When is a -tard not a -tard?

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

@Shodan

Previous rulings have made it clear that text within quote boxes or quotation marks was sacrosanct. Apparently that’s not the case.

:shrugs:

Regards,
Shodan

I didn’t alter any of your quotes in quote boxes that I can see and I certainly don’t recall intending to do it. If I inadvertently altered quotes within the quote boxes, I apologize, but please point it out to me, since I can’t find it.

[John_Mace]

@Shodan

Previous rulings have made it clear that text within quote boxes or quotation marks was sacrosanct. Apparently that’s not the case.

:shrugs:

Regards,
Shodan

Emphasis added.

No. The former is sacrosanct but not the latter. We’re allowed to paraphrase in quotation marks.

[Billdo]

For those of you who are looking for bright-line rules, may I suggest the following:

1. If you don’t use an insulting -tard suffix outside the Pit, you won’t get busted. So don’t do it.

2. If someone else uses an insulting -tard suffix outside of the Pit, they may or may not get busted depending on context, their awareness of the rule and other situation-specific factors. But this won’t be your problem because you didn’t use the suffix and you aren’t getting busted for it.

3. If you are considering getting upset because the fact that mods may not inflexibly come down hard on people who use the -tard suffix that you now aren’t able to use outside Pit offends the Junior Mod or rules-lawyer in you, perhaps you should reconsider.

[Darth_Panda]

@Billdo

For those of you who are looking for bright-line rules, may I suggest the following

You may, and your points are valid, but they don’t address my concerns.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

Oh, for pity’s sake:

@Shodan

The use of “-tard” insults, like “libtard” and “Freeptard” add nothing to a debate, but they may or may not be subject to mod action up to and including Warnings. It depends on how each moderator feels at the moment, and other circumstances that we aren’t going to tell you about.

@Shodan

Just as I said, there is no way to predict how a given mod may feel on a given day, and the same statement in the same forum may be moderated differently, based on which mod acts first on a report.

@IvoryTowerDenizen

Perhaps you missed this post, though I don’t think so since you quoted it where you claim modding will happen on a whim:
…
To characterize it as “on a whim” is misleading. It is clear that the intent is not to mod with respect to the moderators mood, but to take into account context etc.

If I understand correctly, Shodan is exercised because he said “it depends on how each moderator feels at the moment,” not that it will happen “on a whim,” and is mad that you implied (or stated outright, I don’t much care which it is) that he said “on a whim.”

The phrases look to me to be functionally indistinguishable, but Shodan, if you see a significant difference between them, it’d help if you’d explain what the difference is.

[zweisamkeit]

@BigT

I personally would be a fan of removing all -tard neologisms, though I admit I have a vested interest…

@Elendil_s_Heir

The suffix “-tard” is just rude and offensive generally, regardless of what word it’s appended to IMHO.

Agreed. It’s an insult that says you are (or are like) a group of people with a shared characteristic (intellectual disability) that they didn’t choose and cannot change and that it’s a bad thing or something to be mocked.

This is a post/essay using a “quiz” to ask, do you get why this word hurts so much? This past March 4th was the 7th annual day of awareness, Spread The Word To End The Word, created by the Special Olympics.

And remember a couple of years ago, when Ann Coulter called President Obama a retard in a tweet, and (unsurprisingly) defended it? Well, John Franklin Stephens, a Special Olympian and SO Global Ambassador, wrote an open letter to Coulter and it really is worth a read. An exerpt:

I thought first of asking whether you meant to describe the President as someone who was bullied as a child by people like you, but rose above it to find a way to succeed in life as many of my fellow Special Olympians have.

Then I wondered if you meant to describe him as someone who has to struggle to be thoughtful about everything he says, as everyone else races from one snarkey sound bite to the next.

Finally, I wondered if you meant to degrade him as someone who is likely to receive bad health care, live in low grade housing with very little income and still manages to see life as a wonderful gift.

Because, Ms. Coulter, that is who we are – and much, much more.

After I saw your tweet, I realized you just wanted to belittle the President by linking him to people like me.

Appending the suffix -tard to something else as an insult is just as shitty because they refer to the same thing. It’s not an insult limited to the recipient; it relies on widespread knowledge that it refers to those with intellectual disabilities. It not only denigrates them, but helps reinforce and support the sentiment that they are deserving of mockery and abuse; that it’s clearly insulting and humiliating to be thought of as belonging to that group.

[TBG]

@zweisamkeit

Appending the suffix -tard to something else as an insult is just as shitty because they refer to the same thing. It’s not an insult limited to the recipient; it relies on widespread knowledge that it refers to those with intellectual disabilities. It not only denigrates them, but helps reinforce and support the sentiment that they are deserving of mockery and abuse; that it’s clearly insulting and humiliating to be thought of as belonging to that group.

So let’s (humanity, not just the board) just retcon the tard suffix to be short for bastard instead of retard and find something else to worry about.

[Blank] bastard probably makes for a better insult than [blank] retard anyway, and not just because of the perceived insult (intentional or not) to the mentally handicapped.

[BigT]

@TBG

So let’s (humanity, not just the board) just retcon the tard suffix to be short for bastard instead of retard and find something else to worry about.

[Blank] bastard probably makes for a better insult than [blank] retard anyway, and not just because of the perceived insult (intentional or not) to the mentally handicapped.

Problem is, people use it to mean “stupid.” No one adds it to my name to mean I’m a jerk. They add it because they think I’m some sort of outsider looking in on humanity, ignorant of what humanity is actually like.

If you make it mean “bastard,” it would just be yet another generic insult with no real meaning behind it.

[Elendil_s_Heir]

@zweisamkeit

…John Franklin Stephens, a Special Olympian and SO Global Ambassador, wrote an open letter to Coulter and it really is worth a read…

Thank you for that. Good stuff.

[Shodan]

@John_Mace

Emphasis added.

No. The former is sacrosanct but not the latter. We’re allowed to paraphrase in quotation marks.

It appears you (and the mods) are correct, in that this is the current rule.

I was misled by a previous postby a former mod -

[QUOTE=twickster]
As a current moderator, I consider anything treated as a quote to be a quote – I make no distinction between quotation mark and a quote box. Quotes is quotes.
[/QUOTE]
Regards,
Shodan

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

However, even that referred to if someone directly quotes someone and then changes a word or such. **Indirect quotes **(of which paraphrasing is an example) can use quote marks and does not intend that the material in the quotes is a verbatim representation of someone’s words.

[John_Mace]

@IvoryTowerDenizen

However, even that referred to if someone directly quotes someone and then changes a word or such. **Indirect quotes **(of which paraphrasing is an example) can use quote marks and does not intend that the material in the quotes is a verbatim representation of someone’s words.

I’m not seeing the distinction. How do you determine if someone “directly quoted” someone else and then changed a word vs someone “paraphrasing” someone else? The latter can look exactly like the former.

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

@John_Mace

I’m not seeing the distinction. How do you determine if someone “directly quoted” someone else and then changed a word vs someone “paraphrasing” someone else? The latter can look exactly like the former.

I imagine it can. It’s part of the reason the protection of quoted material doesn’t extended to material that isn’t in VBulletin quote boxes.

However, think of how someone who doesn’t use the quote function on this board quotes someone. They tend to copy and paste a section from a post and stick quote marks around it. You can then track back and see which post they were quoting. If they were to do that, but then change a salient word, or replace some of text while keeping the rest, it’ll be pretty obvious it was an altered quote. It was that type of alteration I believe Twickster was (erroneously) referring to.

However, my point was that just because something is in quotation marks doesn’t always imply that it was meant to be a direct quote of spoken or written text. I think in the case here, it was obviously an indirect quote (paraphrase) as I only put two words in quotes that couldn’t be found anywhere in the poster actual posts. Even then any confusion that it was meant to be a quote (and was therefore an altered quote) was clarified very quickly that it was a paraphrase. So even under Twickster’s broader rule 9which isn’t a rule), there was no violation, in my opinion.