# fluiddruid what the hell round two **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 12, 2006, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fluiddruid-what-the-hell-round-two/339693 "2006-01-12T18:33:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fluiddruid-what-the-hell-round-two/339693/61 "2006-01-23T00:31:50Z")
> [@CBEscapee](#): > > I wasn’t insulting anyone. Some people around here are too thin skinned. > [@CBEscapee](#): > > “Fucking gringo hypocrisy” is hate speech? Hypocrisy is an equivalent to “laziness” “thievery” or “money grubbing” when it comes to racial stereotypes? You’re right. I have no idea how anybody could’ve gotten the idea that you were deliberately using an insulting stereotype to describe Americans. Funny, that. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fluiddruid-what-the-hell-round-two/339693/62 "2006-01-23T00:49:05Z")
> [@CBEscapee](#): > > No it’s not. You should try rereading the way I used the word. Yes, you used it as an insult, unless you meant “fucking gringo hypocrisy” to be a compliment. > [@](#): > > In Mexico we don’t differentiate between nationalities or races. This is also nonesense, based on my first hand experience, as well as much of the history of Mexico from 1519 on. (Not that I am saying that Mexicans are any worse than anyone else in this regard, but they aren’t any better, either.) ---
**Author:** ![TVeblen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/4bbf92/32.png) [@TVeblen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVeblen)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fluiddruid-what-the-hell-round-two/339693/63 "2006-01-23T01:53:05Z")
> [@Giraffe](#): > > The point of the rule is not perfect colorblind fairness, but the pragmatic realities of running a message board. (Have a glance through some unmoderated message boards and newsgroups and you’ll see what I mean.) Treating any and all racially-related words as exactly equal is ridiculous, a complete disconnect from both present day reality and history simply for the sake of abstract consistency. Simply put, there’s some racist drivel we don’t want to have to listen to. But it’s a pretty high threshold, and we’ve very rarely had a problem with non-trolls running afoul of the hate speech rule. Until we see evidence of a problem, I don’t see the point of trying to make the rules on speech in Pit any more restrictive than they are. That’s exactly what was meant. Look, rules evolve over time and with feedback, as they must. We don’t want to get into the biz of having to pick over any term that might offend somebody, somewhere, sometime. A very few are so universally considered hateful, with hardly any possible positive or even neutral connotations, that they’re no-brainers in a written medium like a message board. Sure, somebody _might_ call another poster ‘nigger’, ‘kike’, etc. in a purely joking-amongst-mates spirit but betcha there’d be plenty of skepticism about exactly how friendly the joking really was. Do I think **CDEscapee** meant to be be a dick by calling other posters ‘gringo’? Almost certainly. His posts radiated anger like heat waves from a blast furnace. But, as has been amply demonstrated, ‘gringo’ _can_ be used in a neutral sense. So can ‘hillbilly’, ‘redneck’, ‘fat’ ‘trailer trash’, etc. even though those–and plenty others–can set people off as well. **Contrapuntal** , there was a _lot_ of discussion, based on poster input, in the mod loop about hate speech. Communicating by e-mail can be clunky, and there didn’t seem to be any emergency. We didn’t create any perfect answer, probably because there ain’t no such critter. It’s still being mulled over in fits and starts but the compromise solution remains to be as light-handed with Pit modding as possible. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fluiddruid-what-the-hell-round-two/339693/64 "2006-01-23T02:15:20Z")
> [@TVeblen](#): > > Sure, somebody might call another poster ‘nigger’, ‘kike’, etc. in a purely joking-amongst-mates spirit but betcha there’d be plenty of skepticism about exactly how friendly the joking really was. Hell, such joking-amongst-mates spirit has gotten people killed by a supposed mate. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 8:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fluiddruid-what-the-hell-round-two/339693/65 "2006-01-23T08:35:25Z")
> [@TVeblen](#): > > Do I think CDEscapee meant to be be a dick by calling other posters ‘gringo’? Almost certainly. His posts radiated anger like heat waves from a blast furnace. But, as has been amply demonstrated, ‘gringo’ can be used in a neutral sense. So can ‘hillbilly’, ‘redneck’, ‘fat’ ‘trailer trash’, etc. even though those–and plenty others–can set people off as well. I’m confused. You’re agreeing that CD used the term in posts filled with hate. Yet, that word remained neutral and had no hate aspect to it at all? Surely that the rest of his post was hateful kinda implies that that word was also used in hate? What would a poster have to say to be banned/suspended for using one of the “lesser” negatively words like gringo, hillbilly, or your other suggestions? ---
**Author:** ![TVeblen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/4bbf92/32.png) [@TVeblen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVeblen)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fluiddruid-what-the-hell-round-two/339693/66 "2006-01-23T17:05:26Z")
> [@Revenant Threshold](#): > > I’m confused. You’re agreeing that CD used the term in posts filled with hate. Yet, that word remained neutral and had no hate aspect to it at all? Surely that the rest of his post was hateful kinda implies that that word was also used in hate? > > What would a poster have to say to be banned/suspended for using one of the “lesser” negatively words like gringo, hillbilly, or your other suggestions? A lot of words can be freighted with disdain, contempt, ridicule. As an example. what about somebody who posts, “X is as disgusting as fat telemarketer who smokes and declaws cats!” Angry and spiteful? Yep. So should we then add words like fat, smoker, telemarketer, etc. on some automatic Mod Slap list? This is not theorhetical. It’s been suggested seriously that pubbie, libby, fundie, etc. be consider as hate speech because the shortened versions are sometimes used derisively. See, our goal isn’t to slap posters, much less ban them. It isn’t to stifle lively, impassioned discussion either. The Pit is the one forum where brawling is permitted. It’s not for everyone, and maybe not even for everyday, though many of those ‘take it outside’ near-brawls end up remarkably chewy and insightful. It’s not the place to be offended when posters get pissy, however. It’s a mistake to expect everybody to be reasonable and courteous in The Pit. Won’t happen. If somebody acts like a flaming dickhead, other posters are entirely free to cuff 'im around for it. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fluiddruid-what-the-hell-round-two/339693/67 "2006-01-23T19:22:40Z")
> [@TVeblen](#): > > A very few are so universally considered hateful, with hardly any possible positive or even neutral connotations, that they’re no-brainers in a written medium like a message board. So there _are_ words that are automatically considered to be hate speech. You guys can say “there is no list” all you want but these words exist. > [@TVeblen](#): > > **Contrapuntal** , there was a _lot_ of discussion, based on poster input, in the mod loop about hate speech. Communicating by e-mail can be clunky, and there didn’t seem to be any emergency. We didn’t create any perfect answer, probably because there ain’t no such critter. It’s still being mulled over in fits and starts but the compromise solution remains to be as light-handed with Pit modding as possible. Have I suggested anywhere that there was insufficient discussion among mods? I think you guys do a great job. I am not questioning anyone’s effort or committment. My initial complaint was that “this has gone on long enough” is a piss poor reason to close a thread. How are we to know what is allowed and what is not when explanations for closings lack substance? I am all for light-handed moderating but closing a thread for (as far as we knew at the time) whimsical reasons hardly qualifies as such. ---
**Author:** ![Giraffe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giraffe/32/129_2.png) [@Giraffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giraffe)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fluiddruid-what-the-hell-round-two/339693/68 "2006-01-23T19:33:53Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > So there _are_ words that are automatically considered to be hate speech. You guys can say “there is no list” all you want but these words exist. If you replace “are automatically” with “have an increased possibility to be”, then I agree. In fact, an even better way to say it might be: > [@](#): > > There are terms that are more likely to make one’s statements be viewed as hate speech That said, it’s not like we’ve written down a master list of words in order of offensiveness, and it’s not like there are _any_ words which will automatically draw a warning regardless of context. (See for example my aforementioned search on the word nigger, which returned many hits and few warnings.) I’m not sure what else you want, here. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fluiddruid-what-the-hell-round-two/339693/69 "2006-01-23T20:32:15Z")
> [@Giraffe](#): > > I’m not sure what else you want, here. Pie for everbody! Seriously, when I read the post from **Veb** that I cited I see no other interpretation than that those words are not allowed because they are hate speech. > [@Giraffe](#): > > (See for example my aforementioned search on the word nigger, which returned many hits and few warnings.) Grant me a little intelligence, please. I never suggested that the words cannot be used, only that they cannot be used as an epithet. Is it your position that in each of the 750 hits for “nigger” a poster was actually calling another poster “nigger” and was not warned? In my “hate speech” thread I objected to the term “white trash” and said that I was offended. Several posters reported being offended as well. To no avail. In fact, I was told , by highly respected posters and moderaters, that not only is “white trash” not hate speech, it is not racist, cannot be racist, and furthermore that said posters and moderaters _knew what other people meant when they used the phrase._ I was told that when people say white trash, they don’t mean white, and they don’t mean trash. Booyah. Now in the “gringo” thread, it is closed because several posters reported being offended, and the phrase was so volatile that **fluiddruid** felt that warnings were imminent. Say what? There seems to be an inconsistency here. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fluiddruid-what-the-hell-round-two/339693/70 "2006-01-23T20:59:11Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > Now in the “gringo” thread, it is closed because several posters reported being offended, and the phrase was so volatile that **fluiddruid** felt that warnings were imminent. Say what? There seems to be an inconsistency here. First off, “gringo” _is not a phrase._ The phrase was _fucking gringo hypocrisy_, and was clearly meant as an insult. If you can’t distinguish between a word itself, and the way it is being used, you probably aren’t ever going to understand. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fluiddruid-what-the-hell-round-two/339693/71 "2006-01-23T21:18:48Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > First off, “gringo” _is not a phrase._ The phrase was _fucking gringo hypocrisy_, and was clearly meant as an insult. If you can’t distinguish between a word itself, and the way it is being used, you probably aren’t ever going to understand. My mistake. Gringo is a word, not a phrse. _Your_ first mistake is assuming that if I make one error that indicates an inability to understand a concept. Your _second_, (and more crucial) mistake is thinking that the only objection in the original thread was to the phrase “fucking gringo hypocrisy”. Go back and read it again. Here are a couple of starter posts for you, nos. 2, 3 and 4 in the thread. > [@Airman Doors](#): > > Never try to teach a pig to sing: it wastes your time and annoys the pig. > > I bet he comes in here now and calls me a racist for that analogy, too, proving my point. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > A racist Gringo, of course. > [@Airman Doors](#): > > Yeah, I forgot. It’s been a few days since I’d been called that. Your third, and fatal mistake is to suggest that the gringo (or nigger, or white trash, etc.) when used as a qualifier is somehow more heinous than when used as a noun. Would _fucking kike hypocrisy_ be worse than _fucking kike_? ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fluiddruid-what-the-hell-round-two/339693/72 "2006-01-23T21:44:50Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > Your third, and fatal mistake is to suggest that the gringo (or nigger, or white trash, etc.) when used as a qualifier is somehow more heinous than when used as a noun. Would _fucking kike hypocrisy_ be worse than _fucking kike_? Er, sort of, yes. “fucking kike” suggests to me that the poster would be expressing their hatred at someone (the “fucking” part) who they also consider to have general negative qualities because of their religion/ethnic group/whatever (the “kike”, or whatever term, part). “fucking kike hypocrisy” suggests, again, they’re expressing their hatred of someone. The difference lies in that they’re _specifying_ the negative quality of that group - the “hypocrisy”, in **CD** ’s case. So for me it depends on which is worse; your group has general faults vs. your group has this specific fault. While specifying cuts out the implied range of negative qualities, it does single out and emphasise one particular quality the poster ascribes to that group - and I would say that that can be considered just as bad. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fluiddruid-what-the-hell-round-two/339693/73 "2006-01-23T21:54:24Z")
> [@Revenant Threshold](#): > > Er, sort of, yes. “fucking kike” suggests to me that the poster would be expressing their hatred at someone (the “fucking” part) who they also consider to have general negative qualities because of their religion/ethnic group/whatever (the “kike”, or whatever term, part). > > “fucking kike hypocrisy” suggests, again, they’re expressing their hatred of someone. The difference lies in that they’re _specifying_ the negative quality of that group - the “hypocrisy”, in **CD** ’s case. > > So for me it depends on which is worse; your group has general faults vs. your group has this specific fault. While specifying cuts out the implied range of negative qualities, it does single out and emphasise one particular quality the poster ascribes to that group - and I would say that that can be considered just as bad. Fine. Just as bad. **Colibri** would have it that\* gringo\* is not bad, only _fucking gringo hypocrisy_ is. It’s a silly argument, as _both_ are offensive, and _both_ were objected to in the original thread. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fluiddruid-what-the-hell-round-two/339693/74 "2006-01-23T21:55:05Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > Your third, and fatal mistake is to suggest that the gringo (or nigger, or white trash, etc.) when used as a qualifier is somehow more heinous than when used as a noun. Would _fucking kike hypocrisy_ be worse than _fucking kike_? Your mistake is to think that “gringo” as a word is offensive as all. As I pointed out in the original thread, it is not. Here in Panama, and through most of Latin America, it is used as a simple descriptive. It is used freely by me, my Panamanian friends, and my American friends, without the slightest sense of denigration. “Gringo,” like “Jew”, can be used as an insult. But in and of itself, it is not insulting. And there is no comparison at all to “nigger” or “kike” in the severity of the insult, even when the word is being used to insult. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fluiddruid-what-the-hell-round-two/339693/75 "2006-01-23T22:02:39Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > “Gringo,” like “Jew”, can be used as an insult. But in and of itself, it is not insulting. I agree. But look at it like this; the word “American” is in and of itself, not insulting. However, if someone were to say “fucking American hypocrisy” they’d be guilty of racism. Why? Because they’re making disparaging comments about an ethnic group, based solely on their membership of that group. No, it is not as severe as other terms could be; but it is still racism. > [@](#): > > And there is no comparison at all to “nigger” or “kike” in the severity of the insult, even when the word is being used to insult. Again, I agree with you. But it being a _lesser_ crime does not make it \*no crime \* at all. ---
**Author:** ![Gringo\_Miami](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f17d59/32.png) [@Gringo\_Miami](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gringo_Miami)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fluiddruid-what-the-hell-round-two/339693/76 "2006-01-23T22:02:59Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > Your mistake is to think that “gringo” as a word is offensive as all. As I pointed out in the original thread, it is not. Here in Panama, and through most of Latin America, it is used as a simple descriptive. It is used freely by me, my Panamanian friends, and my American friends, without the slightest sense of denigration. > > “Gringo,” like “Jew”, can be used as an insult. But in and of itself, it is not insulting. > > And there is no comparison at all to “nigger” or “kike” in the severity of the insult, even when the word is being used to insult. For what should be obvious reasons, I was going to sit out this thread. But when someone nails things EXACTLY RIGHT, I need to support that. What Colibri said above is 100% correct without reservation. It is correct in Miami just as in Panama (Miami is over 85% latino). When I identify myself as “Gringo\_Miami” there is NO issue or baggage for me at all. The fact that some people are offended says more about this politically correct world we live than anything else. I am a follically melanin deficient, generationally advanced, salsa-inhibited MOT fornicator. Maybe thats what my nickname should be. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fluiddruid-what-the-hell-round-two/339693/77 "2006-01-23T22:09:23Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > Your mistake is to think that “gringo” as a word is offensive as all. What really confuses me in all these debates is that some people can state with absolute certainty that a particular word or phrase _cannot_ be offensive, when evidence to the contrary, i.e., persons reporting offense, abounds. Did you note the posts I pointed out, and how they refute your claim that _fucking_ _gringo hypocrisy_ was the bone of contention? **fluiddruid** closed the thread because posters were offended, your Panamanian experiences notwithstanding. You can’t have it both ways. If _gringo_ is not offensive by itself how does it attach offense to the phrase _fucking gringo hypocrisy_? ---
**Author:** ![Giraffe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giraffe/32/129_2.png) [@Giraffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giraffe)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fluiddruid-what-the-hell-round-two/339693/78 "2006-01-23T22:10:09Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > Grant me a little intelligence, please. I never suggested that the words cannot be used, only that they cannot be used as an epithet. My mistake. I took your insistence that we have a list of words that are “automatically considered to be hate speech” as a suggestion that there was a list of taboo words. There are no words which are automatically taboo. There are words that are highly likely to be considered hate speech if used as epithets. We don’t have an official list of such words, nor do we want the rules to contain an official list of frowned-upon words. However, we can think of a handful of examples that we’d be hard pressed not to view as hate speech if used as epithets, although even then we’ll still consider the context. We’re not going to treat every word that offends a certain number of people as hate speech, be it white trash, retard, fundie, pubbie or fatty. (All of which have been suggested as hate speech.) As I said, the hate speech rule is not meant to be a colorblind shield against any and all offense, but merely a pragmatic lower bound on the level of discourse we will tolerate. We have no desire to make it any more restrictive than absolutely necessary. What more do you want? We are not going to label the use of the epithets “white trash” or “gringo” as hate speech. Period. I’m sure you can keep digging up posts by various moderators that give slightly different answers to prove some inconsistency in our message, but it’s not going to change that fact. Besides, do you really want us to ban every word in the Pit that offends more than X people? ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fluiddruid-what-the-hell-round-two/339693/79 "2006-01-23T22:14:14Z")
> [@Revenant Threshold](#): > > I agree. But look at it like this; the word “American” is in and of itself, not insulting. However, if someone were to say “fucking American hypocrisy” they’d be guilty of racism. Why? Because they’re making disparaging comments about an ethnic group, based solely on their membership of that group. No, it is not as severe as other terms could be; but it is still racism. I agree with this entirely. I agree that the _phrase_ “fucking gringo hypocrisy” is insulting. I agree that **CBEscapee** was using the phrase insultingly, and in the other thread I have been castigating him accordingly for it. (Even so, I don’t think that the phrase rises to the level of “'hate speech.”) But the _word_ gringo is still not an insult in and of itself. > [@](#): > > Again, I agree with you. But it being a _lesser_ crime does not make it \*no crime \* at all. I agree that _fucking gringo hypocrisy_ is offensive. I myself take offense at it, just as I would if it had been _fucking American hypocrisy._ ---
**Author:** ![CBEscapee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b19c9b/32.png) [@CBEscapee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CBEscapee)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fluiddruid-what-the-hell-round-two/339693/80 "2006-01-23T22:15:29Z")
I don’t see anyone calling racism or bigotry or hate speech over [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=343255&highlight=fucking+french). Hmmmm. Hypocrisy anyone? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fluiddruid-what-the-hell-round-two/339693.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fluiddruid-what-the-hell-round-two/339693.md?page=5)