I’m not upset about the moderator action to delete a pair of highly offensive jokes, in this thread, but I am rather curious. Traditionally, this site has not been one to censor simply to spare the sensibilities of readers. The only limit that I have been aware of to-date is trying to make sure that nothing NSFW comes up large and obvious on someone’s screen by accident, and of course to be on-topic.
While I could have added a NSFW tag outside the spoiler, it seemed like a thread that someone probably shouldn’t be reading at work anyways, based on the title, so it seemed excessive to do so. The information was on topic and, while offensive, the thread is about kids saying offensive things. The OP was asking whether things have gotten dirtier with time. While my answer can’t amount to anything more than anecdote, I doubt that one is going to be able to get good data on how offensive children are from era to era, short of asking people to remember their youth. And I don’t know of a better way to demonstrate how offensive the children were around me, growing up, than to give examples of the worst sorts of things we would say. So, overall, I don’t see an explanation that it was not on topic.
It should probably also be noted that I couldn’t remember how the “punchline” of one of the jokes went, and Google’s first response was from some other poster telling the same joke on the SDMB. And between someone telling an offensive joke in a joke thread and someone sharing factually accurate, relevant information in GQ, personally, I would prefer that the latter have a higher priority for not being censored. If you want to keep Mein Kampf off of book shelves in stores, great. If you want to keep it out of libraries, I disapprove. History isn’t always pretty, even the history from ~25 years ago, but it’s what really happened and there’s no sense hiding that.
But anyways, is there a new rule in place that mandates that we refrain from giving relevant and factual answers to GQ if it would offend the sensibilities of X sort of person? As said, historically, that has not been the case that I was aware of.
Yes, I’ll grant that this was somewhat lazy thinking on my part, and I would have been completely accepting of a note that I should have attached a better warning than putting into a spoiler.
As I said in my note, there are offensive jokes, and then there are offensive jokes. To be specific, one of the jokes you posted was about having sex with an infant too young to walk, and the other was about having sex with an eight-year-old. Maybe they might be permissible in a “tell the most offensive joke you know” in MPSIMS, but I felt they were out of place in GQ. I think you could have made your point otherwise.
I don’t know why every specific instance of moderation has to indicate a new rule or new policy. The answer of course is no. This was a specific example of two extremely offensive jokes that I felt were unnecessary in context. It does not indicate a new policy.
No mystery here. It was inappropriate for GQ not necessarily for the board. And I share the general bemusement as to why that thread was permitted to remain in GQ.
Reality is inappropriate? What all are we not to talk about, to preserve the sensibilities of the fair, regardless of whether it removes history from our eyes? It goes completely against the foundations of this board to remove something that is relevant, illustrative, and true.
If there’s no rule against it, it wasn’t offensive for offensiveness’ sake (the thread was about offensive things), etc. then I must disagree with the choice to remove it.
For the purposes of the thread, the fact that the jokes were removed is probably sufficient to allow my point to be made, so it ends up not harming the thread. But in general, I do think that this was a poor moderation choice for this board and a poor precedent to set. We are here to fight ignorance not to protect people from the realities of the world they live in.
“No guys, I swear, we were totaaaaally offensive when I was young. No really! You gotta believe me! I can’t even tell you, it’s so dirty. Teehee.”
Who is going to believe that? How is it reasonable to expect the readers to have any good sense for who I am and where my sense of propriety caps out at?
By all means, they are horrible and offensive jokes. I question how those jokes made it down to children to tell to one another, but it remains the truth of reality and GQ should not flinch from discussing the horrors of the world and history. To do so is a horrible precident.
It’s up to you guys but, as said, it’s a horrible precedent for GQ. I would prefer to see such content removed elsewhere from the board. Not from the place where truth and knowledge is the most central to its very existence.
Had you simply said “when I was a kid, we made jokes about raping babies,”* I doubt anyone would have been clamoring for an example.
Although how that’s relevant to the question “Is language becoming more sexualized,” I have no idea. The question was about reading sex into innocuous words.
*I didn’t read the jokes before they were deleted – a fact I regret not at all – so I’m just going off what others have said about their content.
Baby rape jokes aside, I didn’t know that Moderators went into threads and deleted posts that they personally find offensive. Has this always been the case? Are there other threads that have had posts deleted for the same reason?
To be clear, I did not delete it because I personally felt it to be offensive (although I agree that is the case). The post was reported as offensive and on reviewing it I agreed that most people would find it highly offensive.
As for your more general question, it has always been the case that mods have deleted or moved posts deemed to be excessively offensive. This is not in any way a new policy.
Really offensive stuff, including many troll OPs, is sent to the cornfield. Unless you’re quick you won’t see it. And you probably don’t want to, unless you’re into necrophilia, scatophagia, or cannibalism.
In this case I did not delete the post. I only edited it to remove the jokes themselves.