I sometimes use intentionally "ugly" avatars in Second Life.

[Doc Carling]

5 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

Yes, I agree it's offensive. It's anyone's right to think it, of course, but some people feel they have a right to say whatever dribble runs through their mind -- they don't either comprehend or care about what is socially offensive.

But you are aware that we are talking about computer generated graphics without human rights and not about real existing persons?

[LittleMe Jewell]

1 minute ago, Doc Carling said:

But you are aware that we are talking about computer generated graphics without human rights and not about real existing persons?

Behind every avatar is a real existing person with real existing feelings.

Edited March 8, 2021 by LittleMe Jewell

[Doc Carling]

2 minutes ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

Behind every avatar is a real existing person with real existing feelings.

An adult person who should know what the result can be, if she/he post such graphics.

[Rowan Amore]

And I think with that remark, I'll have to dig out an oldie.

 

Edited March 8, 2021 by Rowan Amore
Because what I really think is not allowed

[LittleMe Jewell]

40 minutes ago, Doc Carling said:

if she/he post such graphics.

I think we've come full circle.......... and still without any enlightenment.

 

[Doc Carling]

1 hour ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

I think we've come full circle.......... and still without any enlightenment.

 

I couldn't say it better. See, what's the current stand. You and some other insist that I - before I tell my opinion about a graphic posted on the public web - have to consider, if my comment perhaps hurts the feelings of the person who posted the graphic. Now I wonder. Do I have to treat the Trillion of graphics and pictures on web the same way? Do I have in a museum to shut up when I look at art because I might hurt the artists feelings with my comments? Or in general do I have to shut up before I say something negative about no matter what because of the vague chance it makes someone feeling bad?  If you don't see the nonsense of your expectations, then I can't help you. I'm out.

Edited March 8, 2021 by Doc Carling

[Evah Baxton]

1 hour ago, Doc Carling said:

You and some other insist that I - before I tell my opinion about a graphic posted on the public web - have to consider, if my comment perhaps hurts the feelings of the person who posted the graphic.

It's ironic that you demand others know the rules and suffer your actions while you grant yourself the power to hurt someone else without consequence.

You could just keep repeating your actions until someone couldn't stand it anymore and decided they needed to leave the forums.

Your freedom of speech just "banned" someone from the forums with the same equivalence as you being "banned" for speaking your mind.

The only difference is that your rule is a right and you always had the power.

I love freedom of speech, even speech I don't like. I want that for everyone. It's becoming harder to defend.

[Doc Carling]

14 minutes ago, Evah Baxton said:

It's ironic that you demand others know the rules and suffer your actions while you grant yourself the power to hurt someone else without consequence.

The problem is that we are permanently talk about different things. While you and other posters are obsessed by the believe that I attack and hurt the owner of the posted graphic I actually just tell my opinion about the picture itself. How the owner of a pictures takes it, that's his/her personal matter. This is not your business anyway. You just use it to pump it up to a moralic drama.

Edited March 9, 2021 by Doc Carling

[Luna Bliss]

1 hour ago, Doc Carling said:

See, what's the current stand. You and some other insist that I - before I tell my opinion about a graphic posted on the public web - have to consider, if my comment perhaps hurts the feelings of the person who posted the graphic. Now I wonder. Do I have to treat the Trillion of graphics and pictures on web the same way? Do I have in a museum to shut up when I look at art because I might hurt the artists feelings with my comments? Or in general do I have to shut up before I say something negative about no matter what because of the vague chance it makes someone feeling bad?  If you don't see the nonsense of your expectations, then I can't help you.

The women who posted their fun and funny avatars did not do so in order for you to come in and evaluate how forkable they are, or aren't. 

[LittleMe Jewell]

17 minutes ago, Doc Carling said:

I actually just tell my opinion about the picture itself

You weren't so keen on others giving their opinion on your comic women photos.

[Rowan Amore]

Unfreaking believable.  But, considering the sexist and misogynist remarks from him in other threads, I guess not so unbelievable.

 

[Doc Carling]

23 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

The women who posted their fun and funny avatars did not do so in order for you to come in and evaluate how forkable they are, or aren't. 

Well, not sure, if I translate "forkable" correctly, Luna. I find only translations on google related to eating. lol Anyway, you might have a point when we say, we are allowed  only to comment if the poster of an object expressly invites us to do so. Btw, for  @Rolig Loon and me is the matter done since page 2. So what's the point at all to continue it?

Edited March 9, 2021 by Doc Carling

[Doc Carling]

8 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

Unfreaking believable.  But, considering the sexist and misogynist remarks from him in other threads, I guess not so unbelievable.

 

Fishing for likes? lol

[Rowan Amore]

The fact you made your comment before she explained anything about the picture?  What if after your comment, she had said that was closer to how she looked in RL?  Would you have felt in the least bit wrong?  You keep trying to justify what you said but the simple fact remains.  Your comment was extremely rude since you had no idea what she was representing with the photo.  Does anyone expect anything else from you?  Nah, you've made yourself completely understood.

[Theresa Tennyson]

2 hours ago, Doc Carling said:

I couldn't say it better. See, what's the current stand. You and some other insist that I - before I tell my opinion about a graphic posted on the public web - have to consider, if my comment perhaps hurts the feelings of the person who posted the graphic. Now I wonder. Do I have to treat the Trillion of graphics and pictures on web the same way? Do I have in a museum to shut up when I look at art because I might hurt the artists feelings with my comments? Or in general do I have to shut up before I say something negative about no matter what because of the vague chance it makes someone feeling bad?  If you don't see the nonsense of your expectations, then I can't help you. I'm out.

So, it's nonsense to expect you to not be a jackass?

[Doc Carling]

Just now, Theresa Tennyson said:

So, it's nonsense to expect you to not be a jackass?

I gave you a like for this intelligent comment.

 

[Jordyn McGregor]

1 hour ago, Doc Carling said:

I actually just tell my opinion about the picture itself. 

 

1 hour ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

You weren't so keen on others giving their opinion on your comic women photos.

 

[JanuarySwan]

36 minutes ago, Jordan Whitt said:

2 hours ago, Doc Carling said:

I actually just tell my opinion about the picture itself. 

 

1 hour ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

You weren't so keen on others giving their opinion on your comic women photos.

 

Jordan Whitt said:  THIS  Meaning the comments above.

 

There are those of us who pop into the forums only a few times a month so have no idea what you all are talking about regarding comments about his comic women photos.  

So, what can I conclude here.  You all dished out some bad comments about his comic woman photos and he couldn't take it.  Then, in essence, he dishes out a comment about another person's comic photo and you all can't take it.  But, you all did it first and are now complaining about him doing it?

Or what?

Because this stuff belongs in IM's not brought up on the forum in the first place because for those of us who pop in here not on a very regular basis we have no idea what you are talking about and it's very disruptive to say the least.

You all need to take into account the consideration of others as we didn't come here to gossip or be brought into stuff like this.  

Edited March 9, 2021 by JanuarySwan

[Jordyn McGregor]

1 minute ago, JanuarySwan said:

So, what can I conclude here.  You all dished out some bad comments about his comic woman photos and he couldn't take it.  Then, in essence, he dishes out a comment about another person's comic photo and you all can't take it.  But, you all did it first and are now complaining about him doing it?

Or what?

Because this stuff belongs in IM's not brought up on the forum in the first place because for those of us who pop in here not on a very regular basis we have no idea what you are talking about and it's very disruptive to say the least.

You all need to take into consideration of others as we didn't come here to gossip or be brought into stuff like this.  

Actually my opinion on his comic women pictures was that in a thread entitled "Faces", I would have expected the pictures to be close up portrait pictures.  He did not take that opinion well and proceeded to berate and bully me until I was silenced from offering opinions on any pictures he posted....which is his MO on anyone that offers an opinion on his "art" that doesn't kiss his behind about how awesome and wondrous his portrayal of how women should look is.

As for my comment of "This" on the posts above, I was simply agreeing with the hypocrisy of his giving an opinion of how women look in pictures when we're not allowed that same right to give an opinion of his pictures of "women".

You will find that even we who seem to linger about this forum often aren't privy to ins and outs of many thread conversations and "gossip" either due to not lurking in those threads, having the participants blocked, or simply just not caring.  Such is how forums work I guess.

[AdminGirl]

There are people who could very much look like the avatar that has been slagged on. So when someone says "that avatar is a nightmare", if it's about a fictional being like some robot or goblin, then whatever. But it was directed towards an overweight woman avi, that could be insensitive. There are people sitting behind computers who may feel they actually do resemble that "nightmare". I'm sure the comment wasn't intentionally being mean, but it was mean nonetheless.

[JanuarySwan]

3 minutes ago, Jordan Whitt said:

that doesn't kiss his behind about how awesome and wondrous his portrayal of how women should look is.

Oh, I see a bit why the misogynist remark plus others.  It's a feeling about his posts that it's a continuum of how women "should look".  To me, what Rolig presented wasn't realistic to be a life-like person at all that's why I said it was a caricature because no one has a chin like that nor a nose.  I remarked about the picture and the comment, more so than is it okay or not to do so.  

However, him presenting comic photos which I never saw nor saw one comment...I don't know what went on there because I saw none of it.  

If you were bullied, you need to report it.  It's not what we all came here to do.  I was bullied my first days here because someone threw a fit that I started a thread similar but mine would allow politics to be discussed and it was about COVID which I feel has political aspects in it because of government involvement in COVID, and she went ballistic on me claiming I was upsetting her intentionally by making a thread just like hers which forbid politics.  I did not know one could not speak about politics here as it doesn't say one cannot in the community rules here but she went on and on and on ranting and raving.  It's a bit of odd place here.  As far as forums, we could do better.  It's best to block and try to move on or it steals too much of one's life.  I got over that woman ranting crazily about my thread simply because I wanted to add politics in a very political situation with COVID.  I am just remarking it's happened to all of us.  Block and give it some time or too much stuff is brought before the community that may know nothing and it only makes matter worse because people are jumping innocently into things they know nothing about and then they are attacked on this forum.

[LittleMe Jewell]

2 hours ago, JanuarySwan said:

There are those of us who pop into the forums only a few times a month so have no idea what you all are talking about regarding comments about his comic women photos.  

So, what can I conclude here.  You all dished out some bad comments about his comic woman photos and he couldn't take it.  Then, in essence, he dishes out a comment about another person's comic photo and you all can't take it.  But, you all did it first and are now complaining about him doing it?

Actually he specifically asked for opinions and comments on his pictures in another thread.  There were half a dozen or so negative comments, strung in among the positive comments.  Someone commented on the lighting making one picture look washed out, another commented that the skin tone faded into the yellow background too much, and another commented that he title the thread Faces and then posted pics that concentrated on the breasts..  He came out really hard against everyone that made any negative comment about the pictures.

His comment here was that a picture was a "nightmare" - a picture that someone else posted with a statement about letting the inner self glow.  He had no knowledge about how close or not the picture was to the RL person that posted it. But when someone said something about possibly hurting someone's RL feelings, he responded by saying that it actually doesn't matter if some adult got their feelings hurt.

[LittleMe Jewell]

1 hour ago, AdminGirl said:

I'm sure the comment wasn't intentionally being mean

I wouldn't bet real money on that

[Doc Carling]

4 hours ago, AdminGirl said:

overweight woman avi,

I don't have a problem with overweightes avies. The avi in question is technically built so badly that itself turned it to a caricature. I know many very beautiful looking overwighted avatars made with mesh bodies. We should stop to highjack @Gopi Passiflora thread. If you still insist, I don't mind to continue the discussion in a separate thread.

Edited March 9, 2021 by Doc Carling

[AdminGirl]

1 hour ago, Doc Carling said:

I don't have a problem with overweightes avies. The avi in question is technically built so badly that itself turned it to a caricature. I know many very beautiful looking overwighted avatars made with mesh bodies. 

Your initially comment came off differently but thanks for the clarification.