Asshat of the Year

Interesting legal precedents:

Local and state governments have turned down requests for neo-nazi rallies / parades to display the nazi swastika on the public property.

The reason stated was that the swastika is so overtly offensive to so many Americans, that it is deemed a "fighting words" exception to the first amendment. That exception to free speech is - namely - any phrase or item of speech that is so offensive by its very nature that it will likely cause a violent reaction.

hiro...do you have a link where u cut and pasted that fine information?? or a referance...i would love to see that!
justin

Just for reference, carlo is italian, Platini is french

Same as I would warn about a shot showing nudity (even virtual simulated nudity) if you're viewing this at work, I warned about this shot mainly for the reasons that Hiro laid out.

The av is covered in EXTREMELY offensive symbols to MANY people - to the point that it is one of the very few exemptions to free speech protection laws. A lot of workplaces monitor employees surfing habits and check internet cache files. Seeing this image in an employee's cache would be cause for alarm for a lot of employers, and many people wouldn't want this image sitting on their work computer anyway for people to get the wrong idea.

I'm trying to be considerate and polite. Try it sometime.

Unfortunately he's right. That has been done.. counter to the principles of free speech in the US Constitution. The same reasoning has also been used to preclude legitimate assembly by numerous other groups - including, especially, the KKK.

It's so hypocritical that the possibility of someone taking offense allows/encourages others, here and in real life, to engage in/encourage engaging in "prior restraint".

I had Jewish relatives die in the camps. If anyone has a legitimate claim to offense, I think I could lay claim to it here. However, it's clothes - actually just a digital representation of a historical artifact (and as has been pointed out, inaccurately fashioned). It was a person - or a funny-looking little avatar that bore a bit of a resemblance to someone who did/orchestrated some despicable things. Behavior aside, how is that offensive? Why would this, or any other non-X-rated outfit in any sim be inherently neg-ratable?

Where does the concept of thin/thick skin begin and end here? At dress? At behavior? A combination of both?

I think these are legitmate questions and no amount of mealy mouthing or self-righteousness will make the question any more palatable for some or any more tasteless for others.

He's looking for attention and he got it. Nothing hurts more than indifference.

C'mon, he disrupted a fashion show wearing the most offensive thing he could think of. I doubt he is ACTUALLY a Nazi OR even anti-semitic (though I would not rule it out) and is probably just some dumb kid who wanted to offend a bunch of people. Ignore it. It ain't worth it.

Hey bro I was being sarcastic. Of course it is not german that was my point. Didnt mean to get you so worked up dude. I didnt say a fucking thing about German being a bad thing. You need to relax dude.

Sigh. Nope... not the most offensive thing he could have been wearing --- to me. There're a lot of things I would consider more "offensive" if I chose to be offended by visual imagery.

As for indifference, my own family disagrees with me on this one.... but I am not indifferent to the events of WWII or its aftermath. I am also not indifferent to pain and suffereing - because it WILL occur to someone, somewhere, sometime. OTOH, getting all "het up" about a particular costume is one thing.

Behaving badly is another. I never said it wasn't.

But, my point has been, and continues to be, to ask if the "costume" itself was the reason for calling for/justifying a "mass negging" - something in itself against the TOS, I believe, if one can successfully argue that such is a form of harassment.

I would like to nominate everyone who responds to this thread as biggest asshat because I think we are all dicks for trying to dump all our worst attributes on one person or group. Any one of us could win this award; it all depends on the direction the market flows.

Btw, Justin Delvecchio is a very nice sounding German Name. Way to represent! Haha.

Dude whatever. Suck a fuck Postmark!

Yeah, I was afraid that by brringing my opinion out that there would be a bucnk of knee-jerk responses.

You're right, I don't believe that the costume itself should be reason for a negative rating; it's the fact that he disrupted an event. The Nazi uniform IS extremely offensive because of all that it implies, and that is exactly what Carlo intended, to offend. My point is that it is not worth being offended by someone who is so obviously a fool/moron/asshat/expletive.

However I am not implying that you (as a person, not you specifically Korg) can't be offended if you ARE. Whatever floats your boat (or sinks it).

I think his actions of intent with wearing the costume revealed itself in context.

But if there was a "Play" or "Theatrical Performance" or something unrelated to the intent of disruption, the costume wouldn't be as big an issue, but still; someone may take offense too it. In other words, if he was an actor playing the part of Hitler, most probably would not be offended; only someone that might want to stir up grief.

While there is some productive conversation in this thread, I just wanted to remind everyone that the forums are not the proper place to air personal attacks against one another - please refrain from personally attacking someone you don't agree with in the forums. If you must discuss further your personal grievances with another resident, please utilize the more appropriate methods, such as private messages on the forum or instant messages or chat in-world.

How is this different from people dressing up as pirates or vampires? Or Ghengis Khan, or Pope Urban II, or Osama Bin Laden, or George Bush, or Barbra Streisand? People dress as monsters and monstrous people all the time, and no one bitches. Hitler was one of the worst people ever, but so were Pol Pot and Joseph Stalin.

As a gay jew, if given the chance I'd probably go back in time and strangle baby Hitler in his crib. But I'm still not going to go bonkers just because someone dresses like him.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall (not Voltaire)

Hey I know a gay jew too! You two should start a club.




















Juuuuuuuuuust kidding.

There is one. It's called "Hollywood".

Jeska, I apologize for opening up a can of worms.

After seeing the SA Goons vs. Furries debacle go on for 7 pages, I was under the misapprehension that someone dressed like Hitler for fun and profit (or to grief) couldn't possibly have any supporters. Who could argue that it wasn't an offensive, jerkish thing to do? I was incorrect, and I apologize. I forgot the cardinal rule about forums - people will argue anytime, about anything, and take any side in order to continue arguing.


As far as if the simple visage of an av in a Hitler uniform isn't (or shouldn't be) generally offensive - well, I guess you did answer that question by removing the image in question, and stating "offensive image". I completely understand why you did it.


I didn't start this thread to get everything riled up. Hitler/Nazism/etc. is a reaaallllllly touchy subject for a lot of people - and for others, not so much. I mainly wanted to know if I was crazy when I saw this guy last night, find out if anyone else knew what the deal with his griefing was, and offer public apologies to Shiryu for having his big night griefed by Hitler. (And hey - if you have to get griefed - you got the biggest griefer in history to do it! Sorry, bad joke, but a little levity is maybe needed right now?)

Sorry for sparking this all off.

I think we've been invaded by kids already. Who but someone under 18 would pull a prank like that?

Dressing like Hitler, accurately or not, is something I wouldn't do in private or in public. And I would be careful around someone who did. Dressing like Hitler is different from vampires or Urban II or Ivan the Terrible because in this place at this time, the image of Hitler is provocative to most people and symbolizes the very worst that humans can do.

That said, I'd have to know what Carlo Platini intended to do when he wore the av, before I'd totally condemn him. For example, I've read that a man jumped onto the runway of a beauty pagent in New York a few years ago dressed in a Gestapo uniform. He was trying to express an opinion that beauty pagents exploited women in a similar moral way that Nazis exploited Jews. It was a stupid comparison and an incredibly insensitive thing to do, but his purpose was different than what most people thought, see?

What does Carlo Platini have to say for himself? Sure, he's probably some kid with a complex, but how do we know?

This statement is irrelevant and out of context. The issue wasn't the costume, it was his actions.

Rather than say that YOU are irrelevant or out of context...(which I SSSSSOOOOO want to do right now)... I'll just point out that I asked my own question in response to the "outrage" expressed in the opening post.

Korg, now I wanna know - what IS a justifiable neg rating? If I can't neg rate someone's appearance for dressing like Hitler, then what in the name of all that's holy SHOULD I be neg rating their appearance for? An av covered in aborted fetuses? Jesus fellating Dick Clark? Teal and orange stripes together? Seriously - its a cliche, Hitler is used so interchangeably as the Worst Evil Mankind Ever Produced - what DO you find an acceptable reason for neg rating appearance?

And I'm glad you put the word "outrage" in quotes, because I didn't say I was outraged in my opening post, or in any subsequent posts.

I also never called for a mass neg rating, cats having sex with dogs, or anything else.

This statement is relevant.



This statement: Inappropriate and unnecessary, which baits retalitory remarks.




Reason for his anger.



Again his context is in that he hates this group. The issue wasn't TOS.



Your original quote, out of context and irrelevant, no TOS violation was mensioned and was not a issue concerning uniformity, unless of course you were offended then I can understand your reason for making it one.