Is this a "Pit comment"? second try

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

Tom already explained that allowing "racists" [edit: the word, not the people] would ultimately destroy the board. I can't imagine a response to that claim.

No. There is no special rule regarding the word "racist." Permitting name-calling outside the BBQ Pit would lead to the the deterioration of the board. That some posters would like a special exemption to be allowed to hurl the epithet that identifies their particular bête noire does not change the broader principal that is being applied.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

So "tramps" and "obstructionists" and the like are considered love taps?

[Irishman]

"Obstructionist" is not, in itself, an insult. It may carry a negative connotation, and may be used in a negative way, but not all negative terms are insults.

"Tramp" is mildly derogatory, depending on context. (I jumped on a tramp steamer. I'm a vagabond tramp.) If implying sexual promiscuity, perhaps can be taken as such. However, the term "tramp stamp" in a phrase in common parlance, and thus doesn't necessarily mean it's an insult. Of course, there are probably plenty of creative ways to use it as one and thus violate the no insults rule, or else generally be a dick about it. So making some hard and fast interpretation is not going to work, because as soon as we say "it's okay to say tramp stamp", someone will come along and do something like "you're that kind of woman and have the tramp stamp to prove it".

[Larry Borgia]

Oh, for heaven's sake, a tramp stamp is the name of a kind of tattoo. It's not a pejorative on a person at all.

Also, if you want to call the "Obama haters" on this board "largely racist but wholly unhinged and irrational people," there's a forum for that. If you want to talk about your experiences as a phone bank volunteer, there's a forum for that too. Why you need to combine the two is beyond me.

Finally, I don't think any "Obama hater" really cares whether or not you put any time into volunteering for the campaign.

"Oh no, my anti-Obama rhetoric has brought prr onto the field! I have awakened a sleeping giant! Romney is doomed! DOOOOOOMMED!"

[Tamerlane]

Originally Posted by Larry Borgia

Oh, for heaven's sake, a tramp stamp is the name of a kind of tattoo. It's not a pejorative on a person at all.

What? Of course it is. "Tramp stamp" is a dismissive pejorative of that type of tattoo. That style preceded the appellation and had no specific name. As it became popular to the point of saturation with many younger women who liked to use them for display and as tattoos were regarded as vaguely trashy by a certain subset of the U.S. population, it acquired a non-complimentary slang catchall term.

The fact that some embrace the term or use it out of amusement doesn't change the fact that it is mildly insulting.

ETA: Of course it is not something you call a person. But it is kinda dismissive and potentially insulting to them to refer to their tattoo as a "tramp stamp."

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by Larry Borgia

Also, if you want to call the "Obama haters" on this board "largely racist but wholly unhinged and irrational people," there's a forum for that.

Indeed there is. That's not a factual assertion, that's a ridiculous insult.

However, if someone wants to characterize an enemy as a (to use a totally hypothetical example) "Large Angry Negro," that's racist. That's not an "oops, I was being sloppy and held a racist thought in my head by dint of not really considering what I was saying," that's flat-out racist. And despite any protestations to the contrary, the person making such a deliberately racist statement is, by definition, racist.

This isn't the same as calling someone a poopyhead; it's more like calling someone a thief if they tell you a story about having stolen something. If someone tells us about having deliberately committed theft, is it against the rules to use the word "thief" to describe them?

[Irishman]

I imagine that, outside of the pit, referring to another board member as a thief would be moderated as an insult. Factuality does not change the pejorative nature of the term.

"Thief" speaks to the nature of the person, and implies that he cannot do differently.
"Committed theft" speaks to the act that occurred.

This is the same interpretation used on other comments, like "liar".

IANAM, YMMV, HWC, EAJ.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

They have a problem around here, which is that they dislike specifying rules, prefering to leave it up to Mods' discretion, their perception of tone, the context in which words or phrases appear, the phase of the moon, etc. to be the final determinant of whether someone has or has not warranted a Mod note, a warning, a suspension, a banning.

Which works out fine for 99% of the posters, 99% of the time. But for some of us, some of the time, it's a fine edge to walk. I'd much prefer they made up real rules, actual words or phrases you may or may not use, and then revise those or tweak those rules as needed, bearing in mind the need to err on the side of generosity in interpreting those rules. This policy would rid this place eventually of actual trolls and jerks, who need to break whatever rules there by, by the mere dint of their existence. (I.e., an actual jerk cannot stop himself from being rude on a consistent basis, an actual troll will consistently say things he or she doesn't believe.)

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by Irishman

I imagine that, outside of the pit, referring to another board member as a thief would be moderated as an insult. Factuality does not change the pejorative nature of the term.

This might be an almost philosophical difference; for me, a term's pejorative nature doesn't necessarily change its factuality. It'd be, IMO, a warnable insult to call someone a thief if they've described their use of food stamps when they don't absolutely need them, since that's really a judgment on their character. But if someone talks about their habit of stopping on backcountry roads and grabbing a few ears of corn from fields for dinner, there's nothing ambiguous about calling them a thief; it's a completely accurate description of their actions. Again IMO, the board ought to allow such a characterization under such circumstances.

"Racist" ought to work similarly.

In any case, while I can see the argument against allowing the word as a noun in GD and other fora, arguments that involve the board's destruction are pretty hard to take seriously. If the board is gonna be destroyed--or even if the tenor of the board is going to be coarsened--it'll be by the permissive attitude shown to racists, not by a permissive attitude shown toward identifying racists.

[twickster]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

I'd much prefer they made up real rules, actual words or phrases you may or may not use, and then revise those or tweak those rules as needed, bearing in mind the need to err on the side of generosity in interpreting those rules.

We're all clear that that's what you would prefer.

Everyone but you seems to have accepted that that's not going to happen.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

They have a problem around here, . . .

Which works out fine for 99% of the posters, 99% of the time. But for some of us, some of the time, it's a fine edge to walk.

I don't see where "they" (we) have a problem.

By your estimate, the policy works for 98.01% of the situations we face.

= = =

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

However, if someone wants to characterize an enemy as a (to use a totally hypothetical example) "Large Angry Negro," that's racist.

I see no reason to buy into that claim. Negro is outdated, but I know a number of people who use the word self referentially. Large and angry are pretty neutral in themselves.

I can certainly see a situation in which the context made "Large Angry Negro" insulting, but asserting that the phrase is inherently racist would appear to be a projection of personal beliefs that are not binding on the rest of society or this message board.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

I see no reason to buy into that claim. Negro is outdated, but I know a number of people who use the word self referentially. Large and angry are pretty neutral in themselves.

Do you know people who use "Negro" self-referentially and unironically? And do you really not think that attaching "Large" and "Angry"--together creating a common stereotype of black men--to the word "Negro" indicates anything?

I can certainly see a situation in which the context made "Large Angry Negro" insulting, but asserting that the phrase is inherently racist would appear to be a projection of personal beliefs that are not binding on the rest of society or this message board.

It would appear to be nothing of the sort, and it's astonishing that you'd suggest otherwise. I invite you to ask this question of those self-referencing "Negroes" you talked about earlier whether they see anything racist in calling someone, disparagingly, a Large Angry Negro.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

Do you know people who use "Negro" self-referentially and unironically?

Yes. What sort of bubble do you live in where no one uses that word? (I suppose if you know no one under the age of 50, that might work.)

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

And do you really not think that attaching "Large" and "Angry"--together creating a common stereotype of black men--to the word "Negro" indicates anything?

More projection. I have already noted that context could create a meaning, but simply the conjoining of those words would not.

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

It would appear to be nothing of the sort, and it's astonishing that you'd suggest otherwise. I invite you to ask this question of those self-referencing "Negroes" you talked about earlier whether they see anything racist in calling someone, disparagingly, a Large Angry Negro.

I note that you have moved the goalposts in order to elicit the answer you want. Why insert the word "disparagingly" into the discussion, now, when you originally insisted that the phrase was intrinsically racist? If you set up a context that implies anger or disdain, you could use any phrase to be insulting. Your original claim was that the phrase was racist. Now you are setting conditions. Fine: I propose that it is spoken by a large, jovial, black man talking over a beer about his disgust over the poor performance of the local sports team. Still racist?

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Originally Posted by twickster

We're all clear that that's what you would prefer.

Everyone but you seems to have accepted that that's not going to happen.

Hardly everyone but me. You can have your way, of course, because 1) the power to change the rules is 100% yours and 2) 98% of the posters haven't thought about, don't give a whack about, don't want to get into a discussion about, etc. this particular issue.

The hardest thing about moderating a MB on a daily basis, when I did it for several years, was to suppress my own personal whims and devise rules that were clear, even if not to my own tastes from time to time. I had to tolerate all sorts of whack-jobs, annoying twits, people who (it seemed to me) deliberately misunderstood others, etc., just because I brought a sense of equality and basic fairness to the role. I recognized that I had a lot of power over the people who posted on my site, and I tried to use that power sparingly and more fairly than I often wanted to. If you're free from any of these scruples, you can do as suits yourself--no one is going to stop you, least of all powerless me. All I can do is point out what you're doing.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

Yes. What sort of bubble do you live in where no one uses that word? (I suppose if you know no one under the age of 50, that might work.)

Your ridiculous insult aside, I really don't know anyone who uses the word to reference themselves.

I note that you have moved the goalposts in order to elicit the answer you want. Why insert the word "disparagingly" into the discussion, now, when you originally insisted that the phrase was intrinsically racist? If you set up a context that implies anger or disdain, you could use any phrase to be insulting. Your original claim was that the phrase was racist. Now you are setting conditions. Fine: I propose that it is spoken by a large, jovial, black man talking over a beer about his disgust over the poor performance of the local sports team. Still racist?

In that case, it's ironic, and of course racist phrases can be used ironically by folks who are victims of the racism as a means to subvert them. This is like racism 101.

As for moving the goalposts, no, this is clarifying for the willfully ignorant, clarifying something I didn't think was necessary to clarify. If there are other things you turn out to turn a blind eye to deliberately about the hypothetical, I'll be happy to clarify them for you as well.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

Your ridiculous insult aside, I really don't know anyone who uses the word to reference themselves.

No insult intended. I know many people, most of them older, who continue to use Negro in reference to themselves. I am surprised that you know none.

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

As for moving the goalposts, no, this is clarifying for the willfully ignorant, clarifying something I didn't think was necessary to clarify. If there are other things you turn out to turn a blind eye to deliberately about the hypothetical, I'll be happy to clarify them for you as well.

No need to "clarify" that you are inventing scenarios to support your baseless claim. I can see that easily enough.

At any rate, this hijack serves no purpose, so I'm dropping it, particularly since you want to accuse me of being insulting while you hurl insults.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

No need to "clarify" that you are inventing scenarios to support your baseless claim. I can see that easily enough.

I am sure you can.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

Hardly everyone but me. You can have your way, of course, because 1) the power to change the rules is 100% yours and 2) 98% of the posters haven't thought about, don't give a whack about, don't want to get into a discussion about, etc. this particular issue.

The hardest thing about moderating a MB on a daily basis, when I did it for several years, was to suppress my own personal whims and devise rules that were clear, even if not to my own tastes from time to time. I had to tolerate all sorts of whack-jobs, annoying twits, people who (it seemed to me) deliberately misunderstood others, etc., just because I brought a sense of equality and basic fairness to the role. I recognized that I had a lot of power over the people who posted on my site, and I tried to use that power sparingly and more fairly than I often wanted to. If you're free from any of these scruples, you can do as suits yourself--no one is going to stop you, least of all powerless me. All I can do is point out what you're doing.

So, because you prefer an environment where rules lawyering is the order of the day, we are the bad guys for not acceding to your whims? You claim that "98% of the posters haven't thought about it." Where do you get your numbers? This sort of discussion has been going on for 13+ years. Why should we accept that only 2%, (many of whom oppose your position), have thought about it? And, since, among the 2%, many do argue for our position rather than yours, why should we simply accede to your preferences? Despite your clear martyrdom, we are not engaged in "whims." We simply disagree on one point regarding rules and Moderation.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

What you call "rules lawyering" I call an arbitrary and nonsensical system run solely for the convenience and privileging of Mods. The vast majority of posters here are okay with this, as I've learned over the years, and I don't care to dispute whether this vast majority is 75% or 99%. (I only know it is some figure below 100%.) Even if it were 1%, you could still run the system as you choose, anyway. It seems to me that moderating a MB is hard work, and I respect hard work. You take shortcuts, and I don't have much respect for that. You'll have to learn to get along without my personal respect, Tom.

[BigT]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

No. There is no special rule regarding the word "racist." Permitting name-calling outside the BBQ Pit would lead to the the deterioration of the board. That some posters would like a special exemption to be allowed to hurl the epithet that identifies their particular bête noire does not change the broader principal that is being applied.

Yes, there is, seeing as Marley, an administrator, has said repeatedly that calling someone racist is not an insult.

Also, I am not aware of a definition of name-calling that includes saying mean things about a group of people. Name-calling specifically refers to naming someone, i.e., something you can only do on an individual basis.

Heck, you know it's not name-calling, since name-calling is a personal insult, and thus a warnable offense.

[RaftPeople]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

They have a problem around here, which is that they dislike specifying rules, prefering to leave it up to Mods' discretion, their perception of tone, the context in which words or phrases appear, the phase of the moon, etc. to be the final determinant of whether someone has or has not warranted a Mod note, a warning, a suspension, a banning.

Which works out fine for 99% of the posters, 99% of the time. But for some of us, some of the time, it's a fine edge to walk. I'd much prefer they made up real rules, actual words or phrases you may or may not use, and then revise those or tweak those rules as needed, bearing in mind the need to err on the side of generosity in interpreting those rules. This policy would rid this place eventually of actual trolls and jerks, who need to break whatever rules there by, by the mere dint of their existence. (I.e., an actual jerk cannot stop himself from being rude on a consistent basis, an actual troll will consistently say things he or she doesn't believe.)

I completely disagree with you.

There can certainly be some specifics, but so much of human interaction is ambiguous and subjective that no amount of rules will cover all scenarios. For every rule you create I could create 10x more ways to stay within the letter of the rule but break the spirit of the rule.

Here's an example, let's say the rule is "you may not call any poster a racist". I could do this:
PRR, Uranium is Really A veRy rAdioaCtIve SubsTance.

[Acsenray]

Why do you think that this would not break the rule?

[Irishman]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

Which works out fine for 99% of the posters, 99% of the time. But for some of us, some of the time, it's a fine edge to walk.

I find it's much easier to just not walk close to the edge.

I'd much prefer they made up real rules, actual words or phrases you may or may not use, and then revise those or tweak those rules as needed, bearing in mind the need to err on the side of generosity in interpreting those rules.

The nature of human interaction. Unless you want the list of rules longer than the rest of the message board.

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

I am sure you can.

So you claim you're discussing a "totally hypothetical example" but you really have a specific incident in mind? Yeah, that's fair.

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

You'll have to learn to get along without my personal respect, Tom.

I'm sure he's crying over his tea.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

It seems to me that moderating a MB is hard work, and I respect hard work. You take shortcuts, and I don't have much respect for that.

Actually, you are the one asking for shortcuts. You seem to want the staff to put together a comprehensive list of "bad things" that will be deemed insulting, then any time a "bad thing" on the list is posted, we can just point to the list and issue a Warning, regardless of context. Meanwhile, all you who believe in rules lawyering can skate around the "bad" list by using synonyms that did not make it onto the list, complaining if you are Mod Noted or Warned because your "bad thing" was not on the "bad thing" list.
Not going to happen.

I prefer to actually expend the energy to look at posts in the contexxt that they are submitted, considering the actors and the language and the history and then make a judgment. If you wish to believe that that is easier than simply pointing to a list of bad things and robotically enforcing those rules, you are welcome to that opinion.

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

You'll have to learn to get along without my personal respect, Tom.

I have not had your "personal respect," (for whatever that might be worth), for years since you exploded into a furious rant over the fact that I observed in The BBQ Pit that the noted troll badchad was, indeed, a troll, even though I never took any Mod action against him because he was not breaking explicit rules in Great Debates. (Funny, how you want only explicit rules except when you don't.)

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

You don't want to get into another discussion about Badchad with me, I promise you. But I would like to know what "you want only explicit rules except when you don't" means. I want explicit rules all the time, applied consistently and without regard for your own personal biases. If that's difficult for you, you have my sympathies--modding is real hard work sometimes, though fun other times. If you want to just wing it, make up rules as you go along (did you confer with Marley on the use of "racist" yet, or is that not worth doing?), and every once in a while fulminate when someone gets under your skin, you'll only get my queries. It's frustrating for you to get questions you can't answer, and for me to ask questions that never get resolved clearly, so on that account, you do have my sympahy.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by Irishman

So you claim you're discussing a "totally hypothetical example" but you really have a specific incident in mind? Yeah, that's fair.

Believe it or not, I was being sarcastic when I typed "totally hypothetical example," figuring the hyperbole of "totally" make the sarcasm obvious, and also figuring that a massive recent trainwreck of a thread like that would be known to the mods. I considered using an actual hypothetical (something about sneaky inscrutable Asians), but figured I'd head off charges of hypothetical navel-gazing by using a recent real example. I did not intend to deceive.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by BigT

Yes, there is, seeing as Marley, an administrator, has said repeatedly that calling someone racist is not an insult.

. . .

Heck, you know it's not name-calling, since name-calling is a personal insult, and thus a warnable offense.

You will have to take that up with Marley. I generally ruled it as an insult.

In regards to your second point, you should probably note that I am not all that quick to hand out Warnings. I am more interested in keeping threads on topic, where the most posters can have the most enjoyment, than I am in simply seeing how many Warnings I can hand out in a day. Over-the-top insults such as "motherfucker" will pretty much always garner a Warning. Words posted in anger that seem to be more expressions of unguarded thought--like "racist" or "unhinged"--are more likely to receive a Mod Note unless the poster has already been told to tone it down.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

And since you guys prefer making up rules as you go along, depending on your interpretation of context, your mood at the time, how much alcohol you've ingested recently, etc. you're perfectly content to leave us guessing if we've just violated a SD rule or just written a clear post when we use a word such as "racist."

Maybe I'll flip a coin to decide....

[samclem]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

Good job of misdirection, but as long as you included "unhinged" among a series of unflattering comments, you can rest assured that the word "racist" was not the actual trigger for the Mod Note. When you find posts in which "unhinged," "unreasoning," and "wholly irrational" have been accepted without comment as remarks directed toward other posters, we can go back and revisit the "racist" remark.

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

And since you guys prefer making up rules as you go along, depending on your interpretation of context, your mood at the time, how much alcohol you've ingested recently, etc. you're perfectly content to leave us guessing if we've just violated a SD rule or just written a clear post when we use a word such as "racist."

Maybe I'll flip a coin to decide....

Perhaps you missed tom's clarification of why you were NOTED, for your comments. That means NOT WARNED. It's post #17 in this thread. It had nothing to do with the word "racist." But you knew that.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

And since you guys prefer making up rules as you go along, . . .

Utterly false. The basic rule is "Don't be a jerk." If you are posting insulting comments, it should be obvious, even to you, that you are out of line. Nothing in this thread indicates that I have "made up" a rule, either as I went along or on any other occasion.

I am sorry that you are more invested in rules lawyering than actually participating in good faith, but since you already know that your gamesmanship is not going to fly, perhaps you should simply stop engaging in that behavior.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

I thought you made up the rule that the word "racist" was an insult. As to "being a jerk," I was born this way. You can get me on that one every minute of the day, if you're really trying. In fact, I'm being a bit of a jerk right now. And now. And now, I'm still a jerk.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

I thought you made up the rule that the word "racist" was an insult.

That is a pretty odd belief.

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

As to "being a jerk," I was born this way. You can get me on that one every minute of the day, if you're really trying. In fact, I'm being a bit of a jerk right now. And now. And now, I'm still a jerk.

Well, far be it from me to disagree with everything you post.