Should offensive user names be allowed?

About This Message Board
1

In all the ado about the soon-to-be-former Venus Hottentot, very little discussion has been had about the underlying issue. This is an issue where “community standards” should be taken into account, so I’d like to know how other members feel about it.

Here’s my position:

I don’t think there is any reason to prohibit a handle, simply because it is offensive. A person who chooses a user name in order to provoke a response should be dealt with as a troll, but if there is a reasonable explanation for a name, I think it should be allowed regardless of content.

We don’t censor words any words on the SDMB, only certain uses of them. If I could quote Nigger Jim in my sig (and I assume I could–I could certainly quote him in a post), I don’t see why I shouldn’t be able to choose Nigger Jim as a user name. It might not be a wise thing to do, and might not show the greatest sensitivity to others, but that’s true of lots of things we let people get away with here, and rightly so.

Besides who better than Evil Eskimo and Tio Gringo to decide if the offense caused outweighs the value of the name? Lots of things are found offensive by lots of people, and I can’t imagine why the mods and admins would want to take on the task of defining what words are more offensive than others when used in a nearly context-free application.

2

I think you make some salient points in favor of allowing an anything-goes policy, Alan Smithee - but I come down on the other side of the issue.

I disagree with offensive user-names for two reasons:

(1) This is a great message board. No avatars, little color - just simple pure discussion. We have people stumble in here from all corners of the Web and realize immediately how great it is. I’d hate for their first impression to be “Hey, look at these racist people in here!” rather than “Hey, look how cool this place is.”

(2) We don’t allow people to call each other derogatory names in posts. And the entire Dope seems to spring into action when someone inadvertently (or purposefully) uses language in a manner that is offensive to a group of people - i.e. hate speech. It just seems odd to me to say that we should allow such things in usernames.

Personally, I wish that we could just self-regulate. Learning that words / phrases are offensive to groups such as the Khoi should make us say “Hey, this word is offensive to a group. I’ll do my best not to use it.” Not, “Even though I know this word offends these people, I’ll call myself whatever the hell I want.” What I’m saying is that I wish that we didn’t need the mods to stop people from using offensive usernames, but I recognize that we probably do.

Slight hijack: But I understand the slippery slope argument which quite a few people have touched on in the previous threads. I didn’t know until today that Hottentot was offensive. Tomorrow it could be “kittens” that offends someone. And what will we do then? Ban all the cat names? I think that we’ll just have to trust that, to paraphrase some dead Supreme Court justice, we’ll know potentially offensive names when we see them, and can work together to determine whether they should be allowed.

3

I of course disagree with the OP. One reason: usernames are just "sound"bites, divorced from whatever context inspired them. As such, offensive ones are at one remove from discussing or quoting the same, or even having same in your sig, I think. For instance, I first saw VH’s name in the forum overview for GD. It caught my eye, I can tell you! Now imagine I was seeing it all over the Dope? Even with the best of (misguided, IMO) intentions, it’s not a word I want to see over and over. Like I’ve said, it’s a word used on me as I was chased and whipped.

Also, I don’t think it’s the person with the username who gets to say it’s offensive, it’s the person it’s a slur on. And all that person should do is make a case to the Mods for it, I think. Then it’s up to them as to whether it’s offensive or not.

I trust their judgment, or I wouldn’t be a subscriber here. (OF course, I would say that, as I got a favourable decision, but I’d say it anyway)

4

Maybe I am in a minority, but if a user here repeatedly used the term “nigger” in his/her posts to reference people of African descent, I’d damn sure want the mods to end the practice. So I disagree with the fundamental underlying premise of the OP: that censorship of any type is wrong. Society MUST at some point censor itself socially, in order for society to be a place worth living in. The trick is knowing when and how to do that.

There is a belief common among many users of the Internet, especially among those who go involved in it early, that “anything goes” should be the rule. It is this sort of approach that has spawned illegal file sharing, winks at hacking, and wants to let people say whatever they please without there being any consequence. If you were in real life wandering around saying offensive things, you’d damn sure get a consequence. Polite society would ostracize you, and those you offended might well take a more pointed objection to your behavior. This place shouldn’t be any different.

5

We try to balance between allowing complete freedom of speech and maintaining a unique message board that is trying to build community. If we wanted complete freedom of speech, there’d be no need for moderators (aside from perhaps chasing aside pesky spammers, but even then, aren’t they entitled to … ?) The decision was made long ago that we wanted a moderated board.

We don’t want lots of rules, our guiding principle is “Don’t be a jerk.” And, it must be said, hurling racist epithets at other posters pretty much counts as jerkhood.

6

But isn’t there a qualitative and quantitative difference between choosing a name as a tribute and ‘hurling racist epithets’? Here’s where I think the skid down the slippery slope begins.

7

I absolutely agree that there is a difference between a username as tribute and as an insult. And I don’t envy the mods their current decision. Most likely they will ask VH to change her name, which is…well, which strikes me as wrong somehow, because so far it’s one person who’s been offended and one person who picked it as a tribute. So are we always to bow down to the offended party?

That being said, though MrDibble and I have crossed swords a little bit on this issue, I understand where he is coming from, too. (I haven’t crossed swords because I think he is in the wrong, but because I think he approached it the wrong way.)

Would I like someone to go around calling themselves Sandnigger or Raghead (which are the two most common derogatory terms for my people) - hell no. But if I was the only one who was offended by a term, I admit I would not say a darn thing. I’ll take for example as the word “Paki” - I hate this word. But I know there are many people who don’t mean it as an insult and many people who don’t take it as an insult…so I don’t say anything.

Either way I think there’s no hard and fast rule that can be laid down. Some words, sure, but many more times it will have to be on a case-by-case basis. And I feel sorry for the mods, as I said.

8

I agree with that, and I honestly don’t think you’d find anything other than a minuscule percentage of Dopers who disagree with it. That said, I wish you or someone could explain why racist epithets in particular receive such scrutiny while other kinds of epithets do not.

Yes, I’ve heard the argument that it’s a matter of what people can or cannot help. And so, for example, a person cannot help being black, and so therefore “nigger” is forbidden. I’ve also heard the argument that some terms are more offensive than others, so what about the term “colored”? Surely, it isn’t nearly as offensive as “nigger”, but I reckon the powers that be would frown on using the term “colored” in addressing a known black member. I think it is safe to say that there is no name one can effectively call a black person that has anything whatsoever to do with his race, no matter how mild. And I’ve heard the argument for that as well: that as a group of people, blacks have suffered oppression on a singularly massive scale, and thus should be immunized from offense of any kind with respect to their ethnicity.

Gays are a similar group. Terribly treated pretty much since the dawn of humanity, maybe not in every culture, but certainly in most, and certainly in ours today. And there are terms like “faggot” that are far more offensive than other terms like “sissy”. And although there is likely an overwhelming consensus among Dopers that sexual orientation is not a choice, whether it is in reality a choice, or at least a partial choice based on environmental factors, is not (at least yet) a scientific fact. But despite the board’s traditional association with reliance on science, most of us pretty much give a sort of benefit of the doubt to gays. I think that’s partly because we know so many of them, and know what wonderful people and what good friends they are. I have at least two gay friends (that I know of) whom I would defend with my fists, if need be.

But then we start getting a bit more murky with some other groups. Like nationalities, for instance. Just recently, I’ve seen someone here actually refer to Mexicans as a race. Even, believe it or not, the French! And so, for whatever reason, nationalities are often given the same sort of protections despite that, under ordinary circumstances, a person can change his nationality by emigrating elsewhere. If a person chooses to stay in France, then it is his own fault that he is French. Now, it is probably the case that someone somewhere who is/was French, has been chased down and beaten (or at the very least, taunted) for no reason other than being French. But it’s not on the same scale as lynchings of blacks or massacres of Indians.

Which brings me to another point. Is it sometimes the case that some groups, even of the same type, are more protected than others? For example, suppose someone addressed Biggirl this way: “That sounds like something you would say, Blackie.” I’d bet ten dollars against a dollar that almost everyone, staff included, would bristle to the point of a Pit thread with pile-on and a warning. Maybe even a ban. But suppose someone posted this to me: “That sounds like something you would say, Tonto.” Would there be the same hue and cry? In discussions among ourselves, Indians are keenly aware that we are the redheaded step-children of races. We may be treated with every manner of contempt or derision without very much consequence. Most of us reason that it is because we lack the political clout of other groups, like blacks or gays, which is in no small part our own fault because of our traditional political apathy. I could go on and on about reservations and such, and the fact that there aren’t any for blacks or Asians, but let’s leave all that alone.

Now we come to what seems to be a sore spot for a lot of people here. I think it is partly because of a clash of personalities, and partly because of some amount of ignorance (on both sides), but for whatever reason, people of faith may be mocked, taunted, ridiculed, and rhetorically spat upon both as a group (outside the Pit) and as individuals (inside the Pit). There is absolutely not one forbidden pejorative aimed at faith. (But there is one now, “hand-stabber”, which may not be aimed at non-faith.)

The argument certainly can be made that religion is a choice, like nationality. And there are instances in which that is true. Some people do, in fact, choose to be a Baptist or choose to go to church for various reasons ranging from having accepted Pascal’s Wager to being able to network politically and make business contacts. These people obviously can choose to do otherwise. They can reject Pascal’s Wager, and they can network with atheists or just stay home. But it is an equivocation to tag every person of faith with that same identity.

For some people, faith is a result of something happening in their lives. It isn’t just a religion in the sense of “I’ll take Baptist over Catholic for a thousand, Alex.” It’s a change in perspective brought about by a life experience. To deny it would be the same as Guin denying that she has ever posted at the Straight Dope. Maybe she could have chosen not to post at some point in the past, but as it stands right now, she has in fact posted and no choice she makes now can ever change that fact. She is a poster.

But even that analogy doesn’t go far enough because a person of faith (as opposed to the previously described religious person) cannot choose not to believe. That’s because they believe in the sense that they rely on, or cling to, the object of their belief. Their perspective — their worldview — has fundamentally changed from non-belief to belief. Any time I’ve encountered this argument from an atheist, I’ve asked him very simply to prove his point by choosing to believe in God — choosing to rely on Him, trust Him, and cling to Him for salvation. It cannot be done, of course. The atheist can choose to go to church, but he cannot chose to live my life, or the life of any person who has experienced what he himself has not. Letting go of God would be like letting go of my own life. Yes, I can choose to commit suicide, I suppose, but so can a black person or a gay person.

I’ve tried my best to explain my point of view without rankling any feathers or causing any undue excitement. I won’t know whether I’ve succeeded until I click submit, but I’d like to assure everyone that I mean no offense to anyone. And even having said all this, I want to make it plain that I do not personally support the prohibition of any term perceived as offensive. I’m only saying that the cherry picking done with respect to both the terms and the groups is highly subjective, and leaves quite a number of people out in the cold without the protections given to others. If we simply must have this protective shielding, let’s at least be as equitable as possible with it. That’s all I’m saying.

9

IIRC, FRDE was warned (in part) for saying that the Lebanese and Palestinian masses were “thick”. Living in Lebanon is something you tend to be born into, but can change. Like religion in many ways.

The rationale is usually given as “you can criticize for behaviour, but not characteristics”. But you still can’t call gays “cocksuckers”.

All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

Regards,
Shodan

10

Quite clearly, a large part of what upset some posters about the situation that has spawned this thread is that the attention shown to the issue was either greater than attention shown to seemingly similar situations in the past, or was of a different quality than the attention shown to seemingly similar situations in the past. Perhaps, if nothing else, the attention paid to the use of the term “hottentot” may have made the mods/admins more sensitive to other, similar usages. However, as I noted in my response to Una in the other thread, to be analogous, the term in question would have to be both subjectively and objectively substantially offensive. Subjectively, in the sense that a person is significantly offended by the usage in a rational way. Objectively, in the sense that one can determine that the term is, indeed, patently offensive to a significant group of people.

Any term which doesn’t meet these requirements will have to be handled by a different rubric, albeit the same result may occur. I think how I feel about the situation is clear from my prior post.

11

Some may find it odd, but I am more offended when a straight guy is called a cocksucker as an insult then when someone calls me that.

12

Thanks for all the responses. I’m surprised that I’m in such a minority here!

I feel like I need to clarify a couple of things about my position. I’m not in favor of an “anything goes” policy. I just don’t think we need to ban specific words qua words. Choosing a name like Killthekikes should be grounds for immediate banning as a troll. So, potentially, should a name like Aryanfighter. Not because of the words used, but because of the intent.

User names are pretty much context-free, which makes it very hard to judge the intent behind the words. One way of dealing with this is to have a no-tolerance policy for certain words in user names, and this seems to have a lot of support right now. I think no-tolerance policies generally have one thing in common: they don’t work. I would prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt, and allow self-policing except in relatively clear cases of trolling or bad intent.

I don’t think anyone has claimed that Hottentot Venus has anything but good intentions. Since we usually judge things like this by intention and context, and we do know how those things apply here, why change the standard to “That’s a naughty word!” now?

13

Damnit, I missed the edit window to correct Venus’s name! It’s Venus Hottentot. Sorry Venus!

I also wanted to add the following:

Venus knows now that her chosen handle has very offensive connotations to some people. She can decide whether she wants to change it for that reason, and the rest of us can decide how to react to her presence based on her decision. I don’t think we need the mods to protect us in this instance or ones substantially like it.

14

I think it’s been very clear from the start that VH chose the name in solidarity with Sarah Baartman, as a mark of identification and respect. That does not change the fact that the term “hottentot” was and remains an offensive epithet derisively mimicking the Khoi speech, and dehumanizing them as a people – and that poor Sarah herself was deemed little more than a lab. animal or circus sideshow freak, and somehow managed to hang onto her dignity despite that abuse.

For people here, of all places, to object to Mr Dibble, a Coloured South African, finding the term objectionable – when he himself has been beaten and abused under Apartheid for having the temerity not to have been born white – because they have never heard of the term as offensive, is, well, I actually need to Godwinize here, akin to the young punk glorifying Nazism because “the uniforms look rad, and I never heard anything about the Holocaust before, so who’s to say it really happened?” :rolleyes: Sorry for invoking Godwin’s Law, but the supposedly-educated punks who actually post things like this on the Internet were the first close analogy that came to mind.

15

Except that the “clever” troll will choose a name like “Oversize Nigger”, “Stingy Kike” or “Lazy Spic” and then claim “Hey, I mean it in a good way!” or “Hey, I’m from Mexico and I really am lazy!”

I am fine with having a blanket ban on offensive words in usernames. I look at it the other way - it’s not a hardship to choose a username that doesn’t have an offensive word in it.

16

Would “Tonto Apache” be an okay username?

17

I should have spelled it cckscker to be clear that I am not attempting to call anyone names. But I have been told that “black” is offensive, while “Black” is not. Same for “queer” vs. “Queer”.

[true anecdote]
Someone I used to know objected to the use of the term “colored person” in reference to American blacks. I asked what her preferred term was.

She responded with a perfectly straight face “person of color”.
[/true anecdote]

I’m not advocating for anyone to be subjected to insults outside the Pit.

Never mind anything I posted in this thread - I’m spinning my wheels.

Regards,
Shodan

18

The full spelling doesn’t bother me at all. Mostly what I meant was that I don’t mind being called one, since well…I’m gay so it is accurate. A straight male being called the same thing I find offensive because it isn’t true about them and is solely meant to be derogatory. Twisted logic I know, but there you have it.

To answer the OP, I wouldn’t support a blanket ban on certain words. I think the current philosophy of taking names on an individual basis and making a decision case by case is the best way to go.

19

Is that a trick question, Lib? Because I seem to remember that one geographic clan of Apaches (like the Chiricahua and San Juan) uses “Tonto” as the clan name, with nothing to do with the Spanish insult or the Lone Ranger’s sidekick.

Your issues with religious insults and American Indian are valid questions to be raised, IMO – I think it’s quite possible for a thoroughgoing atheist to say, “Well, I think that all religious belief is a bunch of superstitious malarkey” and you or I to accept that as a statement of his opinion. In contradistinction to the recent epidemic of dogmatic pronouncements on the subject, not voiced as a personal opinion but as a (to them) self-evident statement of fact, with the necessary implication that anyone arguing the other side is either fool or charlatan. Likewise I consider it proper to reference an ethnic group by a name they have “reclaimed” and accept, either with a sense of pride or with a wry philosophical view, such as you have stated you and others have done with “Indian” referencing Americans of Athabascan, Cherokee, Sioux, Iroquois, Pueblo, etc. extraction.

IMO, ethnically – 90% of the time there’s no need to call them anything. If the occasion comes up when an ethnic classifier is needed (try discussing the relative risk of sickle-cell anemia or Tay-Sachs syndrome without using the terms Black or Jew!), then call them what they are comfortable being called. If you inadvertently give offense, apologize. While I vaguely was aware that the people-dubbed-Esquimaux were split into two groups, I had no idea before the recent Ginger and Chefguy posts that both “Eskimo” and “Inuit” were offensive, each in a different area where the other was preferred.

And there are all manner of details. On another board, I’m acquainted with Kike – which is pronounced “KEY-kay” and has been his nickname since toddlerhood, the product of his slightly-older sister trying to say his given name “Enrique” that stuck. Considering that that board’s staff includes several Jews, this was a sticking point! But it was gracefully dealt with, by him clarifying the pronunciation and that it’s his real nickname in his signature. (Just as Mr Dibble and VH dealt quite gracefully with her inadvertent offense here.)

20

My take on it, Poly, is that it just gets worse and worse.

It’s no longer clear (if it ever was) just where the madness will stop. It has come down to the point of protecting some groups but not others, and protecting some individuals but not others. I was thoroughly gob-smacked when I was told (paraphrasing due to restraints) that “hand-stabber” can no longer be used, not just as a direct insult in the Pit, but in any context whatsoever. (Whether even my clinical usage of it in these posts is forbidden is unclear.) And so atheists have been protected from offense by the term, and that’s nice except that Christian fundamentalists are not protected from being ridiculed as “fundies” (although Muslims might be — who knows.) And now a single person has successfully lobbied to have himself unoffended (yes, I know how strongly you feel about it), and that’s nice, but I could not even get a ruling on a plain and simple rule against ad hominems outside of the Pit.

Have I misstated anything? If not, is there nothing wrong with this picture?

(Incidentally, no tribe calls itself “Tonto” Two tribes call each other that, but only in a disparaging way.)