“Of course, the ammosexuals are having a field day with this on a local message board.”
and gets modded:
". . . this thread will stay closed due to the intentionally offensive sexualized comments in both posts. . . .
So “ammosexual” is now sexually offensive? A quick search for posts with that word turns up almost 40 posts, in the Pit, in MPSIMS, in Great Debates, in IMHO, and in Politics and Elections – hardly all just in the Pit.
The word is used as a derisive remark toward perceived “gun nuts”, and seems to be well established. I can’t see anything else even remotely “sexualized” in the OP.
The second post, from a self-described “ammosexual” and “substitute penis fetishist”, takes umbrage. If I’m not mistaken, we’ve had many posts around here suggesting that “gun nuts” are somehow using their guns as some kind of substitute phallic thing. That seems well established too.
So these words are suddenly forbidden now? How very Victorian.
ISTR several years ago, guidance came from on high that we weren’t to imply, in our retorts to the political positions of other Dopers, that they (the Dopers espousing said positions) were motivated by the sexual gratification they derived from holding and espousing said positions.
I haven’t read the thread in question, but I can see why such guidance might bleed into the mod note discussed in the OP.
The rule cited above doesn’t apply because neither poster was directing their comments at other board members. The OP was directed at a general class of people, and the only response was self-directed.
In any event, I don’t think that those kinds of comments are what that particular rule was meant to cover. That would be more like Hey, Poster123, I bet you’re splooging in your underdrawers to hear that Palin is running for office again! And I would agree that such comments would not be helpful or even useful.
No, I take the mod at their word that the closure was because the comments from both posters were intentionally offensive and sexualized, but that is absolutely not the case. I realize that certain recent kerfuffles might have the staff on high alert, but that was the wrong call.
Well, the rule is pretty old. It would be kind of remarkable if we never experienced some mission creep, so to speak.
That’s the more salient point, imho.
Also, nearwildheaven spoke of message boards where ammos- - - - -s were “having a field day” about it, but never offered any evidence to support that assertion. I’m a busy man. I can’t be bothered to search for such message boards myself.
And now, the mods have us so intimidated that kaylasdad99 is afraid to write out the evil word “ammosexuals”.
We needn’t examine whether there’s some other message board where they are having a field day. I mentioned above that a quick search found about 40 posts with the word, scattered across this board. But it’s not just here. Just google the word, and you’ll find it’s well established. Urban dictionary has it. Wiktionary has it. The ammosexuals themselves have owned the word – they are selling T-shirts saying “Ammosexual - I was born that way” and similar. Huffpost has articles on the subject. It’s out there.
I agree with the others. This was bad moderation and the thread should not have been closed. Sure, post #2 by Ex Tank was inappropriate and should probably have been mod noted, but there was nothing at all wrong with the OP in terms of any of the board rules, express or implied, and the thread could have had some useful discussion. The rule against “sexualizing” another poster has absolutely no relevance here.
Funny, I was thinking when I saw this post here in ATMB that we were at risk of having overzealous moderation stifle reasonable discussion, but little did I suspect it would come less than 24 hours later. Emphasis mine:
There is some implicit tension between free speech banning bigoted arguments. (Using “bigoted” to encompass racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.) Every community needs to decide where they stand on this. I don’t moderate the areas where it is usually relevant, but feel that “don’t be a jerk” should outweigh “open discussion” in the forums i do moderate (IMHO, Cafe Society, MPSIMS, QZ, site feedback).
Well I hope not. I’ve been slinging the word around in this thread, without being one. I’m a-feared the mods will be wanting some words with me.
(Almost seriously. There’s that thread where posters are talking about male mammograms, and there was some discussion of gynecomastia, and someone said that obesity might cause that, and there was squabbling over that. Then someone mentioned that his cat was diagnosed with gynecomastia – and I wanted to make a post demanding pics. But I didn’t dare!)
What nobody has explicitly mentioned, was ExTank’s post #2 was kind of a threadshit that derailed the actual topic. But it might have been acceptable to start a Pit thread with that, if he felt so strongly about it.
I say the rule applies. The term “ammosexual” is a derisive term for gun enthusiasts. This board is well known to have gun enthusiasts posting here. I found it pretty predictable that one of them would find the remark quite insulting. I would find it very unlikely that a thread with an OP like that would result in fruitful discussion, and not the typical heated arguments.
Ammosexuals Gun enthusiasts are a protected class now whose dainty sensibilities must not be disturbed? On THIS message board?
ETA: More to the point: Are we to protect the feelings of gun enthusiasts – indeed, protect the feelings of everyone – on this board? Or is the objection specifically to the word “ammosexual”? And if so, why?