holds the moral sway or high ground yet there is always one side who resorts to put downs indicating they are correct and anything outside their world view is therefor wrong. When it gets to that point the discussion is, unfortunately, hijacked and feelings of superiority take over.

RoboNuggie
April 30th, 2009, 10:26 AM
A storm in a tea cup.....

Simple solution, as alluded to by the OP, official or tutorial screenshots should feature official branding, personal screenshots should feature anything they want as along as it doesn't show or encourage illegal behaviour.

If by looking at personal screenshots you may be offended then either stop looking at personal screenshots or perhaps realise that there are more important things in life and more horrific acts in this world than a semi-nude wallpaper.

If you are offended by the semi naked shot, are you offended by
Michelangelos David? Or the imagery on the Sistine Chapel?

Is a nudy mag offensive? If so, are the Chippendales offensive also? What about Un Vent de Folie (Paris, 1927) featuring Josephine Baker in a banana costume?

Does je't aime by Jane Birkin & Serge Gainsbourg offend you? How about Relax by Frankie Goes To Hollywood?

The thing is, all these things are part of our culture,they celebrate humanity, sex and the body...albeit for different reasons.

I don't understand the outcry over imagery of the body or nudity per se, but little or no outcry over war symbolism, war films or rock groups/rap stars advocating violence and horror.

I am English, and very much a European, so perhaps my views are liberal....

gregbzh
May 1st, 2009, 08:24 PM
Well put. I agree totally. I'm a Kiwi living in France and think that you've hit the nail on the head.

Cheers.

k3lt01
May 1st, 2009, 11:38 PM
Well put. I agree totally. I'm a Kiwi living in France and think that you've hit the nail on the head.

Cheers.LOL, aren't you just the outsider then. Although your profile says your in Brittany and the Bretons have a separate identity to the French.

Now to the next problem, the term Liberal has very different meanings in different places and in different contexts.

Methinks we also need to remember the OP was written buy a female who finds female nudity displayed in such a way offensive. To bring in things like Michaelangelo etc brings in very different contexts, disagree all you like but it is a fact that a few of the things mentioned as pot shots against the "offensive group" have deeply religious and not personal gratification contexts. Also think about how many of the so called "Liberals" commenting here are male. I wonder how many of you would be comfortable in a board meeting having a picture of a naked male, and not off the roof of a church either, on their laptop for their bosses to see?

wsonar
May 1st, 2009, 11:43 PM
Didn't read through the thread have seen a lot of it on gnome-look

some I find amusing some maybe shouldn't be there

not sure how moderated it is

tho it could be hard to discriminate and if someone wants to share something they should have a place for it

but some people do a pretty bad job of putting a ubuntu logo on a naked chick

sorry if term "chick" offends anyone

RoboNuggie
May 2nd, 2009, 03:31 PM
k3lt01

Just out of curiosity,do you believe that the idolisation of nudity is a purely male preserve?

k3lt01
May 3rd, 2009, 04:23 AM
No I don't RoboNuggie. There are many instances throughout history and in many different cultures that indicate its not a male only domain.

I just made my point knowing there are people who haven't read this entire thread and also knowing that guys are often the loudest, as is happening in this thread, when others make comment about such topics.

Rival9999999999
May 8th, 2009, 08:05 PM
I still can't find this wall paper. It would be nice to have.

meela
May 20th, 2009, 03:42 AM
Not a lot of nude images offend me these days. I do find it puzzling why someone would put a naked person in their screenshot for icons, or a desktop theme. It seems to say "use my theme and cartoon women will think you are hot", which is (to my mind) indicative of the poor thought process that is going on behind the screenshot.

However, I think that the Ubuntu community owes Meskarune, and everyone else out there, the right not to be confronted by images and opinons that make them feel bad.

Would it be great if we all started using black people being lynched as backgrounds in screenshots? No - because it offends lots of people. Would it be good if we showed guys in yamulkes eating bacon in screenshots? No - because it would offend jewish people. Would it be good to use pictures of redneck white people being morons (I dunno, fathering their own sisters or something)? No - it would make those people feel angry, bad, degraded and not welcomed.

Meskarune's post is about feeling welcomed by the community, and not alienated by pictures s/he may find off putting.

The community owes it to members to be welcoming.

k3lt01
May 20th, 2009, 09:27 AM
Meela, your post is brilliant.

P.S. Welcome :D

WatchingThePain
May 20th, 2009, 09:44 AM
I've seen 'worse' than that at the Tate Gallery.
Some people might find that offensive. In some countries they would black images like that out.
Who would want that on their desktop anyway, people will think your a perv. what happens when your Gran visits?.
I don't get the link between Ubuntu and semi nude women.
It's like when Cars get advertised they drape a non-essential bleached blonde Bimbo over the bonnet like it's essential.
I just hope the car gets washed before someone buys it.

t.rei
May 20th, 2009, 09:45 AM
a) Everyone may customize their Desktop as they please.
b) Sex is natural
c) Good looking women showing off their body is totally ok.

So, as long as no law is broken:
Remember: There are countries were makeup is bad, and there are some where public nudity is fully accepted.

It's a matter of taste. Internet being rather global, you might find things you don't like.

glotz
May 20th, 2009, 11:52 AM
What this thread needs is more pictures and less talk. ;)

Lupi
May 21st, 2009, 07:59 AM
a) Everyone may customize their Desktop as they please.
b) Sex is natural
c) Good looking women showing off their body is totally ok.

So, as long as no law is broken:
Remember: There are countries were makeup is bad, and there are some where public nudity is fully accepted.

It's a matter of taste. Internet being rather global, you might find things you don't like.

Thank you.

lisati
May 21st, 2009, 08:07 AM
I'm a Kiwi living in France
Is it "Kia jour" or "Bon ora" to say "gidday" to you?


a) Everyone may customize their Desktop as they please.
...<snip>...
Internet being rather global, you might find things you don't like.
Nicely said.

mechdave
May 21st, 2009, 09:18 AM
I suppose in the end of the day, if it is not to your taste then don't look at it (it is what you do with tv isn't it?). Put filters on your kids internet by all means, monitor their IRC chatting to make sure they are not being corrupted, but you can't go and say "I don't like this stuff please remove it" as everyone here has a freedom to express themselves as they wish providing they don't contraviene any laws. BTW great debate :)
Cheers,
Mechdave

Megrimn
July 9th, 2009, 07:45 PM
respect.

Swagman
July 9th, 2009, 08:13 PM
I don't think the image in the OP is the problem it's what impression it gives.

For example... THIS (http://www.upload3r.com/serve/050709/1246811129.jpeg) is my current backdrop.

I'm pretty sure you can grasp that I think Guy Fawkes was right although shame about the rest of the place.

Some people, probably politicians, would deem that as HIGHLY offensive. I guess the answer is to use thumbnails that represent the theme. That way you get a general idea without the high resolution and shouldn't click on the thumbnail if it looks like the main image will offend you.

ceciliaFX
July 16th, 2009, 03:53 AM
wow, that's beautiful

and the original post with nude woman is hardly "offensive"

in fact I have often used an image of a shirtless Christian Bale for a wallpaper.

WOOT!

I find censorship offensive, frankly

paks.dreamer
July 16th, 2009, 05:31 AM
I personally do not think that the OP is asking too much in asking us to consider our members' comfort, and our young members' mental and emotional safety, when browsing and learning within our community by some sort of warning before posting visual images or adult content, and I'm a little surprised so many responded with the slack "ah, it's ok, it's just a naked woman, that's not offensive, so chill" and "if you don't like it, don't look" attitude.

I agree naked women are not offensive. I agree if you don't like something you shouldn't look at it. I agree good looking, naked women are indeed "ok", that sharing is caring, and that one should customise their desktop as they wish. But if that was your response, you missed the point entirely. The OP couldn't have been clearer, either: "I have no problems with people puting those things on their personal desktops. But I think it should be kept off tutorials and theme previews."

The OP used this visual as an example of what they've seen in PUBLIC tutorials and theme previews where UNDER 18 USERS are welcome to browse & absorb and ANY USER (of any age, sexual preference, starting to get the point here?) gets the full image in their face with no warning:
NSFW-adult content: http://b.imagehost.org/0610/Ubuntu_by_Homergitude.jpg

as well as verbal examples: "naked or masterbating women", "comics with derogatory jokes".

Yet there's the first page in ignorant disagreement of her, and an entire lengthy thread to follow, discussing whether that picture was tasteful or not as if that was the bloody point, and how you'd let YOUR children at it, because it's "natural".

Are you guys serious?

Our community is a learning/sharing environment which can be commonly accessed by anyone, whether from school, a workplace, or in the home -- posting adult content with no warning is not cool.

I think the picture's gorgeous, but there's no doubt the woman's in that position for your visual pleasure. It is a sexual image. Whether you like it or not, it is something not everyone wants to look at without being told they're about to see it. On top of that, it's not about "shocking or offensive" when it comes to minors. Many kids are not shocked by the things they see; it's not the point. It's about "desensitisation before understanding" -- a visual influence before they're mature or experienced enough to comprehend the subtleties of how to interpret this image, and how they will then relate (it) to others. Besides the moral side of things that some of you have still yet to grasp, and some of you never will, giving minors access to adult content is illegal.

Such rules are already in places around forums and closed communities on the internet protecting our broad range of users, and our minors, for good reason. Here is part of the ubuntu forums TOS:

"You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-orientated material or any other material that may violate any applicable laws."

"Be respectful of all users at all times."

"Remember that the forums are used by people of all age groups and of all tolerance levels."

"Messages containing sexually oriented/violent/illegal dialogue, images, content, or links to these things will be deleted. Messages with links to or suggesting illegal activity will also be deleted. Posting or linking to any of these could result in a ban."

I believe all the OP has asked is that you extend this maturity to our open/public/free community as well, and consider it when posting or sharing content. If you absolutely must show off your sexy desktops, adult opinions, or hilarious but very wrong comics, at least post a warning to other users so they have a choice in not seeing it.

The fact that someone has had to ask for this basic human freedom on behalf of themself and the minors around here, and that people are actually arguing about it, kind of disgusts me.

theluddite
July 16th, 2009, 05:52 AM
I don't think the image in the OP is the problem it's what impression it gives.

For example... THIS (http://www.upload3r.com/serve/050709/1246811129.jpeg) is my current backdrop.

I'm pretty sure you can grasp that I think Guy Fawkes was right although shame about the rest of the place.

Some people, probably politicians, would deem that as HIGHLY offensive. I guess the answer is to use thumbnails that represent the theme. That way you get a general idea without the high resolution and shouldn't click on the thumbnail if it looks like the main image will offend you.

That is an amazing picture! Where did you get it? I doubt anyone would find it offensive since it doesn't appear to be a statement about Fawkes at all (the Thames has been drained, the parliament buildings are still largely intact and I'm pretty sure that's a car in the bottom right of the screen) but just a post-apocalyptic London cityscape.

k3lt01
July 16th, 2009, 10:57 AM
the parliament buildings are still largely intact partially collapsed, gutted etc but still largely intact!

That statement shows this thread to a "t". It's all about perception, the fact that the parliamentary precinct IS damaged indicates something is wrong. The other things could be put down to Global Warming but collapsed buildings indicate lack of maintenance and due care when it could and should be exercised.

k3lt01
July 16th, 2009, 11:00 AM
Hey paks.dreamer, careful the guys here might think your crazy posting stuff like that or ask you questions that have very little to do with the real topic.

Thanks for the thoughtful post, I was thinking I was alone in my general thoughts about topics like this since the OP hasn't posted for a long time.

Jago6060
July 17th, 2009, 03:37 PM
Ok, Before everyone reads this, understand that its purely opinion based on an undeniable fact...

I think people getting "offended" but nude/semi-nude/derogatory images or jokes is ridiculous. It just shows that we're raised to be so cautious and try to please everyone, that our own personal views get obscured beyond belief.

Now with that said, I also understand where you're coming from(thread starter). I have a daughter who is only 2 1/2 years old. Obviously I don't want her to see naked people running around on the streets or vulgar language posted on billboards. But we as a society have to understand that we're essentially in the middle of a social revolution, and have been for a good number of years. We're transitioning from a tight *** PC culture, to a more free and open one. As generation progress, norms will change and things will become evident.

k3lt01
July 17th, 2009, 10:55 PM
Ok, Before everyone reads this, understand that its purely opinion based on an undeniable fact...Hmmmm, this is a problem in itself, people telling others that facts are undeniable! The earth is flat was an undeniable fact, the earth is in the centre of the universe was an undeniable fact, I could mention many more that are all equally ludicrous and were believed as much as you believe what your saying.


I think people getting "offended" but nude/semi-nude/derogatory images or jokes is ridiculous. It just shows that we're raised to be so cautious and try to please everyone, that our own personal views get obscured beyond belief.


Now with that said, I also understand where you're coming from(thread starter). I have a daughter who is only 2 1/2 years old. Obviously I don't want her to see naked people running around on the streets or vulgar language posted on billboards. Where do you draw the line? We had a case in Australia late last year where an "artist" had an exhibition in a reasonably well known gallery that contained nothing more than Playboy style shots of an 11 year old girl. Is that acceptable behaviour? The majority of people said no yet there were people making the same statements you are making here saying times are changing so we should change with them.


But we as a society have to understand that we're essentially in the middle of a social revolution, and have been for a good number of years. We're transitioning from a tight *** PC culture, to a more free and open one. As generation progress, norms will change and things will become evident.Says who? Actually if you look at political results around the world we are not progressing from the PC culture you mention, instead we are moving back to conservatism. If this is a good or bad thing I don't know yet.

paks.dreamer
July 18th, 2009, 06:05 AM
My younger male cousins might have appreciated some censorship or warning or perhaps a curtain when, as young children, they ran ahead a few feet at an art exhibition for famous children's artist and author Norman Lindsay (The Magic Pudding) -- straight from rooms of interesting childrens' art and sculptures, into an unexpected eyeful of tasteless nudity, lewd art, and bestiality. The poor darlings copped an eyeful. Luckily my mum noticed and diverted me before I saw it. She actually explained what had happened at the time, and I was VERY appreciative that I hadn't "had to see that". My imagination had been bad (and, in retrospect, probably accurate) enough, and I found it rather horrifying and disgusting. Children may be curious but they appreciate the boundaries we set. They don't WANT to be warped, they do want things explained verbally and understood in due time, before they have to be confused visually. At least this is my, and many other childrens' (that I've known), experience. If you feel otherwise, and saw things as a child that you are now annoyed were "hidden", maybe it's because you, too, desired an explanation, instead of having to feel confused and "wrong" or punished about what you saw too young.

Let a child grow up first, adult things are a burden to their minds. Let them be easy. It might be something you desire, but it's not something they want or need yet. By all means explain things with your words, but visual without explanation is confusing.

k3lt01
July 18th, 2009, 08:19 AM
<snip>.Ah I think I do. Laws are different in other countries and I do not know where some people on this site are from. The BIG problem I have with this thread is how people assume everyone else MUST know or MUST conform to THEIR thought patterns. There is no real respect when people make statements such as you made here. I'm in this discussion because I appreciate what others think and feel, while having my OWN thoughts and feelings that do not agree with them.

I have lived in many different parts of Australia and from my experience not one state/territory agrees with the others on seemingly simple issues such as this. So how can we expect people from around the planet to agree with their own laws let alone stand by the laws of a country they don't live in?

<snip>

mal1958
July 18th, 2009, 06:02 PM
a) Everyone may customize their Desktop as they please.
b) Sex is natural
c) Good looking women showing off their body is totally ok.

So, as long as no law is broken:
Remember: There are countries were makeup is bad, and there are some where public nudity is fully accepted.

It's a matter of taste. Internet being rather global, you might find things you don't like.

A point I would like to make here is that while the Internet is a global entity, I would think that one should put a warning on the link to a screenshot that showed nudity. When my son was eight he was surfing the net looking for some pokemon pics and desktop wallpaper. He clicked on a link and got a large 1024 x 768 wallpaper popping up on his screen that was a collage of pokemon hentai. Being mildly autistic (high functioning) he was shocked and so was I when I saw there was no warning as to the type of content.

While your first and second statement are correct for all, your third is simply an opinion. It depends on where you are from. If you go to France and some other European countries, the yes a woman showing her body off is perfectly allright. But be prepared for some serious consequenses if you do the same thing in Iran, or Iraq.

My main point here is that I think that a 'tasteful' nude pic is ok, but I would also wish to see some sort of warning on the link, so that if I don't wish to see a nude shot of somebody, I can avoid it.

Bodsda
July 19th, 2009, 01:18 PM
A point I would like to make here is that while the Internet is a global entity, I would think that one should put a warning on the link to a screenshot that showed nudity. When my son was eight he was surfing the net looking for some pokemon pics and desktop wallpaper. He clicked on a link and got a large 1024 x 768 wallpaper popping up on his screen that was a collage of pokemon hentai. Being mildly autistic (high functioning) he was shocked and so was I when I saw there was no warning as to the type of content.

While your first and second statement are correct for all, your third is simply an opinion. It depends on where you are from. If you go to France and some other European countries, the yes a woman showing her body off is perfectly allright. But be prepared for some serious consequenses if you do the same thing in Iran, or Iraq.

My main point here is that I think that a 'tasteful' nude pic is ok, but I would also wish to see some sort of warning on the link, so that if I don't wish to see a nude shot of somebody, I can avoid it.

This is a slightly touchy subject for me. I can fully understand why people may want to add 'nsfw' tags to links and things, but tbh, no one is going to take any notice of them and that would lead to people blocking websites based on these tags. But as said before, something acceptable in one country is not acceptable in another. So a 'nsfw' link in Iran might be perfectly acceptable for work in England but it would be blocked because someone with a different point of view tagged it.

I think the whole world is going overboard on the whole Political Correctness rubbish. For example, my girlfriend is taking a child care college course here in England and I was mortified to learn that the famous nersery rhyme "Bah Bah Black Sheep" has been banned due to 'racism' and replaced by "Bah Bah pink sheep." I fail to see how a sheep, that appears 'Black' can be racist. By dog is black, should I be arrested for saying I have a black dog?

I dont think employers should be worried about the employees stumbling upon images that are not suitable for work. As long as it was:

a) an accident
b) Reported asap
c) navigated away from

then there is no problem in my eyes. If someone does not wish to look at something, then it is there job to turn the other way. If someone is not allowed to look at something then they should not attempt to do so, but they should not be punished if they viewed such material by accident.

Jago6060
July 20th, 2009, 03:06 AM
Hmmmm, this is a problem in itself, people telling others that facts are undeniable! The earth is flat was an undeniable fact, the earth is in the centre of the universe was an undeniable fact, I could mention many more that are all equally ludicrous and were believed as much as you believe what your saying.

Where do you draw the line? We had a case in Australia late last year where an "artist" had an exhibition in a reasonably well known gallery that contained nothing more than Playboy style shots of an 11 year old girl. Is that acceptable behaviour? The majority of people said no yet there were people making the same statements you are making here saying times are changing so we should change with them.

Says who? Actually if you look at political results around the world we are not progressing from the PC culture you mention, instead we are moving back to conservatism. If this is a good or bad thing I don't know yet.


--Something can be considered undeniable when its common sense given the current level of knowledge. The existence of God was at one point, an undeniable fact, but it was because people didn't know any better.

--I wasn't really stating where to draw the line, I was just saying things are changing and we really can't stop them, only prolong them. My generation is more liberal than my parents, and will be less liberal than my daughter's. Its just kind of a fact of life.

--To assume that culture isn't progressing shows a severe level of denial. I agree that certain aspects of society are beginning to revert, but as a whole, moving forward. A prime example of the reversion is racism. Even just in my life, I've seen tolerance of other races go completely down the drain. I know more racists now than I ever have before, and I must say, its very disturbing to see so much hatred in this age.

t.rei
July 20th, 2009, 08:45 AM
Dear Mal1958,

I understand the seriousness of presenting the contents of some sites of the internet to minors. Very many of the contents can be rather shocking and highly unsuited for children.

Stop and think about the simple phrase that the internet's combined information about politics, phantasie, news, war, suffering, porn, disgust, hate and lies is the right place to "look for pokemon pictures" and not expect to find something unpleasant.

What was that line? "If you walk though a lockerroom be prepared to see some ****." It's lame, I know, but there's some truth in it.

The internet does not contain any "child proof zone". Not even a "country proof zone" as much as china and germany and many more might want it to be. It's simply global. All the trash, all the hate, all the things you don't want to see are there. And also all the things you might want to see.

It beautifull and ugly at the same time.

A mirror to the global human interests. Those interests you wouldn't talk to your friends about. The unfiltered ugly nasty ones.

I would never even think about letting my kids just "surf the internet" until they are ready to know why and what they are looking at. And yes, that means denying they childish curiosity some freedom. :(

The internet contains material for children, but it's not a 'place' for them.

k3lt01
July 20th, 2009, 10:11 AM
--Something can be considered undeniable when its common sense given the current level of knowledge. The existence of God was at one point, an undeniable fact, but it was because people didn't know any better.I disagree, something can only be considered undeniable if there are no other theories/thoughts/ideas/assumptions to say otherwise. There will always be people who think differently to the majority. Many still say the existence of God is an undeniable fact, but we aren't allowed to discuss religion on Ubuntu forums so I shall go no further with that discussion. I also don't agree that just because people don't know any better means that everyone takes something as an undeniable fact.


--I wasn't really stating where to draw the line, I was just saying things are changing and we really can't stop them, only prolong them. My generation is more liberal than my parents, and will be less liberal than my daughter's. Its just kind of a fact of life. But I was asking you where do you draw the line? What things are changing? this discussion was originally about respecting the rights of others not to be subject to something that society still labels as adult entertainment. Do you want to be subject to something your uncomfortable with or would you prefer a little bit of warning so you can make an informed choice as to your next step?


--To assume that culture isn't progressing shows a severe level of denial. I agree that certain aspects of society are beginning to revert, but as a whole, moving forward. A prime example of the reversion is racism. Even just in my life, I've seen tolerance of other races go completely down the drain. I know more racists now than I ever have before, and I must say, its very disturbing to see so much hatred in this age.Your first statement here is just plain wrong, I did not say culture isn't progressing. Some would define progress very differently to others. I guess to some the growing lack of respect towards others is a great leap forward but I don't think this is a good thing. Be very aware reversion of cultural practices is not progress, progress is simply a change to something new that enables people to feel a change for the "better". 200-300 years ago the Industrial Revolution was progress but look at the damage it has caused not only to society but to our planet as well. We have done more damage to our planet in 100 years using all the "good" things (like cars, power generation, nuclear devices of any sort, etc) our progressive culture has invented than has been done in any previous groups of equal generations or the entire Human race before this period. 10 days in October 1917, the Russian Revolution, was seen by many to be progress and many more people perceived this same event totally differently. Equally the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 was seen by many to be a new era of progress, but for 10-15 years many starved, suffered war and destitution etc because the new ways were not working.

The problem with "progress" is the term itself is very subjective.

paks.dreamer
July 20th, 2009, 10:41 AM
I would never even think about letting my kids just "surf the internet" until they are ready to know why and what they are looking at. And yes, that means denying they childish curiosity some freedom. :(

I wouldn't either, but you'd think people in an operating system community could be mature enough to respect others when they're nicely asked to (see OP), including the minors they supposedly welcome and protect in the TOS of those communities, by a simple warning.

All I see are are opinions and excuses as to why you guys are going to continue to disrespect others, and break the agreements you signed when you joined these communities. OP didn't even ask for cease adult content, they asked for a warning -- seems typing four letters for the purpose of being thoughtful/respecting others, including children, is too much for some people.

paks.dreamer
July 20th, 2009, 10:43 AM
Laws are different in other countries

That's why websites have Terms/Conditions of Use/Service. "one agrees with the terms under a written or spoken contract to behave in certain ways" = legally binding.

k3lt01
July 20th, 2009, 12:02 PM
That's why websites have Terms/Conditions of Use/Service. "one agrees with the terms under a written or spoken contract to behave in certain ways" = legally binding.Something that is legally binding under Common Law is most probably not legally binding under Sharia Law regardless of what the particular website says. You are bound by the laws of the country you are in, break Australian law while in Australia you'll get a slap on the wrist, break Sharia Law in western Pakistan eastern Afganistan your probably going to be dead or severely beaten for your little indiscretion. Break US copy right law in China or some parts of eastern Europe nothing will happen cause its not policed infact its encouraged and that is regardless of "terms of use" of any website/service anywhere around the world.

It really doesn't make any difference what a site has down when you come across it, what matters is how people interpret it. You seem to take things quite literally, which may or may not be correct, while I look at things differently. The cultural bias within the Ubuntu community appears to leans towards respect of an individual with a global setting (individual freedoms are ok but be careful of others feelings), although it is censored quite heavily, while the internet is all about the individual and how the individual can express themselves and it is not censored at all. Non-cyber reality is very different, what you do in the privacy of your own home is totally up to you but when it comes out into the open then you are censored/congratulated for your behavior/actions.

I doubt any of the people here who have stated that nudity is ok would walk around nude in public, not just in recognised nudist/naturalist areas, yet in cyber space it seems it is totally ok.

Jago6060
July 20th, 2009, 02:50 PM
I disagree, something can only be considered undeniable if there are no other theories/thoughts/ideas/assumptions to say otherwise. There will always be people who think differently to the majority. Many still say the existence of God is an undeniable fact, but we aren't allowed to discuss religion on Ubuntu forums so I shall go no further with that discussion. I also don't agree that just because people don't know any better means that everyone takes something as an undeniable fact.

But I was asking you where do you draw the line? What things are changing? this discussion was originally about respecting the rights of others not to be subject to something that society still labels as adult entertainment. Do you want to be subject to something your uncomfortable with or would you prefer a little bit of warning so you can make an informed choice as to your next step?

Your first statement here is just plain wrong, I did not say culture isn't progressing. Some would define progress very differently to others. I guess to some the growing lack of respect towards others is a great leap forward but I don't think this is a good thing. Be very aware reversion of cultural practices is not progress, progress is simply a change to something new that enables people to feel a change for the "better". 200-300 years ago the Industrial Revolution was progress but look at the damage it has caused not only to society but to our planet as well. We have done more damage to our planet in 100 years using all the "good" things (like cars, power generation, nuclear devices of any sort, etc) our progressive culture has invented than has been done in any previous groups of equal generations or the entire Human race before this period. 10 days in October 1917, the Russian Revolution, was seen by many to be progress and many more people perceived this same event totally differently. Equally the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 was seen by many to be a new era of progress, but for 10-15 years many starved, suffered war and destitution etc because the new ways were not working.

The problem with "progress" is the term itself is very subjective.


--Where to draw the line is really left up to society as a whole. If people get fed up enough with the direction in which things are moving, they'll say so, and generally things will stop there. I say "things" because as I'm sure you know, there are a million and one issues that this could apply to. Advertising is a good one. What is OK now was taboo 50 years ago.

--I understand that everything is left up to perspective. If it wasn't, you and I wouldn't be having a conversation, haha. The Holocaust is another example of what you're demonstrating: Progress to Nazis, *definitely* not progress to the jews.

--I definitely agree with your view on the industrial revolution. I'm not a super involved eco pusher, but it still pains me to know that we could've had electric cars many years ago instead of waiting until the world is on its knees, begging for help.

Wiebelhaus
July 20th, 2009, 02:56 PM
I would be offended if my children saw pictures of peoples heads being blown off by shot guns or pictures of murderous dictators smiling with blood on their hands , not of the beautiful human form.

paks.dreamer
July 21st, 2009, 05:19 AM
I would be offended if my children saw pictures of peoples heads being blown off by shot guns or pictures of murderous dictators smiling with blood on their hands , not of the beautiful human form.

In some countries they train children to blow heads off and smile with blood on their hands. Good luck getting people here here to care about that either. Cause apparently they make up their own standards based on what they think and feel, and what other people might be doing in other countries, regardless of the TOS they signed up to or the clear finality of "keeping adult content away from children".

You guys are using the excuse "some countries are more liberal than ours" -- so where in your free & easy attitudes are you respecting the minors of countries that are less liberal, or your own country's children, or the other users here who have clearly expressed their discomfort?

And the original post wasn't worried about "the beautiful human form" -- they were worried about SEXUAL content, masturbation or suggestion of it, and lewd/crude adult comics, where even an adult felt uncomfortable or annoyed being confronted with it without a warning. You guys keep saying "naked" as if that's the problem. Sure, naked is natural. Sexual content for the eyes of children is not.

k3lt01
July 21st, 2009, 09:36 AM
In some countries they train children to blow heads off and smile with blood on their hands. Good luck getting people here here to care about that either. Cause apparently they make up their own standards based on what they think and feel, and what other people might be doing in other countries, regardless of the TOS they signed up to or the clear finality of "keeping adult content away from children".Was that aimed at me?

May I suggest you read the entire thread. I wont judge people based on my standards but I will discuss anything and everything within the bounds of what we are allowed to discuss.


You guys are using the excuse "some countries are more liberal than ours" -- so where in your free & easy attitudes are you respecting the minors of countries that are less liberal, or your own country's children, or the other users here who have clearly expressed their discomfort?paks, aren't you being judgmental here?

Lets discuss your apparent penchant for quoting the TOS (called CoC "Code of Conduct" in the Ubuntu Forums) and quote parts of it myself for your benefit.


Posting to the Forums:

Section I - General Policy:

You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-orientated material or any other material that may violate any applicable laws. Doing any of these may lead to you being temporarily or permanently banned from these forums (and your service provider may also be informed).

Posts which violate any part of this Code of Conduct may be edited or moved to a special holding area called "The Jail." Posts in The Jail are only visible to staff members and the original poster.

The relevance of this is that both you and I have had posts edited but my post was edited because I quoted you, so please don't judge others for their points of view while you yourself have broken the TOS you so eloquently refer to often.


And the original post wasn't worried about "the beautiful human form" -- they were worried about SEXUAL content, masturbation or suggestion of it, and lewd/crude adult comics, where even an adult felt uncomfortable or annoyed being confronted with it without a warning. You guys keep saying "naked" as if that's the problem. Sure, naked is natural. Sexual content for the eyes of children is not.Farting is natural to but most people turn their noses if someone else does it :P.

Little Bit
July 21st, 2009, 01:24 PM
I'm not prudish when it comes to "the beautiful form" of the human body, but there are more appropriate places to celebrate that kind of beauty than in forums frequented by little kids. That is true no matter where you live.

Defending the "right" to post images that are inappropriate for kids without even the courtesy of a warning (sexual content, violence, whatever) is just inconsiderate and rude. It forces people to miss out on lots of good stuff in order to avoid the risk of having their kids exposed to objectionable content. They shouldn't have to.

The OP just made a simple request, hardly unreasonable. Maybe her request should be made to the Forum Management, to be added to the Code of Conduct to give it some "teeth."

Amy

paks.dreamer
July 22nd, 2009, 03:22 AM
Was that aimed at me?

No. If I wanted to "aim" or address someone specifically, I would have quoted. I'm reading the thread and responding, like others. tbh I hardly check the usernames in such a discussion, it's irrelevant unless I wanted to hold a personal feeling about it -- which I don't. I've looked at yours now, though. ~hi, thanks for catching my notice~


May I suggest you read the entire thread.

May I suggest you stop assuming. I read the thread over once, and other parts of the thread more than once. I found most of it was a waste of time, especially the personal banter posts that strayed off topic for the sake of being grating and opinionated towards others instead (like the one you just made me!). :] There are personal messages for such things -- you won't be saving face by including me in this, so please don't waste my time again. Honestly, even in my replying to this, I'm adding to the spam. People who want to read the worthwhile content in the thread will now have to scroll past this tripe. Good job.


paks, aren't you being judgmental here?

Yes I was; I thought that was obvious. I'll most likely continue to judge the sort of person who is careless around minors due to either making a statement against the people and its laws, or sheer personal laziness. Most who have posted on this thread are being judgmental, save the few who simply stated how they would go about things, instead of arguing with others and quoting them for the purpose of negating their point of view.


The relevance of this is that both you and I have had posts edited but my post was edited because I quoted you

I don't see how being "judgmental" is relevant to me having a post edited. Unless you meant "hypocritical" (by being offensive when I am posting against offensiveness), which has an entirely different meaning, but also suggests that you do, in fact, realise what the TOS is, yet are still happy for people to break it when they see fit.

The entire block of text which was snipped contained the sentence "you know what the --- law is".

The missing word being the expletive attributive:


"bloody"


Here, I gave the word its own paragraph so you don't have to cut my entire block of text again. How thoughtful of me. :]

Unnecessary use of the word, I agree. A very soft offense imo, compared to posting soft porn to children. :D Apparently people here can post **** and ***, but I can't say it. lawl. ;x

But if you're going to have a crack at me about "breaking TOS", at least know what you're doing it for. Snipping the entire paragraph may have been within the bounds of the moderator, but was also petty. The single word could have been removed to make a completely non-offensive statement. To make it clear, I'm an adult, and I happen to have an interest in protecting children where I see fit. I have my opinions, as you have yours. I have no problem saying this, or even being removed for it if anyone felt the "need" to do so. As I said, I'm here to learn and share about my operating system, and as a new user, certain attitudes here have already put me off -- que sera sera.

Just so you know, I won't be responding to this sort of post again. My previous input was on topic, not some pointless, personal back-and-forth between strangers like most of the content of this ~entire thread~ which was apparently so important for me to read.

paks.dreamer
July 22nd, 2009, 03:23 AM
I agree with Little Bit entirely.

Except Little Bit, it's already part of the TOS/Code of Conduct. Apparently the TOS holds no weight unless someone feels like it.

k3lt01
July 22nd, 2009, 05:20 AM
paks. if you have a gripe about moderation then deal with it. I personally think this place has its problems but all-in-all it runs smoothly.

As for all the "other stuff" you said, hmmmm. If my students behaved in that fashion they would be out of class till they learned how to behave in the way they are saying everyone else should. Yes, I deal with 5-18 year olds for a living.

Mods. feel free to delete any or all of this if you see fit.

Swagman
July 28th, 2009, 03:56 PM
That is an amazing picture! Where did you get it? I doubt anyone would find it offensive since it doesn't appear to be a statement about Fawkes at all (the Thames has been drained, the parliament buildings are still largely intact and I'm pretty sure that's a car in the bottom right of the screen) but just a post-apocalyptic London cityscape.


I believe I got it from HERE (http://wall.alphacoders.com/index.php?s=Sci%20Fi&su=Post%20Apocalyptic)

http://wall.alphacoders.com/wallpaper_categories.php