Should offensive user names be allowed?

About This Message Board
21

I hope I haven’t come off this way! I have no objection to Mr Dibble’s reaction to the term. He has suffered some truly horrendous treatment, and I think anyone would recognize the very real pain he feels when he reads the word that was used to dehumanize him for so long.

But if someone started a thread openly defending racist treatment of Coloured South Africans, although we’d collectively chew that person a new one tout de suite, I don’t think the moderators would step in unless it devolved into trolling.

22

No, but if someone opened a thread defending racist treatment of non-“White” South Africans, and in the process used a number of pejorative terms for such people, I’d damn well expect that the poster would be shut down by the Board.

23

Um, can you clarify the article here in Wikipedia about the Tonto Apache? Perhaps it needs editing …

24

I’d say you got a ruling (wrists slapped, thread closed) - it just wasn’t one you liked.

25

Not surprisingly, that is called “person first language”, meaning that people are individuals first, and everything else second. People with disabilities prefer to be referred to this way as opposed to “disabled people”. It’s a matter of respect for the individual.

26

I think this is largely a temptress in a teapot.[sup]1[/sup] It’s just not been that much of a problem before, and I don’t foresee that it will be much of a problem in the future. Liberal, you pose some interesting questions, but they’re pretty much hypothetical. When and if we have to deal with them, we will, but we really (really!) don’t want to spend lots of time spinning hypothetical rulings for hypothetical situations.

And we’re trying to balance between freedom of speech (on the one hand) and civil discourse (on the other.)

Here are my opinions:

  • First, yeah, OK, I said “racial” in my post above but I meant any protected (in the U.S.) minority: gender[sup]2[/sup], sexual orientation, religion, nationality, ethnicity, or disability. “Racial” was the focus of the current argument, so I used that, not meaning to imply that ethnic or religious slurs were acceptable. They’re clearly not.

-Second, we need to differentiate amongst usernames and thread content. At the moment, we’re just talking usernames. A username that is a recognized slur against some protected minority gets treated more strictly than a post. A user name like “kill the kikes” or “gay basher” would almost certainly not be tolerated. On the other hand, if someone wants to post “Why are gays so swishy?” or “Why are Mexicans so lazy?” those would probably be accepted as topics for discussion.

Note that we consistenly have discussions about religion, about ethnic customs, about national policies/politics. We don’t want to limit those discussions any more than we have to. On the other hand, a user name like “I hate Catholics” or “Fuck Canada” or “Liberals are wimps”[sup]3[/sup] would not be permitted. However, they would be permitted as thread titles for discussion. There’s a difference.

In the current situation, we have an inadvertent offense. I think the comparison to someone who wanted to use “Nigger Jim” as a tribute to Mark Twain was very cogent. It was meant in all innocence, but we wouldn’t allow it. Where do we draw the line? Would “Indian Joe” be acceptable if posted by someone named Joe from Mumbai, even if “Indian” was deemed offensive by a native American poster? I don’t know. I doubt it; “Indian” doesn’t have the same degree of negative connotation as “Injun” or “nigger.”

We need to distinguish between highly offensive and merely troublesome. I don’t think we need to worry about “Mick” short for “Mickey,” or “Spic and span.” The context is different. And, again, I don’t think we need to worry about these things in advance: sufficient unto the weevil is the date thereof.[sup]4[/sup]

[sup]1[/sup]Yes, I know, don’t bother to correct me. It’s called a play on words.
[sup]2[/sup]Although why gender is a “minority” is beyond me.
[sup]3[/sup]Nothin’ personal, I coulda used any political party, right?
[sup]4[/sup]See [sup]1[/sup] supra.

27

That’s a bit unfair. Yes, Mr. Dibble made the post and asked for a ruling about whether a username was acceptable, but you have no way of knowing if anyone else was offended or not. Saartjie Baartman isn’t some remote person that no one has ever heard of. Another member did ask about the use of the name.
He made his case for why he felt the username was objectionable and the mods made a ruling.

I guess I’m not understanding why you have an issue with this. Do you disagree with Mr. Dibble and think the term isn’t racist? I guess there’s a history going on that I don’t know about. Did you have a problem with a member’s username in the past that was allowed?

28

Dex, thank you. Thanks for responding with such sincerity and thoughtfulness, which was the manner in which I intended my questions and comments as well. In the end, it is not necessary that I understand every nuance of your thinking so long as your approach is to give the benefit of the doubt until and unless otherwise provoked. And that seems to be the case. I’ll shut up about all this now. You allowed me to speak my peace, and that’s all a person can ask.

29

Quique (KEY-kay) is a common Puerto Rican diminutive of Enrique; it’s the equivalent of “Hank” for Henry, and I’ve never seen anyone spell it “Kike” (though in Spanish, that IS how that spelling would be pronounced.)

30

I’m afraid my address was banned for editing at Wikipedia after I attempted to correct various portions of their article on Indian Hater Jackson. But with respect to what you cited, even it says that they are called the name by people outside their community. And I doubt that the Western Apaches named the national forest.

31

That’s your choice, not to say anything. But it doesn’t mean that someone who does say something is in the wrong.

My reply here is a moot point, as I see that Dex has clarified the case-by-case nature of responses, but something about your involvement in all this really irked me. Like you were asking MrDibble to justify his being offended or something. I may be off base about that, but in any case, I feel that it is every person’s right to explain why they are bothered by a word or phrase and, in this case, I felt that his feelings and the history of that word warranted the actions taken.

32

I don’t think she was asking him to justify being offended at any point in the debacle. Certainly at first, I think she was just asking him not to be offensive while demanding protection from offense. And now she is simply stating her own opinion about the broader matter in a thread in which such opinions were solicited. Does that make sense?

33

Well, she did say

in the first thread, but it’s likely wrong of me to bring that up in this thread. It’s hard to keep up with this topic/these topics when I’m away from the computer much of the day. Perhaps things have changed since then.

34

Watch how you wield your broad brush there, could take someone’s eye out.

35

Wow, OK, sorry.
I should have said, *I work in the disabilities field and have been taught that, in general, people with disabilities prefer to be referred to as people first, with their disability mentioned second, as in, “An individual with Cerebral Palsy” or “A woman with a visual impairment”. *

I have to say, of all the times broad brushes have been used in these threads over the past few days, I didn’t expect that it would be my assertion that person-first language is considered most respectful to be the instance that gets called out.

36

Is the phrase “hand-stabber” in fact a forbidden pejorative aimed at faith that can no longer be used, not just as a direct insult in the Pit, but in any context whatsoever?

CMC fnord!
I am correct that the words kike and dot/rag/towelhead are forbidden pejoratives aimed at faith?

37

That’s what I was told by an admin, but I suppose it is possible that it was directed only at me. But that would be quite odd since I haven’t used the term at all in years, having agreed long ago to stop. (I think the pejoratives you listed are about ethnic Jews, Arabs, Eastern Indians, etc., and not about religions. There are, for example, fundamentalist Muslims.)

38

I’m surprised no one has referenced the famous (?) Lenny Bruce monologue on the subject of ethnic slurs.

If you don’t have an interest in reading all of it, do a “find” function on the word “nigger” and start reading there.

39

I have no problem at all believeing that MrDibble personally finds that term objectionable. But most dudes here do not. The problem then becomes- who gets to decide what is offensive? There is no racial term which is not offensive to some. Look at the terms “Jap” and “White trash”. Both are mildly offensive perjoritives. However, on this board- Staff has stepped in to say that “Jap” is offensive and in another thread- that “white trash” is not (well they actually said I shouldn’t offended by it). So- “Jap” is bad, “White Trash” is OK? (I think tht the call by the Mod on “Jap” went too far, myself, as it opened up a huge can 'o worms).

Or take “African American”- some dudes find that offensive while others find “black” offensive. Many detest “Negro”.

“Niggerhater” is of course a Troll, but “NiggerJim” could be a big fan of Twain or a black dude named James whose friends call him that (we do all know that many black dudes call each other “Nigger”, right?). Or a troll. Who knows?

Some dudes find “white” offensive, others don’t care for “Anglo”.

“Brit” isn’t considered by most to be a perjoritive at all, but one Irish poster stepped in to say that when he and his friends use it, it most certainly is.

“Yank” is OK for most Americans- except to those South of the MD line.

And although I accept lorene’s expertise that many if not most prefer her term, certainly there is no term that would make all happy, as Priceguy pointed out. I have one friend that insists upon “Hearing Impaired”, while another hate hate HATEs that term and wants only “Deaf”. Her sigg language gets very “loud” when she signs that.

Look right here- some could object to: CairoCarol, crowmanyclouds, Caridwen and others. There is no end to it.

And so forth.

40

I read it completely differently - that that was exactly what she was asking.