I can only think that IT failed to spot the reference here.
There is an internet meme which originally comes from the TV show CSI Maimi. At the start of the show the team are examining a corpse, a character cracks a weak joke and puts on his sunglasses, then the theme starts with Mick Jagger screaming “yeeeeah”
In the thread, **Isamu **provided the weak joke and the sunglasses. **Terry the Tramp **provided the yeeeeah.
So, **IT **gave a warning to Terry. There was no action against Isamu. If the CSI reference was objectionable, wouldn’t they both get a warning? I can only suppose that IT saw the yeeeeah and assumed it was a celebration of the shooting.
The joke itself might arguably be worth a mod note for both Isamu and Terry. But not a warning. JohnT made a crack and only got a mod note for it. I don’t see this as being worse than his.
I don’t think “I was only reproducing an internet meme” is very persuasive in this instance. Maybe (and I emphasize “maybe”) it would have helped if you had quoted Isamu’s post as part of yours, but do you really expect the mods or other posters to be up on everything kids are doing these days? You’re in mixed company in those threads, so I think the take-away is don’t do something you wouldn’t do in mixed company, unless you have an overwhelming need to be the kid who shows up at his sister’s wedding in cargo shorts and flip-flops. But in that case, expect your sister to be royally pissed.
Peter Morris didn’t imply that the mod should have been up on anything. He’s just bringing attention to the fact that Terry the Tramp was finishing a meme started by another poster that didn’t get a warning. So, unfair if Idle did get the context- or if Idle didn’t get the context, merely explaining the context so rescinding the warning can be considered as he thinks the warning was undeserved as it wasn’t a celebratory “yeeeeah.”
Peter, only Roger Daltrey could pull off the best scream in rock.
Good point. I should probably have started my post off with something like:
And then followed it up with something like:
I believe we’ve been down this road before, and sometimes the mods will relent, but other times they don’t. I think this falls into the latter category. YMMV.
Your sarcasm is winning me over. I saw what you started off with; re-reading it isn’t changing my mind that what I posted wasn’t relevant to the part of your post that I quoted. It was.
Nor did that.
That’s nice. I happen to think it’s an undeserved warning, especially when explained why, and this thread was worthy of making.
Are you arguing that Isamu should get a warning too? Because I could agree with that. But I see no way you can argue that bringing a CSI joke into that thread was appropriate, whether the audience understands the source or not.
I think both posters should have had equal treatment, either a warning for both or a mod note for both. For the record, I did report Isamu’s post, specifically stating that I didn’t think a CSI joke was appropriate for the thread in question, so Idle Thoughts didn’t need to “get it,” he had it pointed out to him.
It doesn’t seem that Peter is making a judgement on that. He seems to be saying that “if” Idle got the CSI reference and deems it a warnable offense, shouldn’t both posters receive a warning.
Looked at from the context of someone who had no clue about that meme, Isamu’s post was merely nonsensical, while Terry the Tramp’s was extremely offensive. And that’s a context that they really ought to have been sensitive to.
I’m saying that the lack of a warning indicates an error.
If Idle was objecting to the CSI reference *per se *both parties would have been warned. Since Isamu wasn’t warned, that indicates no objection to the reference. If there is no objection to the reference, the warning was in error.
I’d say even without the David Caruso pictograph, the comment, “He drowned…in a pool of his own blood” could be taken as insensitive, and not appropriate in a breaking news story.
I understood you the first time. I was surprised you were arguing that a CSI joke was appropriate and was (sarcastically) offering you a way out.
Since my attempt at subtlety didn’t work, I’ll offer my direct opinion. Both posts were offensive and deserving of warnings. Without the context of knowing the meme, the second was much more offensive. I agree with cochrane that the drowning comment was offensive even without context, but I can see that being a grayer area that might or might not deserve a warning.
So now the SDMB is getting on board with the whole "its offensive if somebody takes offense at it " rather that “offense was INTENDED” PC stupidity?
And BTW personally I’m getting a bit tired of actual warnings being issued without serious provocation…because despite all the powers that be claims otherwise…an actual warning is just a short bus ride from a suspension and banning…and IMO you can bet your ass at SOME point they might be well used against you…I’ve NEVER seen a powers that be statement to the effect of “well, Bob had an actual warning…but that was years ago…but we don’t count that one”
You guys and gals want a kinder gentler board? Hand out mod notes and observations to cool things down left and right when needed. I could get behind that 110 percent.
Want a jack booted thug gulag where any infraction just over the line results in a warning that ends up on your permanent record? Keep this stuff up.
And keep in mind…if you guys want to play this “warning” game…I and many others can report “inappropriate” shit left and right ALL DAY long…but most of us don’t because we believe in “free speech” and have skins thicker than a naked nectarine.
Perhaps it’s partly an age thing, but I had no idea what Isamu’s post was about. And I even tried to figure it out (what does it mean to be “greater than two black squares with an angle bracket in front of them”?? ) I get it now that it’s been explained, but how is it to be expected that the average poster here would know that?
) I get it now that it’s been explained, but how is it to be expected that the average poster here would know that?