The argument could be made that the politics of the posters may not have been a conscious influence, but working subconsiously nonetheless. But I haven’t been convinced it’s the case. Nobody has made a compelling case to me there is any level of bias against conservatives that doesn’t boil down to conservatives are outnumbered, so the pile on effect makes heavier response from one side than the other just by sheer volume.
In theory, you wouldn’t need to know anyone’s race, just ban terms that are based upon race. It doesn’t matter if I’m white, black, latino, asian, or some obscure category that only has 20 living members, dropping the word “nigger” or “towel head” or “kike” are all offensive. One doesn’t have to even be correct in who you use them against. “You oreo.” “Dude, I’m white.”
You’d just get arguments on whether a specific insult is based on race. For example, redneck. While redneck does seem to apply only to whites, it is not specifically an insult about being white, but rather an insult about a specific demographic that happens to be typically white. (And there’s argument if it’s really an insult.) Even the term “white trash”, while definitely a race-based term and a slur, is not exactly a racial slur. The slur isn’t against whites, but a lifestyle demographic. Same thing for hillbilly - it refers to a demographic of poor, uneducated typically mountain folk from the Appalachians or the Ozarks or possibly the Oachitas. Mostly those folk are white, and certainly that is what comes to mind from the term. But the insult is not about being white, it’s about being poor, backward, uneducated and proud of it, stupid, back-country bumkins.
It looks like “oreo” is being moderated more like “hillbilly” or “white trash” rather than like “nigger”, “kike”, or “wop”.
It’s glib comments like this that reassure me that my suspicion was correct, and that this would-be crusade for racial sensitivity is just the latest horseshit attempt at professional victimhood, and has everything to do with lashing out at the mods for perceived political bias. No mod, nor any poster that I’ve seen, has said they “support the use of racist slurs.”
Hint: there’s a big difference between opposing an expansion of prohibited language on this board—or simply banning “racial slurs” as though the definition of a “racial slur” were (and would always be) self-evident— and “supporting the use of racial slurs.”
(Not that it isn’t useful to ignore the distinction and pretend that mods and some posters are simply enamored of racial slurs, provided they’re flung from liberals at conservatives.)
There probably isn’t a white equivalent to Uncle Tom since white people have never, as a race, been in a similar position in this country. Because of the different historical role that race has played in the US, this is going to be common. There is no white equivalent of “nigger”. There was never a situation where white people were systematically treated in the way blacks were.
If you mean equivalent as in white person acting black, the word often used is wigger. Which would probably get a warning. Which is why I don’t understand this circling of the wagons.
I’ve reversed the warning to Shodan after discussion with the rest of the staff. I think he could have chosen a host of better ways to make the same point, but it’s a criticism of a double-standard rather than a straightforward accusation of racism, and as a criticism of that standard and of the view BobLibDem was “allowed” it’s within the rules of what we permit in ATMB.
I think the Pit mods have done a great job dealing with this issue (no surprise there) and I probably should’ve just let them field these questions without getting involved myself. That being said, I think the immediate assumption that Miller’s ruling reflected political bias is not only wrong, but that the charge makes it harder to have useful discussions of the rules and how we handle these kinds of things, so from that standpoint I don’t like seeing people start a thread by hurling those kinds of accusations around without evidence.
That’s fair. I would restate my comment to: I’m surprised that there are so many people who would prefer to tolerate the use of racial slurs in this online community, even if only in the pit, when they have the option not to.
I don’t care about that part. I don’t have a particularly high opinion of the poster who was at the receivng end of that remark, and I certainly don’t approve of the vast majority of his political stances. But, imho, that does really matter on this issue. Now, I agree with you that some people may be making this an issue because of the whole right v left thing - but I’m not one of them, and I’d prefer not to be lumped in with them.
Two threads below this one a Mod says, “Probably the first thing to do if you want to know if a word is derogatory or offensive is to look at a dictionary.” Sounds reasonable to me.
Someone posts cites just like said Mod did in that thread proving the definition of Oreo in the way it was used as being derogatory and offensive.
Wagons circled and no one admits to the moderation being uneven.
When there is uneven moderation some will speculate why it is uneven. I have to agree.
As a long time poster and because it was the Pit Bob should have been Mod noted. I don’t think a warning would have been needed. Especially since he apologized. But I don’t understand how this can not be seen as a racial insult. It does not make sense to me. Either such insults are banned or they are not.
As for the second I will say again what I mentioned above. Some of us see uneven moderation. When we see that it is natural to wonder why. Speculation will follow. Due to the political nature of the post and the posters involved its really not a big leap to think that is the reason why.
And I believe that, for the most part, that term is a cheap shot that doesn’t add anything to the conversation. It implies that the mods shouldn’t back each other up, but if they don’t back each other up you get to imply that it is because the other mods actively disagree with your target. This may come as a complete and utter shock to you, but it is possible for the mods to support one another not because of some sort of “Us vs. Them/Circle The Wagons” mentality, but because they actually agree with one another. It is also possible for the mods not to pop up in support of one another in one of these threads not because they have thrown the target to the wolves, but because they haven’t seen or are not interested in the what the thread seems to be about.
This is not accurate. Racial insults are not banned in the Pit. From the Pit rules sticky:
Note the bolded portion. Actually, note the part after the bolded portion, too.
Again, you’re comparing standards of allowable language in GQ, with standards of allowable language in the Pit. No one has suggested that “Oreo” is not derogatory. It clearly is. This is not a point that is in contention. The question is, “Is it too derogatory for the Pit?” with a side of, “Are conservatives treated differently than liberals when it comes to race-based insults?”
The first question is purely a judgement call. As both a moderator and a poster, I prefer to see the list of unacceptable words kept to an absolute minimum. One of the things I like about the Pit is that it tends to be self-policing. If someone comes along and says something outrageously offensive, nine times out of ten it’s both more effective, and a heck of a lot more entertaining, to let the mob handle it. Obviously, there are going to be disagreements about which situations fall into that one in ten where a moderator needs to step in, but that’s going to happen regardless of where we draw the line, even if the line is “No race-based insults, ever.”
The issue over whether conservatives are treated differently is, I think, a lot more cut and dried. And so far, no one has provided an example of a conservative poster being moderated for something they posted in the Pit that a liberal poster was allowed to slide on. Comparing this to the current discussion of racial insults in GQ is not illustrative of anything, because the two forums have vastly different standards in allowable language.
No one has argued that it’s not a racial insult. It clearly is. But not all racial insults are banned. Some are. Some aren’t.
Ok you are right. I only remembered “No hate speech”. I always took that to mean “no hate speech.” I did not recall the modifiers which turned it arbitrary.
I may not have been paying attention but has there ever been another instance when someone used an exceptable racial insult? I really can’t remember it happening but I have left from time to time. I know no one wants to give a list for some reason. Of course Ed had no problem giving a list of other words. I personally dislike the rule as Ed wrote it. “No hate speech” is pretty clear. Then it basically says that some will be allowed it kinda depends. Am I the only one who finds it a little ridiculous that some naughty words are banned just because but racial insults are not?
But don’t worry, I won’t try my new found freedom out. The only time I have come close to using a racial insult was when I called someone Uncle Tom. But he was my uncle, and his name was Tom.
