[Discussion] "6 Days, Bitch" Avatars

[Spyder]

Testing Thread

Now, there are a lot of instances in past wars where we celebrate our victories, our armistaces and our days of rememberance for when things didn't go so well, well worse then your typical day of war anyway.

However, we generally avoid celebrating the wars themselves for various and I'd hope obvious reasons. When we celebrate war itself, even if we are on the "correct side" we are still celebrating bloodshed, loss of live (unavoidably civilian) annexed territories, you name it.

Anyway, some of our forum members have decided to celebrate the Six Day War with a new avatar.

-removed-

Commemorating the 40th Anniversary of Israel kicking the asses of the entire Arab World inside a week.

<-- See avatar, I borrowed it from Shep.

If you wish to also commemorate the Six Day War, please make that your AV until the end of June 10th.

Now, it is explicitly stated that people using the avatar are specifically celebrating the war itself, not the end of it, not a peaceful resolution but the actual killing of Arabs. I would classify this as hate speech.

A second issue is that board members are going to have difficulty challenging the statement these avatars make as events resulting from the six day war directly tie into IvP, discussion of which is still banned. It is arguable that this avatar is actually backdoor support for the pro-Isreal side of the IvP debate, arguably the avatar itself is an IvP violation.

My reccomendation is that we vote on a course of action to be taken against anyone failing to remove the avatar within 48 hours.

[Hotfoot]

Controversial opinions are not punished (although dishonest arguments put forth to support them may be; see posting rule #3). However, there are certain exceptions to this rule. People who advocate pedophilia will be summarily banned. The same goes for white supremacists. For that matter, anyone whose behaviour would be considered a violation of Canada's hate speech law may be banned. Also, we have a general moratorium on "Israel vs Palestine" threads because they always go round and round in the same circles. Only post IvP threads involving some genuinely newsworthy recent event, not just to rekindle the debate over which of them is more evil. 1As well, there is a moratorium on versus/hypothetical scenario discussions involving the Gor series, as the misogynist philosophy espoused by the author and some fans of the series is widely agreed to be entirely revolting and without any possible merit, and such threads invariably devolve into genocide fantasies with no redeeming value.

Relevant points highlighted.

Technically, this is not a debate over which side is more evil, so whether or not it violates the IvP moratorium is questionable as far as I'm concerned. It does voice an unpopular opinion, one which, if taken a certain way, could be considered "hate speech". Some members have advocated glassing the entire middle east, which is most certainly more hateful than rememberance of a war, and to my knowledge no action has been taken against them. Advocating genocide is, in my mind at least, more hateful than remembering a war that took less than a week.

I'd rather not get into the debate of "what makes a war celebration wrong" and which celebrations are worse than others, because that way leads down a road which is not very pretty. Is it insensitive? Yes. Does it skate a thin line regarding forun rules? Yes. Is it hate speech as defined by Canadian law? I don't know, but that would be the deciding factor in this case.

Frankly, as far as I see it, it's a bunch of kids going "lol, kicked ass in six days, rofl." It's chest thumping in a similar style from what we see when people in America remember the beginning of the war in Iraq and go "rofl we took Bagdad real fast, didn't we?" or some similar statement in regards to Gulf War 1/2. If we start down this road, then any bragging of military prowess using previous wars and battles as an example can become fodder for banning. It's poor taste, to be sure, but is it really worthy of a ban?

[Edi]

We already have fairly strictly enforced board rules against sig flaming, since sigs are supposed to be a way to personalize your account, not provoke other users or derail threads with stuff that invites going into off-topic debates.

I would argue that avatars are even more subject to these same limitations, and given the IvP moratorium, these avatars are a direct violation of both rules. I'd have nothing against them them being summarily removed, to say nothing of lesser sanctions.

[Stravo]

I am in agreement with Hotfoot in the matter of whether this is actually a violation. We can have guys with avatars of cum soaked anime women but somehow these avatars are really offensive? And I will argue the avatars are not in violation of the IvP moratorium since it is dealing with the Arab world being defeated in a war and not the Israelis killing Palestinians for 6 days. Let's not shoe horn an issue into this to make it cause the action to then be illegal. Deal with the actual message which is the celebration of an amazing military achievement.

If I were to have an avatar today saying "Normandy is Ours, Bitches" commemorating D-Day I think you would have a helluva time convincing me and many other Americans that it is somehow inherently wrong. How are these avatars in any way different? Because the combatants were not European?

[Beowulf]

Those complaining about this should really get a life. How exactly does this constitute AV flaming, or whatever? I also fail to see how they violate IvP.

[Coyote]

The 6-Day-War was a conflict between Arab national armies that had surrounded Israel and talked a lot of propagandistic bombast about how they were going to beat the hell out of a country that they outnumbered significantly. They were already pre-celebrating what would have been, in their ideal viewpoint, one of the most one-sided bitchslap bully wars in history.

The combatants lined up against Israel were Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, adn Algeria with a few hangers-on. These were national armies, not Palestinians, and so the IvP moratorium does not apply. This is also a defeat and smashing of enemy combatant soldiers-- not an expression of destroying Arab civilian populations. Arab armies were met on the battlefield and wiped out-- this isn't a case of bulldozing homes in a disputed territory.

The Arab governments were maneuvering for an unecessary war of aggression against Israel. They paid for their hubris with a humiliating defeat. I can only wish that, for example, the Poles had been able to turn around a surprise curbstomping of the invading Germans in '39.

This is not a matter of 'yay, Jooz killing Arubz!' but celebrating the fact that an attempt to force an unjust war motivated by personal and national pride (Nasser) and vengeance was beat back. You don't have to be an "Israel supporter" to appreciate something like that. Similar celebrations of the downfall of imperial hubris can be seen in reactions to the Russian bloody noses in Afghanistan and Chechnya; the US bloody nose in Vietnam and apparantly in Iraq now; and even in the Israeli run-out from Lebanon.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

If you're going to throw a fit over these avatars, then I'm going to produce a list for you of avatars and sig pictures which are extremely degrading to women, and I expect those to be removed and the users punished as well.

This is a case of military fanboyism over a spectacularly one-sided war at worst, and is no more immature nor divisive then the little man-bitches in the AYVB with their cum-soaked anime characters or Superman's sig pic of Wonder Woman getting punched out. From my standpoint, less divisive.

[Spyder]

Alright, so do we feel about celebrating Vietnam? A vastly technologically inferior enemy manages to cause the deaths of 50,000 American combatants, eventually driving all enemy forces from its shores. While we remember the losses of the hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese shall we also celebrate their epic victory in the face of their better equipped foes?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Alright, so do we feel about celebrating Vietnam? A vastly technologically inferior enemy manages to cause the deaths of 50,000 American combatants, eventually driving all enemy forces from its shores. While we remember the losses of the hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese shall we also celebrate their epic victory in the face of their better equipped foes?

They beat us. I do happen to have some respect for them. Their own generals acknowledge it was largely due to propaganda, but at the end of the day they were in Saigon and we weren't.

Of course they also proceeded to utterly devastate the Montagnard communities.

[Stravo]

Alright, so do we feel about celebrating Vietnam? A vastly technologically inferior enemy manages to cause the deaths of 50,000 American combatants, eventually driving all enemy forces from its shores. While we remember the losses of the hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese shall we also celebrate their epic victory in the face of their better equipped foes?

Knock yourself out, put up an avatar that says "On Tet your ass is mine, bitches" and I will applaud your creativity. The follow up of course is, and this has to do with the Six Days Bitches" how? You think by turning the argument on an American loss somehow makes the argument that the avatars in question are not in violation of IvP or any board rules I can see any less valid?

Here's a better question. Prove to me that it is in violation of the IvP motratorium.

[LadyTevar]

As long as the Avatars are gone once the "6 Days" are over, I say we sit tight and do nothing.

If they're still celebrating after 6-days.. then we ask why.

[Stravo]

As long as the Avatars are gone once the "6 Days" are over, I say we sit tight and do nothing.

If they're still celebrating after 6-days.. then we ask why.

That would be more than fine by me. There is no point after the 6 days as a commemoration.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Here's a better question. Prove to me that it is in violation of the IvP motratorium.

This will be a fascinating proof, seeing as it was a conventional conflict in which the Palestinians (who still possessed the whole of the West Bank and Gaza at the time, including east Jerusalem) were not involved.

[Ozymandias]

I want to ask, less so on the matter of IvP, but the very fact people with as much knowledge about as it as an ant are leaping to it's bandwagon as whores to cash.

Personally removing it for the entire six days shouldn't matter a whit to them given they have nothing at this except to act like morons.

[CmdrWilkens]

Frankly I think the first point that Hotfoot highlighted (PR.6) essetnially covers this. You may disagree wih the point those who have the avatar are making but it is hardly aything which constitutes either IvP or would otherwise violates hate speech laws (excepting the idea that a really crazy judge could take issue with the word 'bitches'). Honestly I find no reason to worry further on the issue and those who are offended need to really ask themselves why they are offended and when their skins got thin.

[Kuja]

It's mildly annoying on the "multiple people using the same avatar" subject, but as has been suggested if they're gone at the end of the 6 days, it doesn't really bug me.

[Spyder]

Knock yourself out, put up an avatar that says "On Tet your ass is mine, bitches" and I will applaud your creativity. The follow up of course is, and this has to do with the Six Days Bitches" how? You think by turning the argument on an American loss somehow makes the argument that the avatars in question are not in violation of IvP or any board rules I can see any less valid?

Against IvP, no, that was directed at the hate speech issue. Admittedly the example wasn't perfect, a proper analogue would have been a celebration of the war itself rather then of the victory.

Here's a better question. Prove to me that it is in violation of the IvP motratorium.

This will be a fascinating proof, seeing as it was a conventional conflict in which the Palestinians (who still possessed the whole of the West Bank and Gaza at the time, including east Jerusalem) were not involved.

At the risk of deviating from the scope of this discussion, were those areas not acquired during the corse of the war, or at least resulting from the war?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

At the risk of deviating from the scope of this discussion, were those areas not acquired during the corse of the war, or at least resulting from the war?

That's correct, but the Palestinians as a people were not involved in the conflict themselves, being the subjects of Egypt and Jordan--and not particularly very happy ones, either.

[Spyder]

At the risk of deviating from the scope of this discussion, were those areas not acquired during the corse of the war, or at least resulting from the war?

That's correct, but the Palestinians as a people were not involved in the conflict themselves, being the subjects of Egypt and Jordan--and not particularly very happy ones, either.

The conflict itself yes, however if one was to incite an IvP 'discussion' would these land acquisitions not be a good place to start? We should bare in mind that the purpose of IvP was to stop the place from the forum from flaring up with countless IvP threads. A lot of people on both sides of the argument obviously have incredibly strong feelings regarding the topic, given the consequences the six day war had on the region, is it really that big a leap in logic for us to consider the possibility of imposing IvP?

[Edi]

The 6 Day War is so integral to the whole IvP issue due to its consequences (both immediate and long term) that as far as I'm concerned, this mess counts as a direct IvP moratorium violation. Even if the Palestinians themselves were no part of the conflict as such, the distinction amounts to nothing but semantic hairsplitting and is only going to aggravate the irritation of those who see this as a provocation.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The problem of the Six Days' War is one that cannot be easily reduced in any direction. It was one of the greatest feats of arms in recorded world history, making it something that people will celebrate no matter the morality (look at how many people go fap-fap-fap over NAZI accomplishments, which were far less ambiguous). Unquestionably it would be seen as one of the most desperate and successful defensive struggles in history, if it were not for the fact that the Palestinians ended up under Jewish domination rather than the domination of their fellow Arabs.

Frankly, though, that's the point--the Palestinians didn't, initially, really react. They were quite apathetic, understandably, considering that the Egyptians and Jordanians were brutally repressive.

The Israeli decision to colonize the West Bank and Gaza strip, which was made after the war, was the true proximate cause of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. The Israelis didn't have to occupy the West Bank and Gaza strip; they could have just withdrawn afterwards, even encouraging the formation of an independent Palestine as a buffer state. They could have, say, annexed the Sinai instead; it's virtually uninhabited, except by bedouin, who like the Israelis, and it has oil reserves. The Golan, again, is a strategic necessity and more or less just a buffer zone; no harm no foul.

We can even make an excellent case that the Israelis had every right to annex east Jerusalem, because the place had a Jewish-majority population before 1948 and it was ethnically cleansed by the occupying Arab armies during the Israeli War of Independence. All of these results of the war could have been lauded as basically positive, in the contest between a modern western state and a bunch of correct quasi-socialist autocracies.

The point where things changed was when the Israeli government decided to begin settlement blocks in the West Bank and the Gaza strip. At any point before that the Jewish state was not doing anything that can be genuinely declared as provoking conflict toward the Palestinians (they may have felt provoked anyway, but at that point it woudl have been their problem, not Israel's). The key, and proximate cause of the intifadas, was the decision to colonize the occupied Palestinian territories. It did not, in any way, automatically follow from the Six Days War, that those regions must be colonized--so I don't think it's right to call the Six Days War utterly integral to the IvP conflict. What's utterly integral is the period after the war where the Israeli government asks "What the fuck do we do with these territories?" and settles on a very bad answer.

[Coyote]

There's been talk about the 6DW on NPR recently, obviously due to the timing, and it was pointed out that there was considerable confusion at the end of the war about the Palestinian territories pricesly because the war happened so quickly they had no plan made up ahead of time as to what do with them. A number of higher-ups in the Israeli government argued against keeping the territory precisely because they feared the consequences a long-term occupation would have on Israel (I believe Abba Ebban was one of these, but I don't remember-- some of the names in favor of giving up the Territories were pretty surprising to me, though, a lot of people typically seen as "hawks").

The 6 Day War was not the start of the IvP issue. Policy that was institued after the 6DW, when the pro-settlement religious types pushed to keep it, was when the trouble started. Up until that point, it was pretty much a coin toss as to which way the Israeli government would go with the issue.

That the wrong path was chosen (long term occupation) is not in dispute, except by the most ardent Settlement proponents.

They won the war, but lost the peace.

[SirNitram]

IvP is highly questionable, but damned if I wouldn't like to start doing something about the bandwagoneering around here.

Now I shall don my rose coloured glasses as mumble about a good-old-days of this forum before bandwagons, which never existed.

[Hotfoot]

IvP is highly questionable, but damned if I wouldn't like to start doing something about the bandwagoneering around here.

Now I shall don my rose coloured glasses as mumble about a good-old-days of this forum before bandwagons, which never existed.

Shall we jump on the anti-bandwagon bandwagon, good sir? It makes fantastic time.

Seriously though, bandwagons are as inevitable as they are to accurately define. Is everyone with a HAB sig in a bandwagon? How about everyone who has a quote from Mike in their sig? How about all the people that spam like mad come April 1st?

Sure, it's easy to look at some things and say, "Yup, that's a bandwagon all right, mmhmm." but there are some times when the line is a little more loosely defined, and we do have to be careful about that. Ideally, people will eventually clue in on the fact that rampant bandwagoning is silly and they'll stop, and if they don't, we can just ignore them when they do.

[Knife]

Or it becomes self fullfilling. Hell, I feel like getting a new av at this point.