In this thread about JFK, poster Aussie Fish remarks that another poster “never fails to come across as a complete prick” and is promptly warned as a result.
Given I’ve had a spot of bother for a similar situation before, I think the mods are being rather heavy-handed for what appears to be a case of cultural-linguistic differences.
In this part of the world (The Antipodes), telling someone “Mate, you’re coming across as/acting like a complete dick” does not mean “You are a complete dick”.
I fully expect that, as usual, the rest of the thread will be filled with people disagreeing with me and insisting I’m wrong, but regardless, I really think a warning in this case is excessive.
I actually agree with you–coming across as a complete dick might mean that the person was just acting like one. Also known as trolling, which is also a warnable offense, so…
Aussie Fish has been a member here since 2004. I would think that a decade would be enough time for him to learn the cultural-linguistic conventions of this board.
I agree with the warning. I went back and read the thread for context. First, Aussie Fish must have known he was getting close to line trying to soften the blow with the spelling. Plus it was a pretty straight forward name calling.
Second, ralph124c’s comment was basically correct and certainly nothing that should have drawn that comment from AF.
That’s one of the interpretations and the one I personally would lean towards in most contexts, absent other modifying factors.
It’s not so much that as the “straight out with the warning” thing that I have a problem with. A “Come on, you’ve been here long enough to know that’s not cool. Don’t do it again” mod note would have been a better way to handle it, IMHO.
The mods have specifically said they see no difference between saying “you’re being X” than “you’re an X”.
FWIW, I don’t agree with all their rulings, but I agree with this one, otherwise they’d make a mockery of the rule that you can’t insult other posters by allowing posters to say things like “you’re being an asshole” and then insisting they weren’t calling the person an asshole.
The mods have made it clear they don’t think much of waving your fist an inch from someone’s face while screaming “I’m not touching you” and the above quote is a pretty clear example of that.
I don’t know about that. We have Central Americans posting here who’ve been around longer than that and mistake a mild taunt for an invitation to a knife fight, so you can never be entirely sure.
Eh, I usually don’t weigh in on these things, but the sole content of the post in question was a personal insult; nothing about the actual thread topic at all, although that wouldn’t have done much to mitigate it anyway. Seems pretty straightforward.
In conclusion, I disagree with the OP and insist he’s wrong.
Not much to add to specific topic, but an honest cross-cultural misunderstanding of nuance can occur when a Brit calls someone a “cunt.” It is obviously an aggressive thing to say, but the word to an American ear is probably among the “strongest” in the lexicon of invective.
It has nothing to do with the word prick/dick or the term “comes across as a complete dick.” It has to do with “never fails to…”
Our rule is that it’s OK to attack a post, but not a poster. So, there is a difference between:
“What you said makes you seem like a complete prick”
And
“You never fail to say something that makes you seem like a complete prick.”
The distinction is, perhaps, petty. But the first is directed at the post, while the second is directed at the poster. And that’s what crosses the line.
Thanksabunch, Leo, but let’s keep this discussion on track, please.
If you want to talk about other differences in etymology and cultural perception, About This Message Board is really not the most effective forum area for that.
He broke one of the rules and got a warning. Not seeing how you’d expect a mod note instead since the entire post consisted of nothing but an insult. I’m not buying that it wasn’t intended as an insult, cultural differences notwithstanding.
Being a dick is a slightly lesser crime than being a prick. One can be a dick, saying or doing something stupid or hurtful. For example: you and a friend are driving along a highway and a car indicates and wants to pull into your lane. If you speed up to prevent his entry, laughing all the way, your friend is perfectly entitled to call you a dick, or describe the action as a dick-move.
If you do it all the time, you’ll get the reputation of being a prick. Thus the epithet…“he can be a real dick sometimes” generally indicates a level of non-characteristic thoughtlessness or carelessness, but mostly people will forgive you.
Prickishness though is further down the continuum of arsehole behaviour. A bloke who bashes his girlfriend, or borrows tools and either never returns them or returns them damaged, or does the dirty on financial deals is going to get the prick-label sooner or later.
Once you start becoming known as a ‘real prick’, you’re doomed.
