
how about giving us a NSFW chance there eh?
twat.
( ,
Tue 23 Dec 2008, 11:27,
archived)
twat.

the second coming of Tibberius Gracchus, who was a dickhead of a Belgian if I recall correctly....
( ,
Tue 23 Dec 2008, 11:36,
archived)

I wondered why he was on my ignore list.
*ignores another one*
( ,
Tue 23 Dec 2008, 11:39,
archived)
*ignores another one*


photoshopped: yes
under 200k: yes
not sure what all the fuss is about... maybe you should have put a picture of a kidnapped child or a terrorist attack...
( ,
Tue 23 Dec 2008, 11:31,
archived)
under 200k: yes
not sure what all the fuss is about... maybe you should have put a picture of a kidnapped child or a terrorist attack...

There's a difference between the picture of a child, or a smoking building, and a picture of two bloody corpses. If you don't get that you might want to look up NSFW again.
Furthermore, it's hardly 'photoshopped'. It's just TOAP - which is ok if it makes an amusing joke but in this case is a complete waste of bandwith.
( ,
Tue 23 Dec 2008, 11:37,
archived)
Furthermore, it's hardly 'photoshopped'. It's just TOAP - which is ok if it makes an amusing joke but in this case is a complete waste of bandwith.

They show this sort of picture on the news.
EDIT: looks like the mods agree with you... this is what happened to the carry on films
( ,
Tue 23 Dec 2008, 11:41,
archived)
EDIT: looks like the mods agree with you... this is what happened to the carry on films

pictures like this on the news as a matter of course at all, and if they do, regardless of time of day, they will say that the following piece contains pictures of a distressing nature, thus giving people the option to turn over. Linking the picture would be the same thing!
( ,
Tue 23 Dec 2008, 11:45,
archived)

I don't think they should give warnings on the news. War is brutal and nasty. Why not show it?
( ,
Tue 23 Dec 2008, 11:58,
archived)

you are ignoring my point about the warning. That video, of which the screencap is not discernible as a dead body, has a guidance warning along the bottom.
( ,
Tue 23 Dec 2008, 12:48,
archived)

So now you're comparing a picture of a child, the carry on films, and two blown up dead bodies? You've got from incongruous to ridiculous.
( ,
Tue 23 Dec 2008, 11:49,
archived)

i was comparing b3ta to carry on films
Get off your high horse.
I long ago realised that different people see b3ta in different ways. You obviously see it in a different way to me.
( ,
Tue 23 Dec 2008, 11:54,
archived)
Get off your high horse.
I long ago realised that different people see b3ta in different ways. You obviously see it in a different way to me.

My point was there's a clear and objective difference between making a distasteful inference and shoving visceral gore down people's throats. You might think that, say, a joke about the twin towers is in bad taste, but it's a different issue to posting images of people killed in the attack.
( ,
Tue 23 Dec 2008, 11:58,
archived)

my point is that you are not logged into disney.com
The day something is too risque for b3ta is a sad day
( ,
Tue 23 Dec 2008, 12:00,
archived)
The day something is too risque for b3ta is a sad day

Look at 4chan and its offspring
( ,
Tue 23 Dec 2008, 12:08,
archived)

... and at risk of incurring the wrath of people who contribute more to this board than I...
This isn't as bad as all that. Maybe the execution is a bit unsubtle, but the point being made - assuming I've read it aright - seems straightforward (and, in its way, honourable) enough.
*puts on asbestos clothing*
( ,
Tue 23 Dec 2008, 11:32,
archived)
This isn't as bad as all that. Maybe the execution is a bit unsubtle, but the point being made - assuming I've read it aright - seems straightforward (and, in its way, honourable) enough.
*puts on asbestos clothing*

So it's a filesize thing? I've got no idea how that stuff works.
Fair enough, then. I thought it was about the content, the sentiment of which is one (I think) I share.
( ,
Tue 23 Dec 2008, 11:36,
archived)
Fair enough, then. I thought it was about the content, the sentiment of which is one (I think) I share.

if that were the case, we'd all be laughing our heads off...
*goes back to the lurking*
( ,
Tue 23 Dec 2008, 11:35,
archived)
*goes back to the lurking*

You're right! It's much more funny!
( ,
Tue 23 Dec 2008, 11:37,
archived)

/It's a bit like Dickie Davis' World of Sport but doesn't have a catchy theme tune
( ,
Tue 23 Dec 2008, 11:39,
archived)

Oh, arse. That's Grandstand.
*gives up*
( ,
Tue 23 Dec 2008, 11:41,
archived)
*gives up*

If the picture was, say, of the Sichuan earthquake everyone would be laughing? I don't agree, i think everyone would still be calling him a cunt.
( ,
Tue 23 Dec 2008, 11:43,
archived)

Juxtaposing a picture of a war with the banality of Christmas may be a tad sophomoric, but it does have a point. It may not be lolsome, but that's just too bad. It can still be witty.
If you can use a picture of an earthquake to make a comment about the world in a witty way, then you're welcome to give it a go, I'd've thought...
( ,
Tue 23 Dec 2008, 11:49,
archived)
If you can use a picture of an earthquake to make a comment about the world in a witty way, then you're welcome to give it a go, I'd've thought...

It's the graphic nature of the image that people are complaining about. I don't think the 'fame' of the event has anything to do with it; if he'd used a gory picture from a more recognisable tragedy the same people would still be complaining in the same way.
( ,
Tue 23 Dec 2008, 11:55,
archived)

I still think that it's what you do with an image that counts in this sort of context. Likely as not there'll be counterexamples. But the original post here was an attempt - I take it - at a black-as-pitch joke about smug middle-class westerners celebrating Christmas. I don't see anything particularly problematic about that.
If you're offended by the image, you've misidentified the problem. The problem is that people are getting mutilated for no good reason, not that there exist photos of the mutilation. The photos, used well, might actually turn out to be a good thing.
( ,
Tue 23 Dec 2008, 12:02,
archived)
If you're offended by the image, you've misidentified the problem. The problem is that people are getting mutilated for no good reason, not that there exist photos of the mutilation. The photos, used well, might actually turn out to be a good thing.

We simply place a different weight on the level of artistic quality required to legitimise the use of potentially objectionable material.
Furtrhermore, ... oh bugger it i don't have time for the furthermore.
( ,
Tue 23 Dec 2008, 12:22,
archived)
Furtrhermore, ... oh bugger it i don't have time for the furthermore.

i was about to get on my high horse, but a cat just sat on the keyboard
( ,
Tue 23 Dec 2008, 11:35,
archived)

some people may find pictures of blown apart bodies, burning children and dead viet cong a little upsetting and that these should be linked.
although extending that argument will lead to every single picture ever posted here being linked...
( ,
Tue 23 Dec 2008, 11:37,
archived)
although extending that argument will lead to every single picture ever posted here being linked...

If the real world refuses to be nice, then I just don't want anything to do with it.
:)
( ,
Tue 23 Dec 2008, 11:38,
archived)
:)

Would you like to see some in-depth footage on b3ta?
( ,
Tue 23 Dec 2008, 11:51,
archived)

There's a difference between perpetrating it or endorsing its perpetration, and doing something with it. I don't know where I'd draw the line, or if there is one to be drawn. And so I won't be drawn either.
( ,
Tue 23 Dec 2008, 11:56,
archived)

Saying 'well, it happens in the real world' is not itself a justification or an excuse.
( ,
Tue 23 Dec 2008, 12:04,
archived)

Your point would carry more weight if that was what I had said, though.
( ,
Tue 23 Dec 2008, 12:07,
archived)

that would lead only to idiocy. Oh Hai, i did what you said and shopped a kitten, hahah click the link
www.rotten.com/runoverkittenwithspunkinthewounds.jpg
( ,
Tue 23 Dec 2008, 11:43,
archived)
www.rotten.com/runoverkittenwithspunkinthewounds.jpg

If it had been linked, at least I'd have a choice about whether to view it or not.
I'm not going to get into an argument about whether it's suitable for the board - I know some people here get a good old rofl out of real people's pain and death - but if it's alright with you, I'd like to choose not to see this. Toodle pip!
( ,
Tue 23 Dec 2008, 11:38,
archived)
I'm not going to get into an argument about whether it's suitable for the board - I know some people here get a good old rofl out of real people's pain and death - but if it's alright with you, I'd like to choose not to see this. Toodle pip!

for finding the logical inaccuracy in my post! Alright, I meant I didn't find pictures of dead people funny. I like the comedy stylings of Tommy Cooper, Laurel and Hardy and Bill Hicks. See? I'm not anti-dead people.
( ,
Tue 23 Dec 2008, 11:43,
archived)

somebody even attempted to roast that poor chaps leg
( ,
Tue 23 Dec 2008, 11:34,
archived)