Had he not used color to emphasize sexuality in a way that many consider derogatory, I think you might have a valid argument.
Absent other context, I assume a liberal poster calling out a conservative politician for being a closeted gay man is making a critique of that politician’s decision to closet himself, or the social pressures that cause him to do so, or the hypocrisy in his public policy pronouncements as they concern sexual orientation (or some combination of those), rather than suggesting that being homosexual is something shameful or worth hiding.
There is also an argument that any attempt to shame someone for being closeted is inherently homophobic as a kind of victim-blaming. In my eyes, that argument is weaker in 2016 when directed at a relatively privileged person who takes public positions about sexual orientation.
My point was that in the context of making an implicit reference to closeted homosexuality, choosing pink could equally reflect an intent that the coded reference be understood as intending to impugn Rubio’s masculinity.
Had no idea there were rumors about Marco Rubio being gay until this thread.
Seems like it stems from Rubio’s arrest when he was 18: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/rubios-summer-of-90-an-arrest-then-newfound-purpose/2016/01/21/3582a72e-c04d-11e5-bcda-62a36b394160_story.html
Lindsey Graham and Condi Rice have for years been the butt of gay jokes or references to claimed closeted homosexuality in GD on this MB. Will those posts be moderated in the future?
To put it another way… is a one-off comment not considered a problem, but persistent references by a given poster without evidence now considered a warnable offense?
My understanding is that the offense was not calling a politician a homosexual (closeted or not) but doing so in a manner that implied being homosexual was a bad thing or somehow a personal deficiency.
I think the big offense here was that the moderators told him to stop doing something and he didn’t stop.
I’d be curious to read that post, if anyone knows where it is.
Here is the post:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19080668&postcount=32
This seems like odd reasoning to me. If it is gay-bashing, then why would it be OK to back it up? What makes it gay-bashing only if it is unsubstantiated?
Had JC left the word “otherwise” out of that mod note, it would have been less confusing. But I think the message is the same regardless.
Calling someone you think is gay “Mr. Homo” could be considered gay bashing. But yeah, it does sound like you can “gay bash” as long as you back it up.
QSH wasn’t “calling Rubio out for being closeted,” he was speculating without credible evidence that Rubio is closeted. I suspect that Jonathan Chance is saying that if there is credible evidence, then maybe your willingness to give the benefit of the doubt has a reasonable basis. But if it is purely unsubstantiated speculation, then what possible purpose can there have been but to intend “he’s gay” as a hompohobic insult?
I don’t know. Now that I’ve read that earlier thread I think it’s clear that JC just got it wrong.
Stringbean’s post using “Mr. Homo” was obviously satire of Qin Shi Huangdi’s earlier post in that thread, in which he wrote “The revelation of Rubio’s homosexuality will ensure a landslide victory for Clinton.”
Neither post is an example of gay-bashing. Stringbean certainly should not have been warned, and QSH didn’t do anything other than express an unsubstantiated opinion.
There’s a better argument with the pink text, but it still strikes me as extremely thin, especially if based on this earlier exchange.
I offered several purposes above.
Now having read more of the context and having Googled a little, I think the likeliest one is this: Qin Shi Huangdi was himself satirizing the rumors over Rubio’s sexuality. But in any event, I do not think the most natural or obvious explanation is that QSH was just crudely gay-bashing Rubio. That seems like the same context-free theory that got Stringbean improperly warned in that thread.
I don’t think this is right. All insults imply a personal deficiency so there is no distinction here.
But I think my question is largely answered in that it was moderating hate speech. That’s sufficient.
Qin wasn’t speculating or wondering or questioning or discussing about anything. He was just straight up insulting Rubio by calling him “gay”. Coloring his name like that is no different than calling him Marco Homio (to make up an example).
The word Gay is still used as a gendered insult, even if most people now a days don’t care about other peoples sexuality. Just because we agree that it’s a stupid insult doesn’t mean it’s not actually an insult.
I think insults aren’t a problem - it’s the hate speech that was moderated. You can call Rubio a dumbass all day and that would be insulting him, but it’s not hate speech. Hate speech is what’s disallowed. Thems the rules.
Really? Not obvious to me at all.
It’s not obvious from the quote. It’s obvious from the context, including Stringbean’s earlier support for Rubio.
I’m not saying it’s not a reasonable mistake. But a mistake indeed.
What is the context for asserting that Rubio is a closeted gay?
Unbeknownst to me, there is apparently some degree of conversation about this in the broader public.
Based on what I know of the rest of his posting history, one plausible hypothesis is that he’s poking fun at this whole phenomenon rather than sincerely asserting that Rubio is gay. But, again, even if that’s not it, there are a couple other plausible readings other than “he’s gay and it’s bad to be gay”–more plausible, in my mind, than him just launching homophobic insults. YMMV.
I don’t pay much attention to Qin’s posts, but from what I do see, they seem to be getting rather whacky lately. IIRC, he’s a college kid, and is probably going thru some phase or another. I’m not surprised that the mods are asking him to cut out the crap.