Um, on a different tangent, in that same reply that Gaudere made, she said
This is ridiculous. I’m sorry, but it is. Gaudere, are you also banning the use of the word “niggardly” because it sounds like “nigger”? How 'bout the term “fag” as applied to what a British Doper might smoke?
You’d ban a word because it sounds like another word? In a written medium? :dubious:
Fenris
Wow, great point! If you can sac up and say this to a soldier and avoid getting your ass kicked, I might pay attention to some further points on your blind hatred of Bush. I bow to you’re toughness.
I draw your attention to the “and” in your definition of Saddamite. Used in this way, it requires that those to whom you are applying the term meet both criteria. In your original post in the other thread, you provided no such distinction, and in my reading of it, clearly intended the term to be applied to all of those generally opposing the current war in Iraq. Which would include me.
Why does opposing a war in Iraq make me pro-Saddam? I didn’t like the guy, and in fact, last time we were there (Gulf War I) I strongly advocated going all the way to Baghdad and taking him out. I think not doing so is one of the things that cost Bush Sr. the election (although not my vote as a lifelong Democrat). But I’m opposed to the current war, because it’s stupid. This has been covered thousands of times, but it bears repeating: the original stated reasons for going to war have not been proved out. The current justification is “he was a really bad guy and the world is safer.” This may be a true statement, but it fails to justify the billions of dollars and thousands of lives spent in taking out one particular bad guy.
So I oppose the war. And this somehow makes me pro-Saddam?
On your second point:
Your construction was offensive and intended to be so. It violates rule #1 – don’t be a jerk. And you know it. So cut it the heck out and get back to being a valued member of the community as you once were, instead of an unwelcome, bile-spewing incoherent presence.
Well, there is the small matter that “niggardly” and “fag” are both actual English words with established meanings that pre-date “nigger” and the pejorative sense of “fag”, whereas “Saddamite” is not an established word and was likely intentionally constructed to mimick “sodomite.”
And you can prove that how? “Husseinite” would carry the same idea, but not be as crystal clear as “Saddamite” seeing as how Saddam has always been called Saddam in the United States. To try and prove any connection between “Saddamite” and “sodomite” is ludicrous. Or is this another example of “hate speech is what I say it is, logic be damned”?
Actually, Fenris, there’s a distinction. “Saddamite” is intentionally constructed to play off “sodomite,” as the appellation “Saddam” is added to the suffix “mite”; alternatively, “nigger” and “niggardly” are two words with completely different meanings and connotations.
Here’s what might be a better example. Let’s say someone comes up with a name for people who wrap themselves up in the flag a little too much: “flaggot.”
That word is obviously a play on “faggot,” making it clear that offense, if not intended, is not wholly unexpected, either.
So it’s not a simple case of homophones (which, btw, sounds too much like “homophobes,” so stop using it. ;)).
How about manhattan’s admission? (bolding mine).
Because I possess a mind capable of making inferences at the 3rd grade level (and beyond!).
Ruling? Reconsider?
What did Gaudere DO, exactly, besides let you skate by with just another warning?
Clearly manhattan, you can do anything you want here. Carry on!
Not to put too fine a point on it, but that is exactly the idea manhattan is trying to make clear. He’s arguing that certain offensive constructions are permitted and that his construction is equivalent. Why should one instance be permitted, when others are not?
It doesn’t, but again, you help manhattan’s argument more than your own. Neither do Republicans advocate torture, yet that implication is permitted to stand without administrative comment. Manhattan’s point is that an offensive logical fallacy is an offensive logical fallacy. If one type is apparently condoned, then there’s no reason that one which is equivalent in every regard, except the side of the political spectrum to which it is aimed, should be reasonably expected to draw a warning.
And for the public record, even though the GD mods already well know, or at least strongly suspect it, I’m in full support of manhattan here.
Oh dear. This isn’t the end, but you can see it from here. 
More proof that you are an egotistical asshole.
You wouldn’t even dream of apologising if you made a mistake as a moderator, and yet you expect an admin to do so just because you got in a fit of pique.
Let me see if I have this straight.
Evil Captor has a thread in Great Debates that states that all Republicans support torture. Bush is a Republican. Therefore, Bush supports torture. QED.
It is acceptable to call those who oppose the removal of Bush from his position as “Bushites”. It is also acceptable to accuse them of supporting torture.
Saddam Hussein used and supported torture. Some Dopers do not support the action aimed at removing him from power. Therefore, by implication, they support Saddam’s continuation as “leader” of Iraq. QED.
But it is not acceptable to refer to those who opposed the removal of Saddam from his position as “Saddamites”. This is at least partially because it is unacceptable to imply that such folks support torture.
In other words, it is fine to call Republicans names that associate them with torturers, but not Democrats.
That about the size of it?
Regards,
Shodan
Shouldn’t that be “…when it suits your mod”?
Evil Captor put the pointup for debate (and was made to look quite stupid by starting it, IMO).
Manhattan threw out “Saddamite” as an insult to those who were anti-war, not as a point of debate.
I agree that it was wrong to imply that all republicans support torture, but just because Evil Captor is an Ass, doesn’t mean Manhattan can act like one in GD too.
If he was that aggrieved at Evil Captors thread, there is a lovely little “report this post” feature at the bottom of the post, which I’m sure he’s aware of.
Marx-supporters–>Marxists.
Mao supporters–>Maoists.
Baath supporters–>Baathists.
Pacifism supporters–>Pacifists.
Saddam supporters–>Saddamites?
Sorry, doesn’t work. Saddamists would be the normal English construction. Note that this word would have the same homopho_ic connotation (I’ll let folks fill in the blank), but at least it would have the smokescreen of plausibility in front of it. “Saddamite” is a peculiar neologism for a supporter of Saddam; we have to question the motives of the people who came up with it.
My best guess is that the word’s creator chose “saddamite” BECAUSE it was peculiar; the word’s creator didn’t want us to doubt whether the homophon/bic connotation was intended.
Daniel
It would bwe interestuing to see a comparitive tautology of “Saddamite” and “Pinko”.
tautology? ehh, that’s wrong. would “entymology” be the right word?
Etymology.
Entymology isn’t a word (although entomology is).
go raibh maith agat. studying insects wouldn’t make much sense either.