As already explained several times by mods, “get fucked” does not equal “fuck you” for the “don’t use fuck you” insult rule in the Pit. So saying “Get bent” instead of “Get fucked” does not violate the “no using fuck you in the Pit” rule. And the Pit is the only place that rule applies, because everywhere else, insults are not allowed at all.
Ergo, the rule that is being violated is a rule in Cafe Society, which is the “no insults” rule.
I will concede that a different phrasing could have been more clear, but the moderating action given was in line with a personal insult used in Cafe Society, not a violation of the limitations on the kind of insult that is allowed in the BBQ Pit. And the moderator action was in line with the phrase actually used, not some harsher version of the phrase.
I can’t believe this mundane thread still has legs. I should besmirch people more often to elicit such a preponderance of eloquent and thoughtful responses.
Call 911! Leaffan swallowed a thesaurus!
I think part of it has to has to do with twix adding the upgrade. It was not necessary. If “get bent” really does mean get fuck - which I don’t agree with… although I realize that goes against the ironclad bastion of finality in all things true about American English idioms, UrbanDictionary - then she didn’t need to include the snotty bit. If she felt it necessary to explain to other readers its meaning, then maybe it might not be so obvious after all. ‘Get bent’ is just something Bart used to say to my ear. Out of line in CS to be sure but no need to upgrade it to worst possible way of saying it in the mod note.
No. Just a half dozen beers. Seems to have the same effect.
Except most people I know agree that “Get bent” = “Get fucked” and we don’t need to consult the Urban Dictionary or any dictionary for that matter. It appears that you are a part of the audience twickster was aiming at.
I think Nzinga is making a cogent point and I had no trouble understanding it. The issue is not about Leaffan’s mod-note. You feel the mod-note was legit? OK, that’s a fact about you.
What we care about is what the theory of the mod-note is, which has nothing to do with your own personal thoughts about your own personal mod-note’s legitimacy.
Is the mod-note being sustained because “get bent” expresses a sentiment that’s not welcome in CS, and that a similar mod-note would be forthcoming if someone said “Buzz off” or “Shaddup” or “Why don’t you go somewhere else”?
Or is the mod-note being sustained because the restriction against telling someone to “fuck off” (a restriction that applies to all forums, not just CS) is now being read broadly, to include closer and farther synonyms of “fuck off.” This incidentally would represent a departure from how the rule has been narrowed (by Gfactor, who has earlier stated that when he mods, at least as far as the Pit is concerned, he construes the forbidden language rules strictly).
Because it’s a sentiment (not a particular combination of words) that’s not appropriate in Cafe Society.
Still not seeing why the mod needed to re-state it in stronger terms when the original “get bent” was out of line.
Not seeing why it’s an issue, anyway. It was just a mod note and no one’s protesting its issuance. No harm done, no foul.
I do think that those who gathered at Deux Magot or other famous St. Germaine Dupres cafes would find it bewildering that “get bent” or even its more colorful alternative were forbidden. I just can’t see Hemingway, Joyce, Fitzgerald, and Sarte being so delicate in their choices of language. Oh well.
The moderators in this forum post under their own names. Checkmate.
What it comes down to is that insults do not take their severity from their literal meaning. They take their severity from history of use and intent.
“Get bent” (a Bart Simpson catchphrase) and “idiot” are examples of insults not considered severe despite their seemingly offensive definitions. Even “scumbag” is often not considered inappropriate despite the gross literal definition.
Conversely, some insults about race or sexual orientation are considered extremely severe, even though by literal definition they should not be insults at all. They are severe insults not because of definition, but as always with insults, because of their history and the intent we surmise from their use.
Theoretically, you could have a phrase which (if you looked it up) technically meant “get fucked”, but which was honestly used as friendly banter. And you could have a phrase which (if you looked it up) technically meant “friendly”, but in practice was a terrible insult.
Obviously “get bent” is still an insult and still was inappropriate, this was just an extra discussion that came up.
Would one be allowed to tell another poster:
Go insult yourself (since I’m not allowed to do that for you).
?
Aaaand round and round we go. Once again, had the mod in question just said “Don’t insult other people in CS”, we would not be having this argument. It’s just whether “Get bent” equals “Get fucked”, and if so, why “Go fuck a cactus” isn’t on a par with “Go fuck yourself”.
If “get bent” means “get fucked”, then zounds and drat it! we’ll never see a minced oath used again.
Haaaaahaaaa at “zounds and drat”!
Um, because the moderator was obviously posting in jest?
The Pit mods have said several times they are not going to mod every single variation of “go fuck yourself” or “fuck off”.
Ed said:
And the Pit mods are sticking to that specific list. That is why “go fuck a cactus” is ok. And I’m glad it is because I’ve used it, or some variant of it, several times myself.
I mean, mods have been called out for noting TV show & movie insults posted in jest. Why get on one for saying “go fuck a catcus” in a thread titled Fuck Cacti?