# SDMB to ban Tom Sawyer? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 1, 2004, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-to-ban-tom-sawyer/237784 "2004-04-01T20:06:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2004, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-to-ban-tom-sawyer/237784/41 "2004-04-06T18:55:33Z")
> [@Truth Seeker](#): > > Now you’re just being a stupid git. If there was actual evidence that the mods engaged in cannabalism then you’d be right to be concerned and it would be perfectly reasonable to expect clarification. Congratulations. You got the point. Might want to mark it down on your calender. I’m sure it’s not something that happens too often. ---
**Author:** ![Truth\_Seeker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5fc32e/32.png) [@Truth\_Seeker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truth_Seeker)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2004, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-to-ban-tom-sawyer/237784/42 "2004-04-06T19:54:34Z")
**Miller** , just to clarify, is it your position that there is no evidence suggesting that the SDMB may have adopted a zero tolerance policy for “hate speech” and that anyone who believes there is such evidence is an idiot? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2004, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-to-ban-tom-sawyer/237784/43 "2004-04-06T20:56:51Z")
Actually, Truth, I’ve given a counter-example. That’s not just evidence. It’s proof. There is no zero-tolerance policy. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2004, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-to-ban-tom-sawyer/237784/44 "2004-04-06T21:05:11Z")
I think the whole idea that the mods would institute a new board rule, and enforce it, without telling anyone about it is pretty stupid, yes. I think anyone who comes to that conclusion based on the material linked to in the OP is an idiot. Or possibly insane. I’ll grant that I don’t agree with the warning given to **Airman Doors** as discussed in the thread you linked to in your previous post, but one bad mod decision does not a policy make. And, it is worth noting, **Airman** himself has no problems with the warning he received. If he doesn’t care, then I’m not going to do it for him. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2004, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-to-ban-tom-sawyer/237784/45 "2004-04-06T21:36:58Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > one bad mod decision does not a policy make. Of course, [Lynn](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4686422&postcount=16) isn’t your ordinary mod. It’s possible that she did institute a new rule and forgot to tell anyone, also possible is that warning **Airman** was caused by her judgment being impaired. Could be something else entirely but there’s no way to know for sure until (and if) she decides to tell us. Whatever the reason, I think there is sufficient cause for concern. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2004, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-to-ban-tom-sawyer/237784/46 "2004-04-06T21:39:50Z")
> [@Jeff Olsen](#): > > Of course, [Lynn](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4686422&postcount=16) isn’t your ordinary mod. It’s possible that she did institute a new rule and forgot to tell anyone, also possible is that warning **Airman** was caused by her judgment being impaired. Could be something else entirely but there’s no way to know for sure until (and if) she decides to tell us. Whatever the reason, I think there is sufficient cause for concern. Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t **Lynn** answer to **TubaDiva**? ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2004, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-to-ban-tom-sawyer/237784/47 "2004-04-06T22:50:51Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t **Lynn** answer to **TubaDiva**? Hell, I don’t know. I was under the impression they’re pretty much equal. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2004, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-to-ban-tom-sawyer/237784/48 "2004-04-06T23:23:10Z")
Either way, I don’t know that **Lynn** _could_ institute a new board-wide rule without discussing, or at least informing, the moderators and other administrators, to say nothing of the board at large. All previous changes to the board rules have been announced via sticky. There has been no sticky about a “zero-tolerance” policy on hate speech, which is a pretty clear indicator that there is no such policy. Which makes sifting through posts by mods and dissecting them to find “evidence” of such a policy like we’re a pack of Talmudic scholars studying the Holy Text pointless in the extreme. I also can’t conceive why they would institute a new policy, begin enforcing it, and refuse to tell anyone about it, as **Truth Seeker** seems to be claiming. That’s just paranoid bullshit, and I suspect the only reason we haven’t seen a mod post a clarification in this thread is that they take **Truth Seeker** about as seriously as I do, but have less free time on their hands to waste on his hare-brained conspiracy theories. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2004, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-to-ban-tom-sawyer/237784/49 "2004-04-07T04:53:13Z")
Whether a term constitutes hate speech depends entirely on context. A thread whose topic is the discussion of what constitutes hate speech would be severely compromised by not permitting examples of such language to be given. IMO, whenever any term is used either for insulting purposes or in callous disregard of the common usage of such term as insult and its consequent offensiveness to someone belonging to a group it is commonly used to denigrate, it becomes hate speech. To say, “ **Duck Duck Goose** is a Fundamentalist” is not hate speech – she admits that her beliefs are based in the original Five Fundamentals (as opposed to what latter-day fundamentalists have transmogrified them into). But to say “You’re nothing but a fundamentalist bigot” to someone is transforming it into an offensive epithet. Take the “N” word. I have an unusual history with that – I come from a small and parochial city where racial prejudice against blacks was something that was done in the South, and was roundly condemned. But it was the common descriptor for someone of African-American heritage in my father’s generation, and to a lesser extent in much of mine – with no slur intended. I can recall him warning me, on penalty of spanking, to treat all grownups with respect, and a shopping list of people that injunction included that specified the N word among them. (For obvious reasons, it died out with the spread of broadcast media.) And I would have no problem, and would foresee no moderator objections, to its proper use in giving the standard epithet for Huck Finn’s African-American sidekick, or with reference to the books by Joseph Conrad or Dick Gregory where it constitutes part or all of the title. But if I ever were to use it to refer to a fellow member of African-American extraction, I would be callously disregarding the history of its use as a pejorative and subhumanizing term, and would justly be condemned. Likewise the insulting terms for our gay and Lesbian members may have the occasional proper use, as in “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy” or the musical group Pansy Division. But to use them as descriptors is _extremely_ likely to be taken as insult, and therefore constitutes hate speech. ---
**Author:** ![dnooman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/839c29/32.png) [@dnooman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dnooman)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2004, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-to-ban-tom-sawyer/237784/50 "2004-04-07T05:28:26Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > To say, “ **Duck Duck Goose** is a Fundamentalist” is not hate speech – she admits that her beliefs are based in the original Five Fundamentals (as opposed to what latter-day fundamentalists have transmogrified them into). But to say “You’re nothing but a fundamentalist bigot” to someone is transforming it into an offensive epithet. So, now we can’t say fundamentalist or bigot, or maybe it’s just the two next to each other. Thanks Hitler. Oh, and thanks N-word Jim. Watch me now, Muslim, Jew, negro, foreigner, person other than I. Wait, I’m still here because I didn’t say “you are nothing but a…”. That makes it bad right? Context you say, isn’t that a might subjective? I say it is. When you do write the “rules” let the rest of us know. I know a few people here would like a list of “naughty words”, I’d like a more descriptive policy statement. I fully understand the “don’t be a jerk” rule, and I agree with it. But the guy that cut me off today was a jerk. Would that same rule apply to the pit? People that piss you off intentionally are jerks? If so, why is there a BBQ pit? I’ll tell you why, to be a jerk, nothing more, maybe some insight here and there. I am as against hate-speech as anyone I know, but there needs to be a line drawn between simple name-calling, and blatant racism. I don’t give a fuck what the “zero-tolerancy” policy is, I’ll behave according to what I think is reasonable. As, far as I know, the mods will act accordingly. No personal offense intended **Polycarp**. ---
**Author:** ![Truth\_Seeker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5fc32e/32.png) [@Truth\_Seeker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truth_Seeker)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2004, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-to-ban-tom-sawyer/237784/51 "2004-04-07T18:23:34Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I also can’t conceive why they would institute a new policy, begin enforcing it, and refuse to tell anyone about it, as **Truth Seeker** seems to be claiming. That’s just paranoid bullshit, and I suspect the only reason we haven’t seen a mod post a clarification in this thread is that they take **Truth Seeker** about as seriously as I do, but have less free time on their hands to waste on his hare-brained conspiracy theories. Well, I hope you brought _a lot_ of tin foil 'cause we’re gonna need a lot of hats. > [@Jeff Olsen](#): > > Unless “no hate speech or racial slurs” has gone zero tolerance, why come down on him? And if it has gone zero tolerance, that’s not good. Such policies have a nasty tendency of removing common sense from the equation. I thought the administration of the SDMB was better than that. > [@GaWd](#): > > Just so nobody thinks I was making “hate speech” in this zero tolerance environment, let me be clear that it was simply a take on A’s “Salaam.A” signature and not meant as any sort of slur. > > I cannot believe that I felt the need to clarify a post in the Pit lest I get raked over the coals or a warning from the mods…A sad day indeed. > [@IzzyR](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Originally Posted by Lynn Bodoni > > And even in jest, we don’t allow slurs like raghead, nigger, or slope. > > This is either untrue or is a new policy. The late Collounsbury would frequently use the term “sand niggers” (referring to Arabs) in much the same way that Airman did, i.e. in characterizing someone else’s attitude. He was never admonished for it, the times that I saw. > [@ultrafilter](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Originally Posted by Lynn Bodoni > > It’s implied in the “Don’t be a jerk” rule. > > This is a new one on me, and it’s not immediately obvious that using racial slurs is always jerkish behavior. A couple questions: > > 1. Would it be acceptable to post a thread in GQ asking about the origins of a racial slur? > > 2. Can we get a list of some behaviors that are currently considered being a jerk? I appreciate that you can’t give an exhaustive list, but some general guidelines would be nice, especially since anyone banned stands to forfeit their membership fees. > [@belladonna](#): > > And for the record, I think “zero tolerance” is a bad idea. It never goes over well, and usually causes more grief than it’s worth. We need something less stringent than zero tolerance but more concrete than “I know it when I see it”. I don’t envy the mods for having to make those kinds of calls. > [@Esprix](#): > > Does that mean I can’t call the other members of my community “queer” or “dyke,” even when they’re used as self-identifiers? > [@gobear](#): > > Moreover, are these terms absolutely verboten? I can see banning their use as insults or hate speech, but can we discuss the origins of the words? When the mods say they are enforcing a zero tolerance policy, what do they mean? Must we censor these words in toto? Shall we refer to the John Lennon song as “Woman is the - - - - - - of the World”? Must we call a freshly mopped floor “---- and span”? And will the British Dopers have to smoke cigarettes and not ----? There’s more like that, but that will do to be going on with. So all these long-time posters are “paranoid” and have “hare-brained conspiracy theories?” Moreover, you think \*\* Gobear, belladonna, ultrafilter, IzzyR, GaWd, Jeff Olsen, Esprix\*\* and numerous others are “idiots.” If you consider all these people “idiots,” I’m not sure I’d _want_ you to think of me as an intelligent, thoughtful poster. The point here is, of course, that there are lots of people who are concerned about this latest shift in SDMB policy. That you, personally, don’t perceive a shift in policy is irrelevant. Many other people do and their concerns deserve to be addressed, one way or the other. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2004, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-to-ban-tom-sawyer/237784/52 "2004-04-07T18:43:35Z")
Not at all, **Truth Seeker** , not at all. Although I think their concern is misplaced, those are still legitimate questions about the recent implementations of a long standing policy, as regards a completely different thread. _This_, on the other hand: > [@Truth Seeker](#): > > I had really hoped that a mod would come along and clarify that there was no “zero tolerance” policy on hate speech and that I was overreacting. > > Since they didn’t, I’m forced to conclude that I’m not overreacting and that not only does the SDMB have a “zero tolerance” policy on hate speech, it actually has a “less than zero tolerance” policy since the mods will lock threads that might potentially tempt someone to use some of The Words. …is idiotic in the extreme, _especially_ in relation to the link in the OP. Asking, “Is this a change in policy?” is reasonable. Throwing a tantrum and declaring, “Since you’re not listening to me, there MUST be a new policy you won’t tell anyone about!” is risible. Hell, the fact that you’re still nattering on about **DrMatrix** thinking that _Brown Sugar_ is racist says everything that needs to be said about your credibility. ---
**Author:** ![Truth\_Seeker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5fc32e/32.png) [@Truth\_Seeker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truth_Seeker)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2004, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-to-ban-tom-sawyer/237784/53 "2004-04-07T18:46:19Z")
> [@Libertarian](#): > > Actually, Truth, I’ve given a counter-example. That’s not just evidence. It’s proof. There is no zero-tolerance policy. Come now, **Lib** , I happen to know for a fact that your reasoning abilities are infinitely better than that. Your counter-example is not proof that there is no zero-tolerance policy, it is proof of inconsistent enforcement of whatever policy there is. Let’s consider the two posts. > [@Airman Doors](#): > > My uncle’s business partner is Jewish and moved to tel Aviv a few years ago. I guess by moving he became one of the evil Jews. Silly me, I thought he just wanted to live in the Jewish homeland in peace. I guess that’s not gonna happen, because everyone in Israel needs to get their trophy raghead to mount on their wall. After all, they’re all murderers, right? This drew an explanation from **Lynn** , albeit in another thread. > [@Lynn Bodoni](#): > > And even in jest, we don’t allow slurs like raghead, nigger, or slope. The post you linked to – which **did not** draw any official response – read, > [@UselessGit](#): > > On second thought, I’m with elpadre and NHIBI. I just went to the store and there was a fucking nigger paying with change for his chicken in front of me in line, and then a perfume-buying faggot held me up for another couple of minutes by paying with his credit card instead of cash. Don’t even get me started on the fucking cripple and his stupid wheelchair taking up all the space. Don’t mean to offend anyone, just being descriptive. **Airman Doors’** and **UselessGit’s** posts are qualitatively identical – indeed, they are even employing the same rhetorical device. I cannot imagine what policy would prohibit **Airman’s** post while permitting **UselessGit’s**. But if there is, in fact, such a policy, then we _really_ need someone to come along and clarify it as it is otherwise completely incomprehensible. ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2004, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-to-ban-tom-sawyer/237784/54 "2004-04-07T18:57:24Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Not at all, **Truth Seeker** , not at all. Although I think their concern is misplaced, those are still legitimate questions about the recent implementations of a long standing policy, as regards a completely different thread. Yes, and Truth Seeker did the proper thing and opened a thread about the issue in the Pit. This thread is a week old, now. No moderator or administrator response. Do you think that would cause people to worry more, or worry less? It is a legit question posted in the correct forum, and it’s been ignored for a week. If you’ll notice, there was a lot of concern in the subscription threads early on about the “don’t be a jerk rule”. That, too, was ignored. Apparently the board admins and mods are either discussing the hell out of it in their private forum, or they’re just ignoring it and hoping it will go away. Or is this where you say that I must be the only one who has noticed that the people in charge around here have been getting more and more erratic? -Joe ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2004, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-to-ban-tom-sawyer/237784/55 "2004-04-07T19:06:10Z")
> [@Truth Seeker](#): > > **Airman Doors’** and **UselessGit’s** posts are qualitatively identical – indeed, they are even employing the same rhetorical device. > > I cannot imagine what policy would prohibit **Airman’s** post while permitting **UselessGit’s**. But if there is, in fact, such a policy, then we really need someone to come along and clarify it as it is otherwise completely incomprehensible. That seems to be the main concern here and is definately the main concern of the thread I started. > [@Merijeek](#): > > Apparently the board admins and mods are either discussing the hell out of it in their private forum, or they’re just ignoring it and hoping it will go away. Maybe they’re just deferring to **Lynn**. After all, it was her warning to **Airman** that started this. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Kentzel-Griffin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ccd318/32.png) [@John\_Kentzel-Griffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Kentzel-Griffin)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2004, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-to-ban-tom-sawyer/237784/56 "2004-04-08T17:15:18Z")
> [@Truth Seeker](#): > > THere, **Dr. Matrix** locked a thread because **Green Bean** posted the refrain from The Rolling Stones’ _Brown Sugar_. > [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=4700618&subscription=0](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=4700618&subscription=0) > > I assume this means that Othello is also unfit for discussion here, as is Tom Sawyer. I have no problem _Brown Sugar_ nor with **Green Bean** ’s post. Note that I did not issue any warnings in that thread. I closed the thread because, the OP was asking for examples of racism in rock and roll, which would have resulted in someone posting racist lyrics. I know the OP specifically asked not to post racist lyrics, but how do you give an example of racism without giving an example? As **Miller** pointed out, not every poster follows the suggestions of the OP. I suggested that censorship right or wrong would be a good topic for Great Debates, but I didn’t move the thread, because the OP would need to be reworked first. If someone wants to discuss _Othello_ or _Tom Sawyer_ in Cafe Society that’s fine. If there’s a factual question about either, GQ would be OK too. **DrMatrix** - GQ Moderator ---
**Author:** ![KidCharlemagne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed8c4c/32.png) [@KidCharlemagne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KidCharlemagne)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2004, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-to-ban-tom-sawyer/237784/57 "2004-04-08T17:35:11Z")
> [@DrMatrix](#): > > I closed the thread because, the OP was asking for examples of racism in rock and roll, which would have resulted in someone posting racist lyrics. > **DrMatrix** - GQ Moderator I guess I don’t consider the posting of racist lyrics in this context as “hate speech.” I suppose a racist could use such a thread to get lyrics posted that supported his/her agenda but that’s a bit of a stretch. I think someone needs to refine the definition of “hate speech.” I understand the idea of erring on the side of caution but… ---
**Author:** ![Truth\_Seeker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5fc32e/32.png) [@Truth\_Seeker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truth_Seeker)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2004, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-to-ban-tom-sawyer/237784/58 "2004-04-08T20:04:15Z")
**Dr. Matrix** , thanks very much for dropping by! > [@DrMatrix](#): > > I know the OP specifically asked not to post racist lyrics, but how do you give an example of racism without giving an example? Exactly so. Someone on the SDMB ought to be able to ask “Is popular music racist?” That’s both an interesting and worthy topic for discussion. It is the _antithesis_ of hate speech. Nonetheless, this will necessarily involve a discussion of racist lyrics. The current SDMB policy on hate speech forecloses these discussions. Asking something like “Are there examples of racism in popular music?” is certainly better suited for Cafe Society than GQ. Nonetheless, it does have factual answer. Moreover it has an interesting and even potentially consciousness-raising answer. > [@](#): > > If someone wants to discuss _Othello_ or _Tom Sawyer_ in Cafe Society that’s fine. If there’s a factual question about either, GQ would be OK too. Does the SDMB view “Are there any examples of racism in Shakespeare?” differently than “Are there any examples of racism in rock or rock and roll music?” Would both question be permissible if they were posted in Cafe Society instead of GQ? ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2004, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-to-ban-tom-sawyer/237784/59 "2004-04-08T22:07:55Z")
> [@dnooman](#): > > So, now we can’t say fundamentalist or bigot, or maybe it’s just the two next to each other. Thanks Hitler. Oh, and thanks N-word Jim. > > Watch me now, Muslim, Jew, negro, foreigner, person other than I. Wait, I’m still here because I didn’t say “you are nothing but a…”. That makes it bad right? Context you say, isn’t that a might subjective? I say it is. When you do write the “rules” let the rest of us know. I know a few people here would like a list of “naughty words”, I’d like a more descriptive policy statement. > > I fully understand the “don’t be a jerk” rule, and I agree with it. But the guy that cut me off today was a jerk. Would that same rule apply to the pit? People that piss you off intentionally are jerks? If so, why is there a BBQ pit? I’ll tell you why, to be a jerk, nothing more, maybe some insight here and there. I am as against hate-speech as anyone I know, but there needs to be a line drawn between simple name-calling, and blatant racism. > > I don’t give a fuck what the “zero-tolerancy” policy is, I’ll behave according to what I think is reasonable. As, far as I know, the mods will act accordingly. > > No personal offense intended **Polycarp**. I was, sir, engaged in the time honored recreation of _ **expressing an opinion** _ – something I believe you too have done on a few occasions. I will certainly let you know if anyone “punishes my contempt for authority by making me one.” Until then, what I post, unless quoted from somewhere else, is a statement of my own perspective. ---
**Author:** ![Truth\_Seeker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5fc32e/32.png) [@Truth\_Seeker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truth_Seeker)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2004, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-to-ban-tom-sawyer/237784/60 "2004-04-12T19:20:08Z")
While I really appreciate **Dr. Matrix** putting in an appearance, I _am_ disappointed that neither he nor **Lynn** have really clarified the new hate-speech rules. I’m not the only one who cannot fathom the difference between **Airman Door’s** post and **UselessGit’s**. Even if I don’t agree with the rules, I would try and follow them, as would most everyone on the SDMB. But if people can’t figure out what they are, I don’t see how people _can_ follow them. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-to-ban-tom-sawyer/237784.md?page=2)