Precisely. @engineer_comp_geek would have a point if the only thing you could catch flack for in that thread were theadshits like posting stories of gun owners who are killed and claiming that one fewer gun owner is good news, or questioning the very premise of the thread. Instead, try to question whether a specific shooting that someone brought up as good news was actually self defense , and you get shot down.
There is not a rule about the word “ammosexual”. There are a lot of rules about appropriate discourse in various categories, including MPSIMS. Opening a thread in MPSIMP about a piece of news and immediately sexualizing the argument by referring to “ammosexuals” is not appropriate. If you want to rant about the people who are overly gung-ho regarding guns, take it to the pit.
I think it’s patently absurd to claim that “ammosexual” (a word that I’ve never seen outside that thread and the subsequent discussion of it) is not suggesting that the people you want to put down are getting sexual gratification from their guns. And again, if the point is to put people down, take it to the pit. If the point is to discuss a gun ring in Chicago, don’t toss in gratuitously sexualized comments.
If you want to start a conversation about why people don’t want a gun control bill, it might be relevant to claim that opponents of the bill get sexual gratification from their guns. But that discussion probably belongs in P&E, not MPSIMS. There may be an appropriate way to use “ammosexual” in MPSIMS, but that OP wasn’t an example of it.
I think that key here is your parenthetical. The word is a joke that nobody takes seriously. It’s always been a joke that nobody takes seriously. It’s similar to metrosexual and ecosexual. We could even include terms like fundie porn, which has also seen wide use on this board. You don’t know what you’re talking about here.
(edited)
ETA2: Also scratching ecosexual since some people seem to actually identify as such.
You think it’s a literal suggestion that people use their guns for sexual pleasure? Or could it perhaps be a harsh satirical observation on their fetish-like obsession?
Fetishes do not have to be sexual.
If by “sexual pleasure” you mean “as a dildo”, no, of course not. (I mean, I’m sure someone does that, there are a lot of people in the world, but I’m sure that’s not the intent of the word.) But yes, I think the obvious implication is that “ammosexuals” get a sexual thrill from their guns.
As for
You know what, using obscure jokes that a random poster who isn’t in on the obscure joke will take as offensive is a bad idea. I’m sticking to my guns on this one.
That’s not the way that I have moderated that thread, and it’s not the way that the thread is supposed to be moderated.
You are allowed to question the facts of the news item and whether or not it actually was a “good” news event or not. Questioning whether something was or was not self defense or not is definitely allowed in that thread.
It’s not that obscure. You just hadn’t heard of it.
:rimshot:
Ok, thanks for clarifying that. What exactly is not allowed then?
Neither of those claims it’s a joke, although some of the uses in urban dictionary are less than totally serious.
The wiktionary link gives alternative terms as:
all of which are pretty offensive, and none of which belong in a breaking news thread in MPSIMP. I might have commented on other ways in which they are offensive, rather than that they are offensively sexual. But they are all offensive, and the offense is unambiguously intentional.
Reading your link, I think I understood the word just fine, despite not having seen it before.
Neither? The link I offered shows a lot of sources. Scroll down to the T-shirts. That’s where the fun is.
Since nobody has used or seems to want to use any of those terms, that’s all immaterial.
In any event, the argument isn’t whether it was appropriate for a breaking news thread–I think we’ve all come around to the idea that it wasn’t–but in the given reason for the closure. Namely, that the term is offensive and sexualized, neither of which are really true.
Given your arguments here, you did not understand it just fine.
That has not been my experience. I left that thread because a whole bunch of moderators, you among them, deemed it off topic to question whether a 12 year old having a gun is a positive gun story.
As to the Positive Gun News thread, I don’t see any way to satisfy either side on what constitutes “positive” gun news. I think that such an omnibus thread does not lend itself well to moderation and should have been disallowed as anything other than a Pit thread.
Then we are back to “you are relying on an obscure joke that is not obvious, even when doing a search on the word.” And again, obscure jokes that are easy to read as offensive comments are a bad idea. I’m perfectly okay moderating them as offensive.
And reading up this very thread, it’s clear that people in this thread who use the word intend it to be offensive.
Again, it’s not obscure, despite your repeated claims. While it can be a little offensive, it is neither shockingly so nor especially sexualized.
Speaking as someone who was better armed than Bolivia until the tragic boating accident, I think “ammosexual” is a quite apt descriptor for a number of people. Including some relatives.
Do you think metrosexuals are getting sexual gratification from living in large cities? Because I see those two as in the same lexical space.
They get off just from wearing nicer clothes than thou?
If you want to go with: “it was a bit of a weird situation where we felt we had to help another mod prop up his hobby horse. Our hearts weren’t in it either way, but we felt we needed to do something so we asked the more gun-control people to let it lie. It sucks, but it was the best we could do.” — we are good.
If you seriously want to claim the moderation there is consistent with board rules, we are going to be here a while.
I’m good with exceptions, special cases and all that, but I’m not good with being gaslighted.
No, i think that’s meant to suggest that they are like homosexuals in dressing well. 