Talking about code-switching is now considered trolling?

I refer to this banning:

Okay, I don’t know Stuntman Mike. I haven’t noticed him, maybe because we don’t frequent the same parts of the board or maybe because I’m not particularly paying attention.

But the thread he got banned for does not strike me as trolling. Code-switching, which is what he describes in the ban-inducing OP, even though he doesn’t use the term, is a perfectly legitimate topic of conversation, of interest to linguists, sociologists, and the trying-to-stay-informed general public.

You can tell me why I’m wrong. I’m open to different points of view.

The implication is less that the OP is interested in how the way people speak to each other in differing environments, than that is to laugh at how these allegedly professional women of color revert to “ghetto talk” when the white folks aren’t listening, and that therefore they must be people of lesser intellect who only pretend at sounding formal when their superiors aren’t paying attention.

It’s race-baiting masquerading as idle observation.

It wasn’t the code-switching part of the OP that was the trolling. We’ve hadplenty of threads about that topic in the past. Like Smapti said, it was the racism.

I believe the mods considered the poster’s entire body of work.

This. ** CairoCarol**, take a look at the other gems he posted that attracted warnings.

Plus the gems he posted that didn’t attract warnings. He was either trolling with most of his posts or was one sick fuck. (Or, of course, possibly both.)

It is the opposite. He was asking why would these knowledgeable and professional women, who are obviously educated and can use “proper” English, when not in that environment use English considered less proper and potentially present themselves as those of lesser intellect?

It seems his violations were quoting the words that he heard and referring to that type of dialect as “ghetto talk.” I wouldn’t have used those words, but I’m not sure what board rule this violates.

Thought his other two warnings were bad as well. I know I am fighting a losing battle, but the impression is given that if you say something that is offensive to anyone in a preferred group, then your words had better be chosen with the utmost care. If you are attacking conservatives? Fire away.

Looking back over his posting history, calling “most” trolling is overstating things–the gems like this probably color my perception of everything else he says.
(BTW, looks like he found it.)

Funny, I’ve never hear “fictitious transgressive shitposting” characterised as “gems”, before.

Trolling. I thought Loach made that clear?

The assumption being that anyone who doesn’t use his dialect obviously must be of a “lessor intellect.”

“I believe the mods considered the poster’s entire [del]body[/del] piece of work.”

FTFY, within the limits of board rules.

Bolding mine. This is generally the case when someone has questions about a banning for trolling.:wink:

This. It was the “ghetto talk” remark and generally mocking tone of the OP, coupled with a long history of trolling and trollish posts that got him banned. We do take a poster’s history into account in evaluating posts.

There is of course no restriction at all about talking about code-switching itself. But Stuntman Mike was clearly most interested in making fun of two black women.

After looking at his posts, I tend to agree. I withdraw my objection. :slight_smile:

Yes I like to consider the entire oeuvre of a troll before banning.

Just curious, what preferred group do you think I’m in?

Just to be clear, trolling can be and often is an instaban offense. We were more than patient with SmM. He did not get the hint and was banned on his third warning for trolling.

and in his mind, we’re the ones with a problem because we lack a “sense of humor.”

Taken in isolation, the post in question—Stuntman Mike’s OP to the thread on code switching—did not strike me at all as trolling. He came across as ignorant, and maybe or maybe not a bit racist (and/or sexist), but willing to be educated and to challenge his first reactions. And that’s the kind of poster we should welcome here, if we really want to fight ignorance.

But yeah: that’s without taking into consideration his posting history.

My god, that does shed some light on his “character.”

There is certainly a way he could have written that OP with minimal editing that would have made it fine for a thread. If that were his first post I may have gone with a note and instruction on how best to post here. It was not his first post.

I heard an old joke yesterday. Back in the old west, a guy hears his brother has been arrested and is in jail. So he goes to see what happened.

His brother tells him, “I don’t see what the big deal is. All that happened was I was walking through town and I saw a piece of rope on the street. It was an old piece of rope and I figured nobody would mind if I picked it up and took it home with me.”

The guy said “They arrested you for taking a piece of rope you found in the street? That’s ridiculous!”

His brother said, “Well, there was a horse tied to the other end of the rope.”