I was aware that we should not discuss religion and politics here - and that is as it should be - but the rules also say that we should not post images of political figures. Why political figures and not religious ones? I have seen religious images posted here several times and I wonder what the difference is if both religion and politics are frowned on as subjects for discussion.

An interesting topic Erisian. I've always liked the George Bernard Shaw quote:



The site policy here is opposite to that quote limiting us to a world of meaningless doodles. (unkindness comes naturally )

'Controversial political, religious and ethnic' is vague. It implies you can discuss these issues provided they are not controversial. Problem is as soon as it's mentioned it becomes controversial.

It goes on:

Like what? Today most news is behind paywalls and comments are strictly sanitized. I note alpahabet is shutting-down usenet (google groups). The political discussion and trolling there was mind-numbing.

My current favorite is Slashdot that has a moderation slider for comments. Take the 2
sliders all the way right and see how smart the IT community really is.

A recent favorite:


Finally. Is the North Korean dictator a politician or a dictator? The fact he is a dictator is not controversial. How often do they hold elections? Never. I think he is also completely unhinged and Gimp Chat's site policy may protect Gimp Chat but it also protects the worst human detritus on the planet.

The key point here is "controversial". The problem is who decides what is "controversial" and what is not, and obviously not all religions (or non-religions) are treated equally.

Yeah it really comes down to the moderators who decide I think.
Like I know to at least one person, cross-stitching is their religion. but is it really religion? but it could be in their view but I don't think it is to the mod(s). hehe

@viforlinux please stay dude you are valuable member here.

There's off topic chitchat. Which is great for random off stuff.

But the same rule applies there also. No religion or politics. I like the rule because it keeps GC a friendly place but when it comes to images, I think we could be a little more flexible? Like asking "does this image make a political point or is it just illustrating a Gimp function" after all, what is the difference between, say, Obama and Joe Smith when it comes to images. I tend to think that if people are offended by a simple image, that's their problem though I can see we need boundaries.

I understand advertising plays a role in why GC is here.

I did a blog article on 'tasmanian devil facial tumor disease'. Advertisers wanted an image of a tumor removed. I made nothing out of advertising yet they wanted to change my content. So I got rid of the advertising.

Advertisers also don't want religious or political content and they are the tail that wags the dog.
An example. There have been countless research projects into how alcohol is carcinogenic and causes dementia. Immediately after one is published other research is published that found 'moderate alcohol use prevents dementia'. I saw the same with vitamin D and fish oil.

While I was reading this thread this is what I saw:


The 'funny sports girls' are nude and I blocked it out. I think female readers see something else because the ads profile you and track you.
The transaction is - it's OK for Gimp Chat's advertisers to track you but you have to providing content that they want.

Hey Tim, I recon men who do cross stitching should be sent to North Korea. I think I touched all of the bases with that one

They aren't.... That's just a patch of color on their suit.

But I had to take out my still-factory-set Chromium to see the ads. I have an ad-blocker on Firefox, and I believe logged in users don't see much ads (if any...).

hehe,
I don't think I should be sent to North Korea because I did one cross-stitch of Wilber.
But I did to prove concept of my plug-in.
Cross-stitching is too much dedication for my keenness.
I promise to not cross-stitch as long as you don't send me to NK.

Shame we lost vitforlinux. A casualty of a world that is scared of offending people, that is even more fragile on the net!

Perhaps this thread has served its purpose too, though doubtless nothing will change as a result. Time to lock it Wallace?