May I explain my user name?

About This Message Board
81

[QUOTE=Arnold Winkelried]
Sure, “white trash” can be offensive (after all, with the proper internation, a husband can even make the expression “yes dear” sound demeaning to his wife), and so can “idiot” or “polack”. I would tell a person “don’t call another poster an idiot or a polack” in Great Debates, but I wouldn’t tell someone “you can’t use the words Idiot or Polack in a username.” That’s where my “degree of offensiveness” criterion comes in.

[/qUOTE]

How is Polack NOT offensive? Would Wop or Kraut be OK?

82

[QUOTE=Carol Stream]
How is Polack NOT offensive? Would Wop or Kraut be OK?
[/QUOTE]

Can’t speak for Polish or German posters, but as a person of Italian/Sicilian descent, “wop” is very offensive to me. “Dago” or “Guinea” don’t bother me in the least though.

83

[QUOTE=Carol Stream]
How is Polack NOT offensive? Would Wop or Kraut be OK?
[/QUOTE]

There’s even a poster named “jerry”!!! I’m not German, but I do have a German friend, and that’s just outrageous.

84

[QUOTE=Excalibre]
As people attempted to explain to you in the other thread, over and over and over, Venus Hottentot’s motives were not in question.
[/QUOTE]

Not. The. Point. I don’t require ‘explanation’. :rolleyes:
To save repitition, I agree with **Arnold Winkelried **here

I was trying to say if you are going to slam somebody’s user name publicly for whatever reason, the very least you could do would be to have some sort of contact first. You know, consideration?

85

[QUOTE=Quiddity Glomfuster]
Not. The. Point. I don’t require ‘explanation’. :rolleyes:
To save repitition, I agree with **Arnold Winkelried **here

I was trying to say if you are going to slam somebody’s user name publicly for whatever reason, the very least you could do would be to have some sort of contact first. You know, consideration?
[/QUOTE]

I don’t understand this. You mean that MrDribble should have contacted Venus?

86

[QUOTE=Arnold Winkelried]
Meaning I would be more inclined to make an official ruling if I get a ton of complaints on it (swayed in my sentence didn’t mean that if more people shouted “I believe that X is the right ruling” then I would automatically decide X). If no one seems to care then I probably will not bother making any additional rulings on the suitability of the word Flibbertigibbet in various threads, forums, thread titles, et cætera.
[/QUOTE]

I sincerely doubt there were a “ton of complaints” about Hottentot; I’ll bet there was exactly one, but then I wouldn’t know because I’m not a Moderator.

One thing I do know is that I don’t really care what “M-W” says on this subject. Cracker, white trash, and gringo can be very offensive, end of story. ALL of them have been used as pejoratives towards me, personally, so I sure think they’re offensive. I’ve mentioned that I’ve had it shouted at me, well, I was even physically assaulted by someone who called me a “cracker” while punching me - does anyone think he was attacking me and calling me that because he thought I was a Floridian? Everyone who does, stand on your head.

If we’re going to bend to one poster who is offended personally by one term, then why not others? Isn’t my complaint just as valid as MrDibbles? Why doesn’t my complaint have at least equal weight?

87

[QUOTE=Una Persson]
One thing I do know is that I don’t really care what “M-W” says on this subject.
[/QUOTE]
Then we differ. I think common usage is important in determining what should be and should not be allowed. If we don’t, then the possibilities are “forbid any term that offends any single person” or else “don’t forbid anything”. I don’t see either of those solutions as being very conducive in a forum like Great Debates for example.

88

[QUOTE=Arnold Winkelried]
Then we differ. I think common usage is important in determining what should be and should not be allowed. If we don’t, then the possibilities are “forbid any term that offends any single person” or else “don’t forbid anything”. I don’t see either of those solutions as being very conducive in a forum like Great Debates for example.
[/QUOTE]

And if M-W does not reflect accurately the common usage in either its extent or severity, then we don’t differ. How exactly did this single source make its judgment call on that subject? Dictionaries, even multiple ones, don’t set the common usage, nor are they 100% accurate in reflecting the common usage. I would think that if some Members say it has an offensive use and has been used offensively in their experience, that would take precedence on this message board. Or, we could continue to just tell people that some racial slurs are offensive, but other ones are not. :confused:

I’ve never heard of Hottentot being offensive in my whole life, but I’m willing to accept that it is so to MrDibble. By that same token, I would hope he would be forthright enough to admit openly here in this thread that cracker, white trash, and gringo are also offensive.

89

First, Excalibre and the others: this forum is ATMB, not the Pit. You do NOT insult each other here, nor make rude personal comments.

Second: We’re not going to try to write a general rule on which racial, religious, or ethnic names are offensive and which are not. We’re going to handle each situation as it comes up. It doesn’t come up often, because most people are sensitive to most slurs in their own country.

We are, however, an international board and we will therefore sometimes stumble on a term that is highly offensive to one group or other, as in this instance, and we’ll deal with it. It’s pointless for us to try to come up with rules to cover every situation, but if an encyclopedia or dictionary lists a term as “objectionable,” we’ll probably use that as a standard.

It’s very clear that this was purely innocent on the part of Venus, and we’ve asked her to please change it and she’s responded nicely that she will do so. Yes, Venus, take your time in thinking what you’d like to change to (and, by the way, if you pick a name and then decide you don’t like it, you can certainly change again by just alerting one of the Administrators.) So, we’re being polite and well-mannered all around, and that underlines even more that there is no reason for people being rude or ill-mannered in this thread.

90

[QUOTE=Caridwen]
I don’t understand this. You mean that MrDribble should have contacted Venus?
[/QUOTE]

Yes. Or asked a question in her first thread.

91

Ok, just to make something clear for everyone, since there seems to be some confusion:

The man’s posting name is [SIZE=7]MrDibble[/SIZE].
Let’s at least get the poster’s name correct. :slight_smile:

92

[QUOTE=Arnold Winkelried]
Then we differ. I think common usage is important in determining what should be and should not be allowed. If we don’t, then the possibilities are “forbid any term that offends any single person” or else “don’t forbid anything”. I don’t see either of those solutions as being very conducive in a forum like Great Debates for example.
[/QUOTE]

So no answer, Arnold? Polack is OK with you?

93

[QUOTE=Una Persson]
I sincerely doubt there were a “ton of complaints” about Hottentot; I’ll bet there was exactly one, but then I wouldn’t know because I’m not a Moderator.

One thing I do know is that I don’t really care what “M-W” says on this subject. Cracker, white trash, and gringo can be very offensive, end of story. ALL of them have been used as pejoratives towards me, personally, so I sure think they’re offensive. I’ve mentioned that I’ve had it shouted at me, well, I was even physically assaulted by someone who called me a “cracker” while punching me - does anyone think he was attacking me and calling me that because he thought I was a Floridian? Everyone who does, stand on your head.

If we’re going to bend to one poster who is offended personally by one term, then why not others? Isn’t my complaint just as valid as MrDibbles? Why doesn’t my complaint have at least equal weight?
[/QUOTE]

Contrary to your rather disingenuous assertion, we are not in the process of asking for the user name change because of one person’s sensibilities. This is quite clear. The term is offensive at an extreme level to an entire group of people, a fact which is confirmed from several sources. Presumably, **Mr.Dibble ** isn’t the only user who could be offended by use of the term; it’s possible to offend people with pejoratives even if it doesn’t apply specifically to them. I would object to any use of the term “nigger” as a username, and I’m not remotely within the category of people at which the term has been traditionally directed.

Thus, the precedent set is simple: if a user name utilizes a term which is both objectifiably pejorative/quite offensive, and is offensive to one or more users on the Board, the Board will request a change. This sort of standard for measuring things is not unusual.

With this in mind, if a term is not objectively verifiable as being highly offensive to a group of people, even if it is highly objectionable to a single poster, it won’t fit in the same category. Which doesn’t mean it won’t result in official action, just that the standard will be different, given the inherent difference in the factual pattern.

What surprises me is the level of invective and emotional unhappiness with the relatively simple request from Mr.Dibble. I can understand the Poster Formerly Known as H**** Venus** being mildly miffed; for her it’s a personal issue. I simply cannot understand why so many others feel it so important to get outraged at the concept of what was asked. But, I suppose it isn’t the first time around here I’ve been disappointed with responses from the community. :dubious:

94

As I’ve heard the situation explained, if one were to divide humanity into a dozen “races”, based on actual genetic similarity rather than superficial features like skin color, then one would end up with eleven races in Africa, and one for everyone else combined (of course, even then, there’s still significant mingling between the races, so the lines aren’t clear-cut). Most of the peoples in Africa have darker skin than most Europeans, but “black”, as it’s used in America, refers more specifically to those subset of people who were enslaved in northwestern Africa and brought to the Americas. The Khoi are an African people, and they do have dark skin (compared to Europeans), but they were not, for the most part, brought to the New World as slaves (with some exceptions, of course), so it’s not unreasonable to say that they’re not “black” in the common-usage American sense of the word.

95

[QUOTE=Chronos]
As I’ve heard the situation explained, if one were to divide humanity into a dozen “races”, based on actual genetic similarity rather than superficial features like skin color, then one would end up with eleven races in Africa, and one for everyone else combined (of course, even then, there’s still significant mingling between the races, so the lines aren’t clear-cut). Most of the peoples in Africa have darker skin than most Europeans, but “black”, as it’s used in America, refers more specifically to those subset of people who were enslaved in northwestern Africa and brought to the Americas. The Khoi are an African people, and they do have dark skin (compared to Europeans), but they were not, for the most part, brought to the New World as slaves (with some exceptions, of course), so it’s not unreasonable to say that they’re not “black” in the common-usage American sense of the word.
[/QUOTE]

Excellent and thank you. That was the point I was trying, and failing, to make in my post.

96

[QUOTE=Una Persson]
And if M-W does not reflect accurately the common usage in either its extent or severity, then we don’t differ. How exactly did this single source make its judgment call on that subject?
[/QUOTE]
How does Merriam Webster make its decision? Don’t know. If I were a moderator, which I am not, I would ask you what cite you have, besides personal anecdotes. If you did come up with a cite, then it would become a tedious back and forth of arguing which methodology is better, why this cite is better than that cite, etc. Something much beloved at the message board! But I don’t really care to argue it. There are plenty of things I would be willing to debate, but this is not one of those things.

97

[QUOTE=Una Persson]
If we’re going to bend to one poster who is offended personally by one term, then why not others? Isn’t my complaint just as valid as MrDibbles? Why doesn’t my complaint have at least equal weight?
[/QUOTE]
You are in the wrong group. Really. I love this place. It has expanded my knowledge and world view considerably. But it ain’t perfect. And the idea that ‘white trash’ **cannot **be hateful is one of its flaws.

98

[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq]
Contrary to your rather disingenuous assertion…

But, I suppose it isn’t the first time around here I’ve been disappointed with responses from the community. :dubious:
[/QUOTE]

:confused: If you want to call me disingenuous, find the proper forum.

And don’t change the goalposts by redirecting to nigger - I sincerely doubt that anyone else on this Board ever complained about Hottentot until MrDibble brought it up. I also find it odd that you posted the slur “nigger” openly, but felt it necessary to asterisk out “Hottentot” - that implies that you find that a more offensive word than “nigger.” Is that really the case?

Second, Dex already explained the official position, so your entire post, made after his, is of highly limited value.

Third, I’m disappointed too. I’ve never had anything but positive feelings about you and your posts until now. I guess everyone can be disappointed now.

99

[QUOTE=Arnold Winkelried]
How does Merriam Webster make its decision? Don’t know. If I were a moderator, which I am not, I would ask you what cite you have, besides personal anecdotes. If you did come up with a cite, then it would become a tedious back and forth of arguing which methodology is better, why this cite is better than that cite, etc. Something much beloved at the message board! But I don’t really care to argue it. There are plenty of things I would be willing to debate, but this is not one of those things.
[/QUOTE]

You’re missing my point. You pointed to Merriam Webster as your guide for what was and was not offensive, but admit you have no idea how it arrived at that. So why rely on just that? Which is my point - I said that there were more sources than just that which need to be looked at, such as how it is viewed by the actual paying Members of this message board.

100

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
You are in the wrong group. Really. I love this place. It has expanded my knowledge and world view considerably. But it ain’t perfect. And the idea that ‘white trash’ **cannot **be hateful is one of its flaws.
[/QUOTE]

Well, if someone said that as an absolute statement, I’ll bet they cannot back up their statement with fact.

Since Dex has already dropped the big one in this thread after I made my post, there is no point debating it further. I’m going to bow out and let everyone else have the last word(s) before I get yelled at again. I don’t yield my position, but I yield the floor.