A “joke” which needs that much insider knowledge to even comprehend is pretty much epic fail even before we get to the cringeworthy details of the thinking behind it.
Not moderating, because this is @Miller’s forum, but the poster @Slithy_Tove was replying to and spinning off from was just cornfielded. I’m not blaming or excusing the comments, but I suspect we were once again being fished for reactions.
I will say I was one of the many who didn’t even qualify Slithy’s joke as even sad trombone worthy and slightly obscure if one didn’t follow the show.
I thought because he was dead, Chuck needed to be told by someone who could see (and talk to) dead people. At least, that would have been kinda funny.
I apologize fully for the remark. I note that among the offended, though by no means all of them, are baby-boomer gay men whose sensibilities were forged in an especially awful inferno.
This is a wholly “however”-free apology. And yet it cannot contain one iota of apology for my contempt for Chuck Norris. If anyone is still offended, purely on his behalf, come at me.
And why is this observation important to your apology? Why do you note this? You seem to be making a point without actually making it.
Mm-hmm.
I apologized, tried to see things from the other parties’ point of view, and understand that they are under no obligation to accept that apology.
I only speak for myself, and not for others. I found the joke in poor taste, but that’s it. I find the apology a bit contradictory as @Roderick_Femm did. Even your words in the most recent post as a bit Luciferian, “You don’t have to accept the apology as I’m sincere in my intellectual effort”.
All that being given, I’ll still give you the benefit of the doubt that you meant them honestly, even if your pride just might be getting in the way of coming across as 100% sincere.
Been there (more than once), done that (more than once). Just a reminder it’s better to show then tell, so keep on trying to put yourself in other’s shoes before taking action, be it posts or what have you.
Again, others are free to draw the same or different conclusions.
You put it in a lot of words, but my simple impression is just: the “joke” fell flat in any aspect. The apology, too.
As has been said, and I admitted here and elsewhere.
I’m wordy as fuck.
Pit balance has been restored.
I’ll try again, and I’ll keep trying until one of two things happen: 1. I offer an apology that’s accepted, or 2. I have to accept that we now live in a “post-apology” society.
Before you joined in 2009, this was a very different place. That’s been much-discussed and universally approved by all of us still here. This is board spun off from a column posted in slightly above underground newspaper in Chicago that had escort and phone sex ads in the back pages. Even after it went online, things were still pretty raw. A lot of us came here because of the freedom of thought that, as odd as it may seem now, was offered by threads about pan-fried semen and the decidedly anarchic illustrations by Slug Signorino. And in that milieu, a joke about how poetically just it might be if a famous homophobe had died because he’d been too deep in the closet to practice safe sex.
After your and the others’ reaction to that, I took reminding that those days are long gone. This too may “fall flat” with you: but if news were to come out that Harvey Weinstein is now being sexually trafficked in prison, I wouldn’t find it funny. I sought and found that analogy to think about how the possibility of Chuck Norris dying of a disease whose victims he blamed wouldn’t bring me any joy either.
That’s the best I can do. I’m not your enemy. I’m not your ally, either. Society is really past those two choices now, even though it seems they’re the only two anyone can conceive. I just coexist with you, in this time and on this world. Me and the vast majority of the human race.
Okay, that was really a weird rant. What were you thinking?
Anyway, i didn’t think it was funny, either. And not because i have a problem with pan fried semen. I think that is kinda an interesting thought experiment. But it’s a topic that doesn’t demean anyone.
I totally hate the oft mentioned pan fried semen thing.
That’s highschool boys room at best.
If I have a vote we won’t go back to those heady early days of the SDMB.
Yeah when I was 20 I may have giggled at the stupid semen thing. And lots of other things in old threads I read.
Most of it is gross.
I feel for the old funny jokesters. It’s hard to give up the freedom to say any god damn thing you please.
It’s not what we’re doing now. It’s just not.
Get over it. Pull up your Big boy panties.
Cry at night on your pillow when you’re all alone.
If anyone knows the answers to the questions below (or just cares to speculate, this ain’t FQ), I’m interested to hear them.
Would a thread about pan-fried semen be moderated now? I wasn’t around when the topic in question was discussed, so I have no idea - was it misogynist, bigoted in some other way, or was it just kinda gross?
If it was bigoted, it would be slapped down today. But if it was just disgusting I presume it would not be moderated. If it would be subject to moderation, on what basis?
I’m not familiar with the pan-fried semen thread, either (although I’m aware there was one), but if it were raised today, you’re right: It would be moderated if it were bigoted, not moderated just for being disgusting. We allow gross discussions all the time.
Someone would have to link to it, but the wee bit I recall of it, the OP was OK, not sure about all the replies.
You’re welcome
I just scanned the first 40 posts, I saw nothing that would be moderated today.
And thank you for the link. Most kind.
I found and read the whole thread. I think it was pretty much okay in terms of not being bigoted, though I didn’t find it as hilarious as many people posting in it did.
The one notable aspect, maybe, was that Stage Manager posted rather lecherously in that thread. He was before my time, but I vaguely recall he got banned for something really outrageous like defending CSAM. But that was Cesario, right?
I know my SDMB history fairly well, but only starting about a decade later.
Read the whole thing, now. I also don’t find anything that would need moderation, except what Colibri added at the end: No longer FQ-(GQ) worthy.
Agree others found it funnier than I did. That said, there was some funny stuff. 
Here’s a kinda-gross thread that’s going right now:
Stage Manager as I recall was absolutely a shit personna. I think he was among other things a defender of sex with teen girls age 13 to 15?
I remember reading some his stuff way back when and thinking he was probably just a troll playing a character to get peoples’ goat. But I’m not sure if I have that right.