Question about edited dickeries.

[Mellivora_capensis]

@featherlou

I think the phrase in question is “your girlfriend who looks like a retarded Asian”. I’m currently trying to figure out if that is indeed a racial slur or not. The woman in question is indeed Asian; saying she looks Asian is no slur, as far as I know. Saying she looks retarded; that’s a whole 'nother thing. I’m currently leaning towards un-PC as all hell, but not a racial slur. Trying it a different way; someone saying to my husband, “Your wife looks like a retarded Caucasian.” Or another way; “Your girlfriend looks like a retarded Negro.” No, I don’t think there was a racial slur in there. The slur was the “retarded” part, not the “Asian” part.

On a purely literal interpretation I agree with you. However, one sometimes needs to look beyond the words to see who is uttering them. This could change the meaning. For example, if a KKK member had to say to someone, “Your girlfriend looks like a retarded Negro”, would it not be reasonable to assume that there was a good chance the insult was meant to be racist?

Now, I’m not suggesting that the particular poster in that unfortunate brawl is racist, I’m merely pointing out that your example might not be applicable in every circumstance.

[Do_Not_Taunt]

Way to undo a well-handled situation, guys.

To start, you have a thread where mshar drops in a apropos-of-nothing insult with racial slur and all, edited his post to add another one, then edited his post to remove one, still leaving a racial slur intact. He’s now suspended. Good job.

Then, Argent Towers goes completely off the deep end threatening all manner of violence against mshar. He got warned. Fine. Good job.

Now, we have a thread asking the legitimate question if the edited-out comment can be held against mshar. Perhaps a reasonable response would have been that, yes, it can be. Editing was meant to correct typos and coding and the like, not to remove history. Once you click the submit button on your post, it goes in your permanent record (occasional http timeouts notwithstanding.) I don’t know if that’s actually policy or not, but it seems reasonable.

Instead, we get all manner of there-is-no-rule-we’ll-call-it-however-we-see it crap, and when called on their weak sauce, we start seeing warnings issued left and right backed-up with no good reasons whatsoever. First Marley23 warns Sleeps with Butterflies for insulting Argent Towers in the wrong forum. I’d like to think everyone agrees that saying “AT’s posts in that thread were a little off the deep end” is fine, but “AT is a raving loon” is not ok in this forum. But SWB’s post tending much closer to the first meaning. What she said was

@SWB

Argent was a raging nutbar in that post before and after his warning.

She does say Argent specifically, but it’s clear she’s talking about specific posts of his. Posts that were absolutely insane. To read this as an insult on the poster himself is bad comprehension at best, and willful disingenuity at worst.

Then, we get C.K. Dexter Haven warning Q.E.D. about junior modding. Now, I think junior modding is one of the least well-defined, or at least one of the least consistently used, terms that gets thrown around here, roughly on par with “troll.” But if its definition is broad enough to include discussing the rules of the message board in a forum called “About This Message Board”, then approximately 90% of us posting here, myself included, should be warned.

In other words, mod/admins, I think you handled the original situation fine. But when dopers come in here and want to understanding the reasoning, grow a thicker skin and try to defend your actions without resorting to bullshit warnings.

@Dex

Having heard Q.E.D.'s explanation that he assumed Admins were the boss of Just-Regular-Mods, I agree that I might have misinterpreted his comments. If so, I apologize and retract my Warning.

I hope you do take this route. I certainly assumed admins were in charge of mods - seems like a pretty reasonable assumption. If not the case, well, consider some ignorance fought.

[Marley23]

@Do_Not_Taunt

First Marley23 warns Sleeps with Butterflies for insulting Argent Towers in the wrong forum.

I didn’t give her a warning, I just told her to stop doing it. Warnings almost always contain the words “warning” or “official warning” in the post or the heading.

Initially I was trying to explain what I felt was the mod perspective on why Argent Towers didn’t get a warning in that situation, not marrying myself to a defense of that position. I got too wrapped up in some of the back and forth here- but more importantly the thread kept developing as I tried to figure out what I thought should be done about it.

ETA: Based on what was discussed in this thread and how the Pit thread kept unfolding, we’ve reconsidered and dealt with this situation with Argent Towers in private.

[Q.E.D]

@C_K_Dexter_Haven

Let’s take it offline, OK?

No. I explained my post upthread; I’ve said all I need to say. You can either choose to believe I’m lying or you can accept my explanation at face value. You chose to lash out at me publicly; you can settle it publicly. You’ll note that I had already told you what you could do with your warning long before I bothered to explain myself and was (and still am) perfectly prepared for whatever action you chose to take. Backpedaling would be pointless. However, I’m not going to continue this hijack any longer, either. Ball’s in your court.

Someone much smarter than I once said that when you find yourself in a hole, the best thing to do is to stop digging. I would listen to him, if I were you. That’s just friendly advice, Dex.

[Do_Not_Taunt]

@Marley23

I didn’t give her a warning, I just told her to stop doing it. Warnings almost always contain the words “warning” or “official warning” in the post or the heading.

You’re right; my mistake. You didn’t issue an official warning. What you said was:

Stop it. Questions about the rules go here, that kind of stuff belongs in the Pit.

So not an official warning, but a moderating action nonetheless. And one I thought, and think, is out-of-line. Commenting on a poster’s actions when relevant to a board rules question belongs here, not in the pit. That’s what she did - not insulting a poster as you insinuated.

But I don’t want to get sidetracked - I don’t think you’re personally doing a bad job with the original issue here. I understand it’s a unique situation and the rules here are flexible for that reason. Fine. What’s irritating is that members and guests ought to have the right to question mod actions, seek clarification on the way rules are imposed, and offer opinions. It creates a healthier community. Also, it creates interesting threads. But when mods and admins start flinging around the warnings and the "Stop it"s, with no real provocation, which is altogether too frequent, it smells like an attempt to shut down debate through intimidation. So, as you would say, Stop it. When inclined to moderate, especially in a situation where it’s your action being questioned, think twice, or even three times, before you act.

[Marley23]

@Do_Not_Taunt

So not an official warning, but a moderating action nonetheless. And one I thought, and think, is out-of-line. Commenting on a poster’s actions when relevant to a board rules question belongs here, not in the pit. That’s what she did - not insulting a poster as you insinuated.

She can say what she wants about the post, about whether it was jerkish, broke the rules and so forth. Calling a poster a nutbar (much as I like using that word) and questioning his sanity is a bit much so I asked her to keep the criticisms about the post, not the poster, that all.

Fine. What’s irritating is that members and guests ought to have the right to question mod actions, seek clarification on the way rules are imposed, and offer opinions. It creates a healthier community.

They do, and I agree.

But when mods and admins start flinging around the warnings and the "Stop it"s, with no real provocation, which is altogether too frequent, it smells like an attempt to shut down debate through intimidation.

All I said to stop describing a poster in a particular way that’s against the rules. I don’t think that’s intimidation.

When inclined to moderate, especially in a situation where it’s your action being questioned, think twice, or even three times, before you act.

I do, thanks.

[MrDibble]

@Do_Not_Taunt

Then, Argent Towers goes completely off the deep end threatening all manner of violence against mshar. He got warned.

No, he didn’t.

[Mellivora_capensis]

@MrDibble

No, he didn’t.

//hijack//

Did you have your Cape Dopefest?

[MrDibble]

@Mellivora_capensis

//hijack//

Did you have your Cape Dopefest?

Haven’t organised it yet - waiting 'till after exams, I think. So if you’ll be in Cape Town in Dec…

[Mellivora_capensis]

@MrDibble

Haven’t organised it yet - waiting 'till after exams, I think. So if you’ll be in Cape Town in Dec…

//end hijack//

[Cat_Whisperer]

@Mellivora_capensis

On a purely literal interpretation I agree with you. However, one sometimes needs to look beyond the words to see who is uttering them. This could change the meaning. For example, if a KKK member had to say to someone, “Your girlfriend looks like a retarded Negro”, would it not be reasonable to assume that there was a good chance the insult was meant to be racist?

Now, I’m not suggesting that the particular poster in that unfortunate brawl is racist, I’m merely pointing out that your example might not be applicable in every circumstance.

I see what you’re saying, but although the insult might be meant to be racist, simply calling someone what they are in a neutral term isn’t an insult, and it isn’t racist. Funnily enough, the defense that the original post wasn’t racist is the fact that the woman in question is, indeed, Asian. mshar may have intended his post to be racist, but he didn’t quite make it (in my opinion, of course).

[Marley23]

@featherlou

I see what you’re saying, but although the insult might be meant to be racist, simply calling someone what they are in a neutral term isn’t an insult, and it isn’t racist.

You’re parsing the term too finely, IMO. The post compares Asians and people with severe retardation, who are sometimes termed “Mongoloid,” although you don’t hear that much anymore because it’s considered quite offensive. (You can see this at the Wikipedia entry for "Mongoloid.") It’s hard to compare that to something like “retarded Irishman” because it’s not a typical slur to say that Irish people look retarded. That’s where the racist element comes from.

[Sapo]

@Marley23

You’re parsing the term too finely, IMO. The post compares Asians and people with severe retardation, who are sometimes termed “Mongoloid,” although you don’t hear that much anymore because it’s considered quite offensive. (You can see this at the Wikipedia entry for "Mongoloid.") It’s hard to compare that to something like “retarded Irishman” because it’s not a typical slur to say that Irish people look retarded. That’s where the racist element comes from.

I think we are getting to the point where jokes are not funny once you explain them.

The fact that people with Down looks somewhat similar to people from Mongolia has little or nothing to do with anything that has happened here so far.

As much as I normally like black and white rules, this is one of those cases where tone is all. IMO, mshar’s post was meant to be offensive, not because of any one particular detail, but because it just sounded so. And although many came later to defend him (or rather to attack the ruling and AT’s free pass), at the moment nobody came to say “well exactly, my good fellow, very well said”.

Had he said “retarded chick” nobody would have accused him of sexism. His post was offensive because it was meant to be, no matter how much one can nitpick it to argue it was not. That’s all it takes for mod action, whether one likes that or not, and that’s the way it went.

There is no chance in hell you can “win” this one by talking more about it.

[crazyjoe]

Yeah, um, guys…not that I want to distract from all this entertainment, but a question was asked WAY upthread about e-mail notifications to posts. If I get the original, unedited text from a post, and it’s offensive, I can clearly see how that could result in a rules violation and a warning. If thye don’t go out for at least 5 minutes after (ie after the edit window has passed) then I think it’s cool.

Also, I agree that the edit window should be used for spelling corrections, deleting dupe posts, fixing bad tags, etc, and not so that you can post something supremely inflammatory and then erase it. Not that you won’t get caught, but if you do, you do. For a long time we didn’t have the edit window, and what you posted stood out, so you had to carefully consider your words. I don’t think we want to undo that care with a simple convenience like the edit window.

[Marley23]

@Sapo

The fact that people with Down looks somewhat similar to people from Mongolia has little or nothing to do with anything that has happened here so far.

I agree with what you’re saying about intent here. But if people are wondering how “retarded Asian” can be a racial insult, that’s the answer.

[Revenant_Threshold]

I think the problem for me in thinking it innocent is why “Asian” was there in the first place. Why would that be mentioned in the middle of an insult for no reason? The neutrality of words depends on context, and a seemingly neutral word stuffed in beside a considerably non-neutral one suggests that it, too, is being considered non-neutral by the user.

[Cat_Whisperer]

True enough; he could have just said, “Your girlfriend looks like a retard” and left it at that. No ambiguity there at all about the intent to be offensive. A point though - I don’t think I ever called what he said “innocent.” The best I’ve been willing to assign to him is “neutral.”

[Revenant_Threshold]

Apologies, I was just explaining my view; I don’t mean to cast aspersions on yours.

[DSYoungEsq]

@Sapo

I think we are getting to the point where jokes are not funny once you explain them.

The fact that people with Down looks somewhat similar to people from Mongolia has little or nothing to do with anything that has happened here so far.

As much as I normally like black and white rules, this is one of those cases where tone is all. IMO, mshar’s post was meant to be offensive, not because of any one particular detail, but because it just sounded so. And although many came later to defend him (or rather to attack the ruling and AT’s free pass), at the moment nobody came to say “well exactly, my good fellow, very well said”.

Had he said “retarded chick” nobody would have accused him of sexism. His post was offensive because it was meant to be, no matter how much one can nitpick it to argue it was not. That’s all it takes for mod action, whether one likes that or not, and that’s the way it went.

There is no chance in hell you can “win” this one by talking more about it.

FFunny. I don’t think the Moderator has to “win” anything. And y’all are free to disagree, but if you insist on putting your disagreement to predictive action, you may wish you had listened instead of arguing.

As a teacher, I find this thread quite interesting. There are a number of you here who would have been shut down and taken private some time ago. I am disappointed that the people in charge here haven’t done so; in my opinion they are simply feeding certain behavior it’s best not to encourage.

[Q.E.D]

Yeah, the nerve of people posting suggestions, complaints, and other discussions regarding rules, administration, and moderator decisions in a forum specifically set aside for those things. :rolleyes: