So would it have been ok if he left out the “here” and instead said, “all Obama-haters are blank blank blank…”?
“specifies a specific group of posters”? Really? Who? I’m curious. Tell me who I had in mind.
Oh, I forgot you’re not posting here anymore. Thanks for your partial help in resolving this issue, then. Nice talking to you,Dex.
And if not, why is Der still here?
One could argue that someone who actually hates Obama probably is either unreasoning, racist or unhinged. Unless some Dopers know him personally?
Here’s the deal prr…you can say whatever you want.
You can call all dopers racist or some dopers racist or just call RaftPeople a racist…after all it’s America and you can do what you want.
But, again because it’s America, the Single Most Free Country in the Universe of All Time Bar None ™ - the mods can tell you not to and/or ban you.
He probably would have been told to dial back the invective. Might not have received an actual warning, but his rhetoric was too strong for Elections.
“All the Obama haters here”. There don’t have to be specific names for the rule about groups to apply.
You don’t have to know Obama personally to be affected directly and indirectly by his actions as President, and thus have a reason to be unhappy (or happy). I suppose one could argue that hating itself is inherently unreasoning, but if you allow it in personal interactions, then there’s no reason not to allow it in impersonal interactions.
So who is this “specific group” then, if there are no individuals who comprise it? I can’t write “All the crazy people on the Dope are unpleasant and pay little attention to personal hygiene, in my experience” outside of the Pit because I’m referring to a group? That doesn’t make any sense to me.
Am I referring to a group in offensive terms when I ask about obstructionist Republicans in another thread? I’m pretty sure there are some Republicans who thinks the people I’m calling “obstructionists” are patriotic heroes, and who consider themselves aligned with them–am I being offensive to a group here on the SD in labeling them thus? There’s a thread on “Tramp stamps” current. Surely there are women with such tattoos on the SD who don[t appreciate being labelled as tramps–is this not insulting of a group here on the SD? If so, why is this allowed, but “racists” on the SD is not? Please explain.
Tom already explained that allowing “racists” [edit: the word, not the people] would ultimately destroy the board. I can’t imagine a response to that claim.
Calling Dopers “tramps” wouldn’t create the apocalyptic environment though? That’s what I’m curious about.
No. There is no special rule regarding the word “racist.” Permitting name-calling outside the BBQ Pit would lead to the the deterioration of the board. That some posters would like a special exemption to be allowed to hurl the epithet that identifies their particular bête noire does not change the broader principal that is being applied.
So “tramps” and “obstructionists” and the like are considered love taps?
“Obstructionist” is not, in itself, an insult. It may carry a negative connotation, and may be used in a negative way, but not all negative terms are insults.
“Tramp” is mildly derogatory, depending on context. (I jumped on a tramp steamer. I’m a vagabond tramp.) If implying sexual promiscuity, perhaps can be taken as such. However, the term “tramp stamp” in a phrase in common parlance, and thus doesn’t necessarily mean it’s an insult. Of course, there are probably plenty of creative ways to use it as one and thus violate the no insults rule, or else generally be a dick about it. So making some hard and fast interpretation is not going to work, because as soon as we say “it’s okay to say tramp stamp”, someone will come along and do something like “you’re that kind of woman and have the tramp stamp to prove it”.
Oh, for heaven’s sake, a tramp stamp is the name of a kind of tattoo. It’s not a pejorative on a person at all.
Also, if you want to call the “Obama haters” on this board “largely racist but wholly unhinged and irrational people,” there’s a forum for that. If you want to talk about your experiences as a phone bank volunteer, there’s a forum for that too. Why you need to combine the two is beyond me.
Finally, I don’t think any “Obama hater” really cares whether or not you put any time into volunteering for the campaign.
“Oh no, my anti-Obama rhetoric has brought prr onto the field! I have awakened a sleeping giant! Romney is doomed! DOOOOOOMMED!”
What? Of course it is. “Tramp stamp” is a dismissive pejorative of that type of tattoo. That style preceded the appellation and had no specific name. As it became popular to the point of saturation with many younger women who liked to use them for display and as tattoos were regarded as vaguely trashy by a certain subset of the U.S. population, it acquired a non-complimentary slang catchall term.
The fact that some embrace the term or use it out of amusement doesn’t change the fact that it is mildly insulting.
ETA: Of course it is not something you call a person. But it is kinda dismissive and potentially insulting to them to refer to their tattoo as a “tramp stamp.”
Indeed there is. That’s not a factual assertion, that’s a ridiculous insult.
However, if someone wants to characterize an enemy as a (to use a totally hypothetical example) “Large Angry Negro,” that’s racist. That’s not an “oops, I was being sloppy and held a racist thought in my head by dint of not really considering what I was saying,” that’s flat-out racist. And despite any protestations to the contrary, the person making such a deliberately racist statement is, by definition, racist.
This isn’t the same as calling someone a poopyhead; it’s more like calling someone a thief if they tell you a story about having stolen something. If someone tells us about having deliberately committed theft, is it against the rules to use the word “thief” to describe them?
I imagine that, outside of the pit, referring to another board member as a thief would be moderated as an insult. Factuality does not change the pejorative nature of the term.
“Thief” speaks to the nature of the person, and implies that he cannot do differently.
“Committed theft” speaks to the act that occurred.
This is the same interpretation used on other comments, like “liar”.
IANAM, YMMV, HWC, EAJ.
They have a problem around here, which is that they dislike specifying rules, prefering to leave it up to Mods’ discretion, their perception of tone, the context in which words or phrases appear, the phase of the moon, etc. to be the final determinant of whether someone has or has not warranted a Mod note, a warning, a suspension, a banning.
Which works out fine for 99% of the posters, 99% of the time. But for some of us, some of the time, it’s a fine edge to walk. I’d much prefer they made up real rules, actual words or phrases you may or may not use, and then revise those or tweak those rules as needed, bearing in mind the need to err on the side of generosity in interpreting those rules. This policy would rid this place eventually of actual trolls and jerks, who need to break whatever rules there by, by the mere dint of their existence. (I.e., an actual jerk cannot stop himself from being rude on a consistent basis, an actual troll will consistently say things he or she doesn’t believe.)
This might be an almost philosophical difference; for me, a term’s pejorative nature doesn’t necessarily change its factuality. It’d be, IMO, a warnable insult to call someone a thief if they’ve described their use of food stamps when they don’t absolutely need them, since that’s really a judgment on their character. But if someone talks about their habit of stopping on backcountry roads and grabbing a few ears of corn from fields for dinner, there’s nothing ambiguous about calling them a thief; it’s a completely accurate description of their actions. Again IMO, the board ought to allow such a characterization under such circumstances.
“Racist” ought to work similarly.
In any case, while I can see the argument against allowing the word as a noun in GD and other fora, arguments that involve the board’s destruction are pretty hard to take seriously. If the board is gonna be destroyed–or even if the tenor of the board is going to be coarsened–it’ll be by the permissive attitude shown to racists, not by a permissive attitude shown toward identifying racists.
We’re all clear that that’s what you would prefer.
Everyone but you seems to have accepted that that’s not going to happen.