And the intent of this guy was to call OMG a traitor to his race by using a term that is so insulting that multiple people–all of whom have a thick enough skin to read that Pit–found it offensive enough to want the mods to step in and stop it.
I’ll point out that, as a mod, you sure never seemed to have any problem gauging the intent of posters. I don’t see why you’d have a problem here.
Why does that matter? You’ve flat out said that calling someone a racist is not an insult. Why should Shodan get a warning for saying there might be racism involved in your moderation, but people who accuse GDers of using racism to support their arguments get a pass? Don’t tell me that you actually think people are required to be nicer here than they are in GD, as the facts do not bear that out.
In fact, your position on the term racist is exactly what I think is the problem here. You mods are out of touch with what is actually considered offensive by the majority of people. In this case, it’s about seeing sexual words as being more offensive than racist words, and that hasn’t been the case in actual society for the past few years, at least. Yet here the latter is banned, but the former is apparently not.
We live in a world where people are championing the ability to say “fuck” on TV, but racial epithets are horribly taboo. I know I would say “Fuck you” to someone well before I would ever use a term like “oreo” to describe them.
And I’m not that far out from what most people think. Especially considering that there were so many posters that reported the thread. You know, from people who read in the Pit and thus have a pretty high tolerance for insults. But apparently they know nothing about what is over-the-top offensive–only Miller knows.
The point is that Miller has policed the Pit before, so, by refusing to do so this time, he is in effect saying that this is not as offensive as what he’s forbidden before. And that is what bothers me about this. No, “oreo” isn’t as offensive as nigger. But it sure as hell is more offensive than “fuck you.”
You should see some of the thread reports I get. “Thick skinned” is not an attribute I’d automatically assign to someone just because they post in the Pit.
“So many,” in this case, was about five or six. That’s an unusual number of reports for a single post, but we’re not exactly talking about a supermajority, here. Some people thought it deserved a warning. Some people didn’t. The reason we have mods is because we need someone in a position to make a decision on situations like this. I got the job because someone, God help them, thought I had good judgement when it comes to matters like this. I don’t claim to have perfect objective knowledge of what is and is not “too” offensive. I’m just applying my own subjective judgement in as fair a manner as I can. Which is my explicit job description here.
I don’t forbid anything. I didn’t write the rules on offensive language in the Pit, I just enforce them. The rules explicitly say “fuck you” is off the table, but they give me a lot more wiggle room when it comes to racial slurs. I’d prefer to have the same wiggle room when it comes to other insults, but that’s not my call.
Let me repeat more directly what I’ve said before: No Pit moderator in recent history has ever issued a warning for hate speech. The rule has only been honored in its breach. So if people are thinking that **Miller **just cooked this up, you are sorely mistaken. Instead the Pit moderators have defended the Pit rule and recognized that it is different from the rest of the board because in the Pit, the offender can be attacked:
No warnings or moderator notes issued for hate speech in the Pit.
Lynn Bodoni did issue a single warning for “racist speech,” but she had adopted a different set of rules for the Pit when she was moderator. Those rules no longer apply.
I concur with **Giraffe **and **TVeblen **on this topic, and I’ve tried to keep my interpretation of the rule consistent with theirs.
So:
The “inconsistency” between hate speech in the Pit and hate speech on the rest of the board is intentional, and it’s been that way for a long time.
I’m not seeing many inconsistent rulings on hate speech in the Pit.
In that case, while the ethnic slurs were a contributing factor, the real issue was the “Kill all Japanese people,” rhetoric. So, again, some significant differences between that situation and this one. But the official offense was violating the hate speech rule.
Interestingly enough, Merriam-Webster seems to agree with the mods. It lists some words as usually offensive and some as usually (or sometimes or often) disparaging. Nigger, kike, spic and wop are all listed as offensive. Oreo, cracker, honkey, and redneck are all listed as disparaging. Oddly, faggot is also listed as merely disparaging, and Uncle Tom as neither. Entries for injun and house nigger are available only with a paid subscription to their unabridged dictionary.
Agreed. My point was that I can’t come up with a good analogy or similar situation. Certainly there are reasons that it isn’t directly race reversible. I also can’t come up with a good politics reversed example.
The problem with “wigger” (thanks for that) is that it seems to be derived from “nigger”, and thus is actually more of an insult to black people as a whole than to the white people trying to act “black”. So I can totally see how “wigger” could get a harsher slap down than “oreo”.
I’m new to the site (but not to politics/debating).
I found the back and forth about what is “acceptable” to call people and what is not, fascinating. When I registered, I agreed to the ‘Terms’ which state:
"Straight Dope Message Board Registration Agreement
We have one guiding principle: Don’t be a jerk.
…You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use the SDMB to post any material that you know or should know is false and/or defamatory, inaccurate,abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, threatening, invasive of a person’s privacy, or in violation of U.S. law…"
Hmmmm, seems to me that when someone refers to someone else in a derogatory manner based on heritage, race or gender, that is not acceptable.
Now, calling people ignorant, pompous, bigoted etc… can be part of a dialogue but shouldn’t be the “point” of a post.
Considering that the age limit is 13, the adults on the site may need to help keep threads from devolving into a debate about “what racial slurs are acceptable”.
Donteach, while I agree with you, with respect you are new to the board. We have this forum called “The BBQ Pit”, where flaming is allowed. In the context of that single forum, this board allows insults that are not allowed elsewhere within the board. Yet there are still some rules about how that forum is moderated.
The question that has arisen regards the lines and interpretations within that forum, as opposed to elsewhere on the board. If it is okay to call someone a “pustulous shitsack of imbecility”, then why isn’t it okay to call someone a “race traitor”? If you can call someone a “race traitor”, why can’t you call them an “oreo”? If you can call them an “oreo”, why can’t you call them a “house nigger”? If you can call them a “house nigger”, why can’t you call them a “nigger”?
You see, once you start opening up some insults, there is forever going to be an argument over why one insult is okay but another is not. Sometimes the lines are a bit fuzzy, and not by virtue of the board rules, but by virtue of the language and culture.
Most of the complaints in this thread are not really about “what can I get away with”, they are more about trying to argue that one set of terms that is used is getting moderated differently from another set of terms, and the protestors feel that either there is no significant difference between the terms (and thus the uneven moderation is unfair), or else some of the “allowed” terms vs “disallowed” terms are being moderated based upon overt or even unintentional bias by the moderators. The mods here swing a bit more liberal, with a smaller segment of this board on the conservative side. Thus there is a perception by some posters that the moderation of this board is liberal biased and heavier on conservatives. They feel that liberals get away with more than conservatives.
Anyway, the bottom line is there is more going on than can be resolved by “Don’t be a jerk.” Because yeah, it would be nice if that was the only rule we needed.
One of the really neat things about this site is that so often the members of the community speak the clearest and the best. I appreciate that.
We did originally start out with only “Don’t be a jerk.” Everything else came after. We did have hopes … of course, back then we only had two forum areas … and wrote on stone tablets … I would ride a wooly mammoth in to work … those were the days.
However, I’m interested in what qualifies as “being a race traitor” in 2012? The entire argument seems to be irrelevant. Likewise, the phrase, “You’re a credit to your race” is derogatory and a backhanded slur.
I’m more interested in the substance of the argument than in the school yard babble. Calling someone an “oreo” is easier than making a relevant argument based on facts about how someone goes about “selling out their race”, IMO.
There’s no requirement that insults in the Pit be relevant or intelligent. You’re discussion may make sense in GD - but in the Pit I may debunk an argument based upon conjectures regarding another poster’s mother’s various indiscretions.
