Well, I posted it as mild teasing that you were using the same broad brush charcterizations that you complained about in others. I had no argument with your calls for a more careful analysis of Dogface’s actual words; I just thought your case would be strengthened by not embracing the same techniques.
However. if you found that “sadistic,” I won’t inflict such a comment on you again.
To those who argue that “white trash” is not racist: you are mistaken.
The phrase specifically arose in the context of defining the lowest class of white people who were “saved” from being totally worthless only by the “virtue” of not being black. In that context, blacks picked up the phrase and used it to indicate whites who were clearly (in the opinion of those blacks) morally inferior to them, although their lack of melanin gave them a higher social status.
With the dispersion of people from the South throughout the country since WWII, the phrase has been carried as a more general epithet to places where its history is not known and it has become more of a class insult than a racist one. However, there are a great many people who are fully aware of its racist origins and continued racist intent to the present day.
Ha, Ha. As Libertarian indicated, bigotry against Fundamentalist Christians often goes un-remarked upon by the mods. Same with the “white-trash” comments. Same with the Anti-American diatribes by the likes of Aldebaran.
A ban against hate speech is a fine rule, but it hasn’t been enforced evenly.
Actually, most of the “Anti-American diatribes” have been directed a little more specifically, generally at morons like you who equate any criticism of US foreign policy with anti-Americanism.
Right. People who post things like" Americans are war-mongerers" are not biased. Not criticizing President Bush, or the Administration, but saying that Americans are war-mongerers. That’s not biased? How?
The logical interpretation of what he said was that those who commited the crime were savages and whatnot. You and many others here are looking to be offended, so you can spew off some righteous indignation. When and if Dogface actually calls out a particular race or religion, then you may have an argument. As things stand, you do not.
As I said at the beginning, there is a rule here and I don’t understand it. Yeah, no hate speech, but the rule might as be no sokumba maya. Some people seem to understand it, and have been quite vociferous about how and when it applies. So far as I can tell, it goes something like this…
Hate speech: Dissing a gang of Muslim radicals who attack a man they believe to be a pornographer.
Not hate speech: Dissing a gang of Christian radicals who attack a man they believe to be an abortion doctor.
Hate speech: Dissing Martin Luther King, an icon to Americans of every race, by saying Martin Luther Coon.
Not hate speech: Dissing Jesus Christ, an icon to Christians of every race, by saying Jesus Fucking Christ.
Hate speech: Criticizing the French for being ass-puckered wimps.
Not hate speech: Criticizing Americans for being bone-headed idiots.
Hate speech: Calling someone black trash.
Not hate speech: Calling someone white trash.
Hate speech: Making fun of Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf.
Not hate speech: Making fun of Jack Chick.
Hate speech: Saying “Allah sucks”.
Not hate speech: Saying “Jehovah sucks”.
Hate speech: Gratuitous swipes at liberals and authoritarians.
Not hate speech: Gratuitous swipes at conservatives and libertarians.
…is that about the size of it?
do you think Jack Chick deserves the abuse he recieves? Has there been a thread were people were warned for abusing the French and not abusing Americans Haw the term “Black Trash” been used anywhere else on these boards except in this thread and in threads about the term “white trash”? and when has gratuitous swipes at liberals been called Hate speech?
Well, I’m not afraid to add my 2 cents into this topic, since I get called “ignorant”, “bigot”, practically all the time here (in the great debates that is, I get treated nicer in the pit usually). :o
There is absolutely nothing wrong with calling those 15 kids for savages, as they are obviously a bunch of fanatical, taliban wannabe thugs, who cannot handle western culture, and the openess to sex that exists, compared to their culture. We are obviously talking about some seriously, sexually disturbed individuals here.
So, here’s the deal:
They see some provocative photos and article about some muslim girls in some Norwegian paper, they get angry as shit, and they decide that they will go out and beat up the journalist who wrote that article. Kind of like a homemade fatwa.
Unfortunately, for those bumbling idiots, they beat up a guy who has the same exact name as the journalist they were looking for (who currently has police protection), and they proceed to kick the living shit out of the unfortunate other person, who had nothing to do with the article.
So, those 15 primitive thugs, or whatever one wishes to call them, are obviously fanatical, religious idiots, who’s ideas and values have no place in a western, modern society. I could think of a lot worse names to call them besides savages, but I’ll refrain.
Somehow, I could picture those same 15 kids walking around in Afghanistan, beating women with sticks, if 2 inches of their bare ankles were showing, had the taliban still been around and in charge. They obviously have similiar values.
Funny how when, of a Saturday evening, go into any major town, are you are bound to see a fight started, involving a group of guys out to do damage another guy, for some percieved insult, possibly against a girlfriend, possibly against a mother, possibly against a friend.
funny how when, if those people might be of pakistani origin, they are suddenly attacking this person because of their religion, that it must be a “fatwah”, that they suddenly are “wannabe taliban”.
Not to excuse their actions, which are reprihensible, but you don’t have to have a religious edict to go and beat someone up when they offend your women.
How the fuck can anyone tell, given the evidence that all of us have to go on? It might be religious, it might be cultural, it might be because they’re asshole teenagers with a gang mentality.
In-fucking-credible. Please stop pretending to be so stupid. It’s not the arabic culture. It’s not teenagers with internal moral angst. It is the RELIGION of ISLAM that forbids showing women’s parts.
“And speak to the believing women, that they refrain their looks and observe continence; and that they display not their ornaments except those which are external, and that they draw their kerchiefs over their bosoms.” — Qur’an, 24:31
Moderating/administrating a message board is an art, not a science. It’s done by live people, not some bots. Therefore, there are going to be inconsistencies now and then. Learn to deal with this. Since the SDMB is a BIG message board, and has a fairly big staff, and we try to have a diverse staff, this means that different mods may handle things in different ways. It also means that some stuff will fall through the cracks. Learn to use the “Report this post to a moderator” button, people! It’s quite possible that we haven’t seen an offensive post.
What makes an offensive post? Generally, I just know it when I see it. I have to distinguish between what I personally find offensive and what we don’t allow on the message board. There’s a couple of subjects that I’m EXTREMELY interested in, but that we won’t allow on the message board for one reason or another. I will STILL shut down posts or threads that touch on these subjects, though, because it’s my job.
Just because people don’t use the “proper” respect towards your God, Goddess, country, pet theory, whatever, doesn’t necessarily make the post offensive. This includes, but is not limited to, religious fundamentalism (especially if it’s based on ignorance), political systems that are based on the way people OUGHT to act as opposed to the way they really act, and similar beliefs. The goal of the Straight Dope is “stomping out ignorance”…sometimes it isn’t pretty, sometimes it gets pretty loud, and sometimes it’s LOTS of fun.
I am human, I do the best I can. Sometimes this isn’t good enough. In this case, though, I think that I did the right thing. I hold my position because Cecil, Ed Zotti, TubaDiva, and C K Dexter Haven think that I do a pretty fair job overall. If I make a mistake, one of them lets me know about it, believe me. I cannot please EVERYONE who posts or wants to post on this message board, I learned that long ago. So I will do the best I can, given my resources and abilities. It won’t be perfect. Believe it or not, I’m NOT allowed to do just anything I want to on these boards. If I actually did about half the stuff I’m tempted to do, I’d have my admin privileges yanked so fast that the hamsters would wonder why the wheels were turning without any rodents running on them.
Having said that, I will say that if someone can convince me that I’m wrong, I’ll try to do things differently in the future.
On to specifics:
This board is mostly read and moderated by people residing in the USA. As such, it does have a decided American slant. It has posters from every political viewpoint, though there is a liberal slant. Deal with these facts. They’re not likely to change. I’m not saying that non US residents are unwelcome, or that non liberals are not welcome. I’m just saying that these are likely to be in the minority.
Libertarian, I find your arguments/complaints incredibly disingenous and hypocritical. As I understand libertarianism, a TRUE believer would go find a MB more to his liking, or go found one. It’s clear to me that you do not find the Straight Dope properly respectful of Christians, or of libertarians. That’s not our goal, and never has been. I don’t believe that ANYTHING less that a statement that “Jesus Christ is Lord” would truly please you in the matters touching on religion. That’s NOT gonna happen. Get over it.
No, it was dissing Muslims and/or that particular nationality IN GENERAL that got the warning. I won’t put up with dissing Christianity as a whole. I WILL, however, allow and possibly gleefully join in while people make fun of radicals of any stripe, up to and including atheism.
Coon is hate speech. It’s basically a synonym for nigger.
And on a personal note, go get your meds adjusted. This is not an insult. I’ve had to have MY meds adjusted from time to time, so I know what it’s like.
Dogface, you’re being an asshole all over the boards. It’s either trolling or so close to it that it’s getting hard to tell the difference. Cut it out.
I have only one thing to add to Lynn’s statement: There is a difference between a simple insult, a statement that reflects bigotry, and hate speech. In some cases those differences are subjective, but in most cases those differences are crystal clear.
I don’t know why you think I don’t like this board. The fact that I’m here nearly every day and have been a member in good standing since 1999 should indicate that. Criticism does not equal hate. Just because I don’t understand the hate speech rule, and just because I believe that you were mistaken in this particular instance does not mean that I don’t think very highly of you.
What is encumbent upon me as a “true” believer, however, is to obey the rules of the site administrators when I am here. I always endeavor to do so. That is why not being able to understand this hate speech rule is frustrating. You know it only when you see it. So I can’t know that I’m outside the bounds until you tell me, and then it’s too late. The rule is already broken.
Jimm
It’s not my argument; it’s the Qur’an’s. Do you need more verses?
