New rule

by Ben Reilly Sun Dec 13, 2020 1:24 am

After careful consideration, all memes are hereby prohibited, because we have no way of knowing who may be offended by the story behind the meme.

As we all know, oftentimes we can personally find a meme, photo or joke funny, but it can offend others.

To ensure that we don’t inadvertently offend anyone, and because none of us have the sources to research every meme that may be shared here, a blanket ban is the only way to make sure no one is offended.

To this end, I am locking the Trump thread, (we have no way of knowing how many people are offended by jokes about his thinning hair or his “orange looks”), and the picture jokes thread.

Please strive not to give offence on Newsfix.

by gelico Sun Dec 13, 2020 1:27 am

by Didgee Sun Dec 13, 2020 1:28 am

gelico wrote:

by eddie Sun Dec 13, 2020 1:36 am

Okay, I have to say this.

We have to take everything seriously. So, we aren’t taking the piss, or trying to make a point. We have carefully considered that “jokes” are offensive to some people and that we can’t know which jokes are offensive.

So what do we do? We have to decide all jokes can be offensive.

Let’s put it up for debate. Make your point.

All jokes or no jokes?

by gelico Sun Dec 13, 2020 1:41 am

well, all jokes obviously

a joke is just a comment (or meme) which is not meant to be taken seriously

there's no law that says all jokes have to be funny

and jokes being funny or unfunny is purely subjective anyway

can't believe you're even putting this up for debate

by gelico Sun Dec 13, 2020 1:45 am

so my youngest son came over earlier and we decided to go visit Grandma. going to the bus stop my son insisted he knew a quicker route by the back streets. to me it seemed to take much longer, and i started moaning

he said,,,

''wtf is wrong with you woman honestly all i can hear from you is,,,, i don't know where i am,... where are you taking me? seriously, mum, you sound just like my last 6 victims''

i nearly fell over laughing but to someone who's had someone go missing that would be considered horrendous

but fuck it eh?

by Eilzel Sun Dec 13, 2020 2:02 am

gelico wrote:

well, all jokes obviously

a joke is just a comment (or meme) which is not meant to be taken seriously

there's no law that says all jokes have to be funny

and jokes being funny or unfunny is purely subjective anyway

can't believe you're even putting this up for debate

Agreed.

It seems like we are responding to a storm in a teacup by smashing it with a sledgehammer Shocked

For the record, that photo is probably among the most famous ever taken. I first saw it 21 years ago in high school. It is one of the most tragic photos I've seen. BUT, I wasn't offended. I'm not easily offended by things like that, but I can definitely appreciate how it would be seen by those who remember the Vietnam war vividly.

We don't need to get heavy handed or reactionary about this. Surely the best thing is to acknowledge we all have different senses of humour (which we may or may not approve of and are free to say) and move on.

by gelico Sun Dec 13, 2020 2:08 am

Eilzel wrote:
gelico wrote:

well, all jokes obviously

a joke is just a comment (or meme) which is not meant to be taken seriously

there's no law that says all jokes have to be funny

and jokes being funny or unfunny is purely subjective anyway

can't believe you're even putting this up for debate

Agreed.

It seems like we are responding to a storm in a teacup by smashing it with a sledgehammer

hahaha, i like that

by nicko Sun Dec 13, 2020 7:18 pm

It's not a joke when pictures like this are something that some will think "that's funny", to others it brings an instant memory of the smell of burning flesh and the Napalm that caused it ! Those that were there didn't think it was funny!

by Syl Sun Dec 13, 2020 7:28 pm

nicko wrote:It's not a joke when pictures like this are something that some will think "that's funny", to others it brings an instant memory of the smell of burning flesh and the Napalm that caused it ! Those that were there didn't think it was funny!

You dont have to have been there either.
I remember that pic from being young, it was the most iconic photo to come out of the Vietnamese war. I am surprised any adult in the UK, certainly the USA is not familiar with it.

by gelico Sun Dec 13, 2020 7:32 pm

this is so ridiculous now

please realise people that everyone is different and find different things offensive

from what i can see no one got majorly offended over the meme that eddie put up. no one had a go about it merely commented that they didn't find it funny at all, which they are perfectly entitled to do

that seems to have brought forth silliness involving a dog photo and some chicks and accusations of people ''making a show of being offended'' and being arse clenchers et al

well whatever

as i said before, the term 'joke' is merely a description of something which is not meant to tbe taken seriously.

ben, you actually locked the thread over this because, oh no, not everyone found it funny?

is this your idea of a joke and i'm not getting it?

i'm starting to get really confused now

sounds like there's a couple of dented egos on here

Rolling Eyes

it doesn't have to be funny

by Syl Sun Dec 13, 2020 7:43 pm

I agree with you /\.

Free speech works both ways.

by Original Quill Sun Dec 13, 2020 8:06 pm

As I recall, the only objection made was by the ultra-right Nicko, who was there when this happened. It's somewhat ironic because Vietnam was a RW war. It was their cause cé·lè·bre that caused that innocent girl to be burned in the first place.

Someone has argued that it brings back bad memories. So do statues of generals, and we don't see the same people arguing for banning them because of bad memories. At least ed's meme used the bad memories to make a good point. Maybe we should ban any mention of Prince Andy's exploits as well.

by Vintage Sun Dec 13, 2020 8:17 pm

The photo and the statues bring back memories and can and should be used not have those memories be re enacted all over again, however this was not the point of the joke was it. If someone finds it funny fair enough if someone doesn't that's fair enough.
Its best not to try to defend it, for some it shouldn't need defending, for others its beyond any defence. That's it, that's how it goes, c'est la vie, what's next?

by gelico Sun Dec 13, 2020 8:25 pm

Original Quill wrote:As I recall, the only objection made was by the ultra-right Nicko, who was there when this happened. It's somewhat ironic because Vietnam was a RW war. It was their cause cé·lè·bre that caused that innocent girl to be burned in the first place.

Someone has argued that it brings back bad memories. So do statues of generals, and we don't see the same people arguing for banning them because of bad memories. At least ed's meme used the bad memories to make a good point. Maybe we should ban any mention of Prince Andy's exploits as well.

you use the word ban

no one wanted anything banned as far as i'm aware

all i see is a locked thread because a couple of people commented that they thought a meme was unfunny (and said so)

tough tits

as i said before, this is nothing more than dented egos

sort it out guys

by Original Quill Sun Dec 13, 2020 8:32 pm

Vintage wrote:The photo and the statues bring back memories and can and should be used not have those memories be re enacted all over again, however this was not the point of the joke was it.

No, it wasn't the point of the joke, and that's my argument. The main idea of the meme that eds posted was the alleged paedophilia of a member of the privileged Royal Family.

People who were critical had to stretch their memory in order to place the actual photograph that had been photoshopped ... obviously going off topic.

by Original Quill Sun Dec 13, 2020 8:37 pm

gelico wrote:no one wanted anything banned as far as i'm aware

Um...this whole thread is about banning:

Ben wrote:all memes are hereby prohibited

I realize Ben did this reluctantly (for what reason, we don't know), but banning memes is the whole topic here.

by Maddog Sun Dec 13, 2020 8:59 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Vintage wrote:The photo and the statues bring back memories and can and should be used not have those memories be re enacted all over again, however this was not the point of the joke was it.

No, it wasn't the point of the joke, and that's my argument. The main idea of the meme that eds posted was the alleged paedophilia of a member of the privileged Royal Family.

People who were critical had to stretch their memory in order to place the actual photograph that had been photoshopped ... obviously going off topic.

No stretching of memories needed for people of our generation needed. As soon as I saw that photo I saw that little girl, even if she wasnt in it.

by Original Quill Sun Dec 13, 2020 9:05 pm

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

No, it wasn't the point of the joke, and that's my argument. The main idea of the meme that eds posted was the alleged paedophilia of a member of the privileged Royal Family.

People who were critical had to stretch their memory in order to place the actual photograph that had been photoshopped ... obviously going off topic.

No stretching of memories needed for people of our generation needed. As soon as I saw that photo I saw that little girl, even if she wasnt in it.

Good. It shows that message is etched in your memory. Me too. But there is nothing sacrilegious about using the framing for another, equally troubling message.

by Vintage Sun Dec 13, 2020 10:52 pm

There isn't any alleged paedophilia though. Not last time I looked, the reports are about young women - above the age of consent although still too young for such a man, a sleaze
by most people's reckoning but if such a thing was a crime, the queue for justice would be extremely long. So the joke is still wrong in that context as well, at least until any other allegations are made.

by Original Quill Sun Dec 13, 2020 11:00 pm

Vintage wrote:There isn't any alleged paedophilia though. Not last time I looked, the reports are about young women - above the age of consent although still too young for such a man, a sleaze
by most people's reckoning but if such a thing was a crime, the queue for justice would be extremely long. So the joke is still wrong in that context as well, at least until any other allegations are made.

A New York court has unsealed a trove of documents regarding the Jeffrey Epstein case, including allegations that the disgraced late financier supplied the UK’s Prince Andrew with an underage girl for sex in an apparent bid to gather incriminating evidence on the royal. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jul/31/underage-girl-forced-to-have-sex-with-prince-andrew-us-court-document-jeffrey-epstein

Paedophilia is defined as: A paraphile is when an adult desires or engages in sexual relations with a child; it may be either homosexual or heterosexual in nature. https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Pedaphilia

It's paedophilia when you have relations with an underaged girl.

by Vintage Sun Dec 13, 2020 11:06 pm

You believe------------?
Can't find anything about that, can you provide a link please.
The only thing I do find is more allegations of sexual assault on 14 year old girls by Epstein himself, with the added mention of Andrew being a friend of his there is no direct inference about Andrew at all..
Not sure I'd want you to defend me.

by Original Quill Sun Dec 13, 2020 11:10 pm

"The papers released by a court in New York say the alleged encounter took place on the late US financier’s private island in the US Virgin Islands. A document claims Epstein instructed the girl, referred to as Jane Doe #3, but known to be Virginia Roberts Giuffre, to 'give the prince whatever he demanded and report back to him on the details of the sexual abuse'”.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jul/31/underage-girl-forced-to-have-sex-with-prince-andrew-us-court-document-jeffrey-epstein

See also:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/02/prince-andrew-named-us-lawsuit-underage-sex-allegations

https://www.timesofisrael.com/documents-epstein-gave-prince-andrew-underage-girl-for-sex-in-blackmail-bid/

New rule Img

by Vintage Sun Dec 13, 2020 11:32 pm

Oh thanks I'll have a look at that with interest.
I've just been reading that this underage girl actually wasn't underage at the time. So that needs to be clarified before allegations are made. The other point is who forced her to have sex, if it was Andrew then he's a rapist, if it was Epstein then he's what he's been accused of.
The many articles state consistently so far anyway, that the girl was 17 at the time of the encounters, I believe the age of consent in New York state is 17, in the UK its 16.
Although if she was forced/coerced it comes down to the same thing and it has to be proved that the 'client' knew her age surely.

by Original Quill Sun Dec 13, 2020 11:48 pm

In the US sex with an underaged person is a status crime. An underaged person cannot legally consent to sex, so it is rape by merely doing it. Force doesn't enter into the picture.

by Eilzel Mon Dec 14, 2020 12:26 am

gelico wrote:
this is so ridiculous now

please realise people that everyone is different and find different things offensive

from what i can see no one got majorly offended over the meme that eddie put up. no one had a go about it merely commented that they didn't find it funny at all, which they are perfectly entitled to do

that seems to have brought forth silliness involving a dog photo and some chicks and accusations of people ''making a show of being offended'' and being arse clenchers et al

well whatever

as i said before, the term 'joke' is merely a description of something which is not meant to tbe taken seriously.

ben, you actually locked the thread over this because, oh no, not everyone found it funny?

is this your idea of a joke and i'm not getting it?

i'm starting to get really confused now

sounds like there's a couple of dented egos on here

it doesn't have to be funny

Right

by Maddog Mon Dec 14, 2020 12:37 am

Original Quill wrote:
Vintage wrote:There isn't any alleged paedophilia though. Not last time I looked, the reports are about young women - above the age of consent although still too young for such a man, a sleaze
by most people's reckoning but if such a thing was a crime, the queue for justice would be extremely long. So the joke is still wrong in that context as well, at least until any other allegations are made.

A New York court has unsealed a trove of documents regarding the Jeffrey Epstein case, including allegations that the disgraced late financier supplied the UK’s Prince Andrew with an underage girl for sex in an apparent bid to gather incriminating evidence on the royal. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jul/31/underage-girl-forced-to-have-sex-with-prince-andrew-us-court-document-jeffrey-epstein

Paedophilia is defined as: A paraphile is when an adult desires or engages in sexual relations with a child; it may be either homosexual or heterosexual in nature. https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Pedaphilia

It's paedophilia when you have relations with an underaged girl.

Actually its prepubescent children.

Epheophilia is different. It can still be crime, but it's different than pedophilia.

by eddie Mon Dec 14, 2020 11:02 pm

I can actually say with all honesty, I have never seen that picture on the jokes thread that I posted, before.
I had absolutely no knowledge of the story behind it.
I’m not really knowledgable about historical photos.

Having said all of that, I still think that a meme/photo can be funny if it’s a joke about something else.

Just wanted to put that out there.

by Syl Tue Dec 15, 2020 12:02 am

eddie wrote:I can actually say with all honesty, I have never seen that picture on the jokes thread that I posted, before.
I had absolutely no knowledge of the story behind it.
I’m not really knowledgable about historical photos.

Having said all of that, I still think that a meme/photo can be funny if it’s a joke about something else.

Just wanted to put that out there.

I was a bit surprised that you didn't know about the photo and also surprised that you asked me if i had looked it up, it's such an iconic pic of the Vietnam war.

When you said you didn't know the history of the pic I didn't doubt you for a moment and I dont think anyone else did either.

Maybe if you and Ben thought anyone was doubting you that's what inflamed the situation, because as was pointed out a couple of days ago....the whole incident seemed to get blown out of proportion very quickly.

by eddie Tue Dec 15, 2020 12:36 am

It was blown out of proportion.
That’s what happens on forums.

by HoratioTarr Tue Dec 15, 2020 2:26 pm

eddie wrote:I can actually say with all honesty, I have never seen that picture on the jokes thread that I posted, before.
I had absolutely no knowledge of the story behind it.
I’m not really knowledgable about historical photos.

Having said all of that, I still think that a meme/photo can be funny if it’s a joke about something else.

Just wanted to put that out there.

If it's any consolation, that pic of Charles 'dad dancing' is hilarious.

by gelico Tue Dec 15, 2020 4:20 pm

eddie wrote:
Having said all of that, I still think that a meme/photo can be funny if it’s a joke about something else.

Just wanted to put that out there.

absolutely you can

people are free to laugh or groan or condemn as they think fit

and thank goodness Ben wasn't serious about banning memes

I mean, that would effectively completely wipe out Lurker from existence

and considering he is probably the least confrontational person on here, that would be somewhat ironic

and a tad unfair

lol!

by Tommy Monk Tue Dec 15, 2020 6:14 pm

Does Lurker post memes...?

I never noticed...

by Original Quill Wed Dec 16, 2020 3:39 pm

HoratioTarr wrote:
eddie wrote:I can actually say with all honesty, I have never seen that picture on the jokes thread that I posted, before.
I had absolutely no knowledge of the story behind it.
I’m not really knowledgable about historical photos.

Having said all of that, I still think that a meme/photo can be funny if it’s a joke about something else.

Just wanted to put that out there.

If it's any consolation, that pic of Charles 'dad dancing' is hilarious.

I totally agree. The fact that it borrowed the frame of another iconic photograph is incidental and didn't figure into the message. It was halarious, tho I don't know how they got Charles to pose so rediculously. Anyone know where that image is from?

by Sponsored content

New rule

New rule

Re: New rule

Re: New rule

Re: New rule

Re: New rule

Re: New rule

Re: New rule

Re: New rule

Re: New rule

Re: New rule

Re: New rule

Re: New rule

Re: New rule

Re: New rule

Re: New rule

Re: New rule

Re: New rule

Re: New rule

Re: New rule

Re: New rule

Re: New rule

Re: New rule

Re: New rule

Re: New rule

Re: New rule

Re: New rule

Re: New rule

Re: New rule

Re: New rule

Re: New rule

Re: New rule

Re: New rule

Re: New rule

Re: New rule

Re: New rule