That is an insult, and false. I admitted in post #6 that such a rule did indeed exist. I admitted it again in post #31.
No, as I’ve shown, it doesn’t apply across all boards. Should I post more examples of violations in forums other than GQ?
Yes, you do have a specific rule in GQ about it. It was quoted here, in this thread, in the second post, by Polycarp. FFS, you don’t even know the rules for the forum you moderate? Hate speech is prohibited in all forums, including the BBQ Pit.
So now it’s hate speech. It started of as “disparaging”, then went to “offensive”, now it’s “hate speech”. How long until I’m a baby killer?
Again, you invoke the unseen sliding scale of offensiveness. Where is this scale, so I can refer to it before posting? And why doesn’t the RA mention it?
Me too. I apologize if I referred to your gender incorrectly.
Look, since I’ve moved way past the issue that caused me to start this thread, should I just start a new one asking when the SDMB Registration Agreement will be enforced in all forums? Because now that the rules have been brought to my attention, I agree completely that they should be enforced, at all times, in all forums. Or they should be changed to reflect the reality and past practices of the last 2 years on these boards.
Give it up, Bo. SDMB moderation is all about selective enforcement.
Look at what a safe place it is for those of a more rightist political bent. They’re a protected species here and get away with all sorts of stuff that would get anyone else banned.
I think that’s a bit unreasonable of a demand. Rules seem to be enforced when and if the moderators’ attention is called to a post that breaks them, and that makes it more of a ‘random sting operation’ than the consistent rule-book-thumping that you desire, but that’s the way it works with humans and rules.
I have a friend who rages every time he gets caught speeding or zipping through a red light. “It’s not fair that I have to pay this ticket when hundreds of people do this every day!” Frankly, it makes him sound like a five-year-old. He broke the rule and got caught, and just because other people didn’t get caught doesn’t invalidate the fact that he broke the rule. Most rules in life are enforced like this, and when he does get pulled over for it, spending his time complaining about all the other people who didn’t get pulled over for it as well is just wasting his breath. The adult thing to do would be for him to acknowledge he was in error and decide whether he wishes to continue to risk getting caught or change his behaviour.
It would be extremely unreasonable for the police to catch every speeder every day, or to change the speed limit laws since they cannot catch every speeder every day. And given that many rules in many systems are broken every day, but not necessarily observed by someone in a position to moderate it, this type of reasoning would basically throw all the rule-books out the window, just because one guy is upset at the injustice of being given a not-even-a-warning for speeding in the SDMB’s school zone.
And just for the record, Colibri is not the only one offended by the “joking” use of “fag”. (I would say that not understanding the difference between “fag” and “idiot” is somewhat tone-deaf, but I really don’t want to start THAT up again.)
The ironic part of all this is that the quote is really a compliment. In the movie where the quote is from, really really stupid people react to not-stupid people with “you talk like a fag and your shit’s all retarded.”
Bo’s use of this quote in the original thread was to bash the Apple competitors, which would paint Apple as the stupid people and the competitors as the not-stupid ones.
If a mod doesn’t like something you said they pull “personal insults” out of their ass, warn you for it, and then sit back and enjoy their pathetic powertrip. Marley 23 and Twickster did this to me when I called pot smokers “childish losers” or something like that. Marley got all creative with the rules and told me that calling a non-distinct, nebulous group of people (like “pot smokers,” for example) was somehow a “personal insult.” What a crock of shit.
Colibri said “potentially hate speech,” because that’s what it is. Potential. Nobody here thinks you meant it in that way, and nobody considers you a baby killer…yet!
Despite the dumbassery of some of the mods, I still enjoy it here. I wont leave until I’m bored with this place or, as I said long ago, the board votes to have me leave. Honestly, though, that doesn’t mean the mods can just apply a rule as they see fit. Saying something about “pot smokers” can only be seen as personal insult to someone who doesn’t know what the hell “personal” means, as Marley obviously doesn’t, or to someone who likes to bend the rules he’s supposed to enforce.
1.) Using the word “fag,” in general, is hate speech.
2.) The word “fag” *in this context *is quoting a line from a satirical movie that *mocks *that sort of usage of fag. Warning (noting, etc.) someone for using it is like warning someone for quoting from “A Modest Proposal” because cannibalism is illegal, and we’re not allowed to endorse illegal activities.
So how is someone who hasn’t seen the movie supposed to know it’s a quote and where is the line drawn? Is it ok to say in GQ, “If it wasn’t for the Nips being so good at building ships, the UK ship building industry would be in better shape”? (Half of which is a quote from a song.) Context means nothing when the context isn’t obvious to the casual reader.
I’d say the line is pretty obviously intended in the satirical fashion of the source it’s drawn from. A sense of humor, especially on this board, is often necessary to figure out the difference between “actual slur” and “mocking the attitude behind the slur.”
“The Post War Dream” I wouldn’t call as obviously satirical as Idiocracy, but assuming the intent was similar (i.e., to mock the people who blame the collapse of UK shipyards on someone else simply making a better product), I see nothing wrong with this, assuming the poster doing the quoting had the same intent.
Someone who is not familiar with the source won’t know any of this though will they? Even though they may have a sense of humour, when the quote is entirely removed from the original context there is no way to know exactly what the intent is. I don’t think it’s fair on the moderating staff to expect them to try and figure out the intent of every possibly satirical phrase in GQ.
South Park is a great satirical show and can be incredibly funny, especially when it is very wrong but that doesn’t make it ok to spout forth with South Park quotes out of context and within air-shot of people who are unfamiliar with the programme. It then ceases to be satire. (I use South Park as an example because it has fairly extreme satire at times and I’m familiar with it, feel free to substitute another similar programme if you wish.)
Just to reiterate, you say,
But there is no context. The context you refer to is gone and cannot be inferred by someone reading the quote for the first time. As you say, remove the context and it becomes hate speech, whether or not it was intended as such.
“Anecdata:” I have never seen the movie in question nor heard the “offending” quote and the fact that this just had to be satire was clear as daylight to me.
It was just so over the top that it completely had to be satire, parody or some henceforth-unknown-to-me quote of the same.
IME, if they have a reasonable sense of humor, they will. Again I ask: do you think that someone who makes an uncited reference to “A Modest Proposal” should be warned for breaking the board rule against encouraging illegal activities?
Further demonstrating the point that people can recognize quoted satire as satire even when they’re unfamiliar with the original: