Above Political Correctness

[Overcast]

So I had the fun of reading the little scene that got our very own Nonsie a 10 day absence, and while stirring up the scenario is likely going to be frowned upon I would really enjoy asking people out loud a question about why people decide to react to strongly to how people word certain things.

The thing is to me it isn't the word that will offend me. The word is just a word, and sometimes the offense tied to it can be the source of some pretty funny jokes. In all honesty if the usage of these words are, if converted in my head into PC words is still inherently true, e.g. "OC, you are such a fucking fag." = "OC the way you worded that last phrase was incredibly homosexual." then I won't really care they used non PC language. In the last thread the word abnormal was used, but honestly I am abnormal as far as societal norms is concerned. The question was if it was being referred to as a bad thing, which I don't think it was. But when you are trying to demean me then I'll feel it, e.g. "God hates fags." = "You are not human."

The key is, you don't need to be using non-PC language to offend me, real ignorance and bad intentions are more than enough. Like when someone told me they felt sorry that I had to be born this way. Like I have some kind of major fucking handicap just because I like dudes.

We all have the power to be above political correctness if we have the ability to look past the words people are using and into the intention of their words.

Hopefully I won't be banned for beating a dead horse.

[Fifthfiend]

So I had the fun of reading the little scene that got our very own Nonsie a 10 day absence, and while stirring up the scenario is likely going to be frowned upon I would really enjoy asking people out loud a question about why people decide to react strongly to how people word certain things.

Nope.

If you're looking for answers, try not starting with thoughtless, condescending bad-faith questions.

[Krylo]

Actually, simple psychology says that OC is entirely correct in that it is you who decides how to react to what people say and do in your presence. Indeed, it's one of the primary things used in couple's counseling and anger counseling. One has to release the idea that what someone else does makes them angry, and instead embrace the idea that they get angry when someone does something.

It sounds like silly semantics, but it makes measured dialogue easier without blaming, and presents a sense of agency in the offended party when they embrace the idea that it is they who are in charge of their reactions, and not everyone else.

[Overcast]

Was good seeing you too sexual chocolate.

[Fifthfiend]

Was good seeing you too sexual chocolate.

Thank you for confirming my original impression of the intent of your OP.

[Overcast]

Thank you for confirming my original impression of the intent of your OP.

To clarify the last time I said that was when you entered my audiophilia thread with a single gif and didn't bother even making much of a point. Here you decided to do the same, refusing to respond to the rest of my post and singling out something as a reason why I shouldn't be allowed to state my opinions. In both situations you are speaking to my blunt honesty as if that is reason enough not to talk to me.

I am being condescending because I find the fact that people do react that way as idiotic, I know that was what I was saying. If you are going to shut me down do more than just bold something and say no one should respond to this.

At the very least debunk my whole fucking idea.

[akaSM]

One of the problems with PC and people reacting bad to certain words is that, everyone will have different reactions.

For example, when I was at the hospital, there was a female resident doctor who got mad at me for saying "tú" instead of "usted". Seriously, that crazy woman was acting as if I had insulted her O_o. Oh, and that was because she didn't write my name right (I didn't tell her though, another hospital worker did)...Mario isn't that hard to write, is it? >_>

BTW, "tú" is basically "you"; "usted" is a more formal way of saying "you".

[Overcast]

So it was like the Spanish version of me calling a doctor miss instead of their earned title?

[rpgdemon]

People get really mad about tu versus usted, which is really dumb. I heard about some dude who was in France, buying some train tickets, used tu, and the dude slammed the ticket window shut in his face, and was all, "JE NE SUIS PAS TON AMI!"

[akaSM]

So it was like the Spanish version of me calling a doctor miss instead of their earned title?

Nope, I didn't "take" any merits from her. Think of it as calling someone "miss" instead of "lady"...except the difference between "tú" and "usted" is narrower :/

[rpgdemon]

It's like, instead of calling someone "Sir", you called them "Mister".

[Overcast]

That does sound like splitting hairs at that point, and from what you two put up it does seem like people get a bit excessive about that. Which just leads me back to what I was saying, you certainly were not trying to insult her, I'm sure the guy buying tickets wasn't trying to insult the guy selling them, and yet they both decided to sacrifice their professionalism just because you did say it. Is it really that huge of a deal?

[Fenris]

To clarify the last time I said that was when you entered my audiophilia thread with a single gif and didn't bother even making much of a point. Here you decided to do the same, refusing to respond to the rest of my post and singling out something as a reason why I shouldn't be allowed to state my opinions.He does that a lot.

I, personally, have long been a subscriber to the belief that words are goddamn words and that enforcing political correctness for the sake of political correctness is rather Orwellian.

This thread is doubleplusgood.

[rpgdemon]

People -like- to be offended.

I mean, why'd you have to yell at Fifthfiend, when he was pointing out that the way that you phrased something wasn't great? Why'd Fifthfiend have to yell at you about starting a topic that he disagreed with? People like being offended, because it lets them grandstand and be all, "LOOK AT ME, SIDE WITH ME, BE NICE TO ME, BECAUSE SOMEONE WRONGED ME.", without having any real negative repercussions.

[akaSM]

IMHO, a medic/patient relation should be based on trust, it's when people stop using "usted" as the only way of talking to you when you realize you're not the "holier than thou person in the white coat" but someone the patient can trust.

Everyone else was nice at the hospital (nurses, the people who clean and stuff) it was just that doctor and another one who kept me waiting for around 6 hours before doing whatever he had to do so that I could go home, because I was talking with my dad over the phone telling him that I would go out that day.

Yeah, I'll keep my ego under control, I don't wanna be like those people >_>

[Fifthfiend]

I am being condescending because I find the fact that people do react that way as idiotic

And, wow, now you've confirmed my impression of your initial post beyond anything I would have expected.

you are speaking to my blunt honesty as if that is reason enough not to talk to me...

At the very least debunk my whole fucking idea.

By your own admission above, you were not asking a sincere question, but rather, were indicating that people who don't share your viewpoint are idiots.

It is specifically that blunt dishonesty and insincerity in your OP that I responded to and objected to.

Again, I really cannot stress enough that by your own words, your intention was to use the posture of "asking questions" to condescend to people who don't share your views, because you consider them idiots.

That being your view, it's fairly amazing that you would then go on to say that I'm obligated to respond to the rest of your post, premised as it is on a false claim.

----------------------------------------------------

Actually, simple psychology says that OC is entirely correct in that it is you who decides how to react to what people say and do in your presence. Indeed, it's one of the primary things used in couple's counseling and anger counseling. One has to release the idea that what someone else does makes them angry, and instead embrace the idea that they get angry when someone does something.

It sounds like silly semantics, but it makes measured dialogue easier without blaming, and presents a sense of agency in the offended party when they embrace the idea that it is they who are in charge of their reactions, and not everyone else.

I didn't realize that couples therapy was based on passive aggresion and denial :/

The notion that people's immediate emotional responses are actually the result of some sort of conscious decision is really going to need more support before I consider it anything more than a spurious claim. And the notion that this somehow removes blaming is also fairly unbelievable since as OC demonstrates above, it is absolutely about blame, IE, blaming the individual having an offended reaction for that reaction.

EDIT: I should say, I can certainly see where there is a place for the sort of thing you're talking about, but really, it likewise shouldn't take a lot to see where that sort of thing can easily be used as a shutdown tactic against people's entirely valid reactions to injurious conduct.

--------------------------------------------------------

He does that a lot.

I haven't done anything of the kind, here in this thread.

I did indicate that stating his opinions in (what he has admitted was) a (deliberately) condescending manner wasn't really the way to go about things if he was interested in any kind of sincere, productive dialogue.

Also, I realize you only see insults in Noncon's posts and mine, but as I've said, he did just call anyone who doesn't share his views an idiot. I mean, you've made it quite clear that you do share his view, so maybe that's all right with you.

[The SSB Intern]

Actually, simple psychology says that OC is entirely correct in that it is you who decides how to react to what people say and do in your presence. Indeed, it's one of the primary things used in couple's counseling and anger counseling. One has to release the idea that what someone else does makes them angry, and instead embrace the idea that they get angry when someone does something.

It sounds like silly semantics, but it makes measured dialogue easier without blaming, and presents a sense of agency in the offended party when they embrace the idea that it is they who are in charge of their reactions, and not everyone else.

This is all pretty much how I feel. But what really interests/confuses me is that there are people who are offended by the very concept of political correctness. Sometimes these happen to be the people who are the subjects of the PC labels, so I suppose they might find them to be patronizing or something, but most of the time it is some other party completely unrelated to the PC who finds definitively inoffensive words completely abhorrent.

[rpgdemon]

Here's what I don't get: If you know that something offends someone, why continue to do it?


I mean, sure, they could be the most unreasonable person ever, getting offended because of a word like spoon, but if you know that it offends them, why continue using it? It's not like it's hard to NOT use language that offends people based on words, and not the connotation that you're giving them. Even if they're being unreasonable, you don't have to be.

[Fenris]

Here's what I don't get: If you know that something offends someone, why continue to do it?


I mean, sure, they could be the most unreasonable person ever, getting offended because of a word like spoon, but if you know that it offends them, why continue using it? It's not like it's hard to NOT use language that offends people based on words, and not the connotation that you're giving them. Even if they're being unreasonable, you don't have to be.

While I agree with the concept wholeheartedly, the reality is that habits are really hard to break, especially those you've been entrenched in for a while.

Example: like, as a trombonist, I've been holding the slide of the damn thing wrong for a decade and when I'm not actively thinking about it, I occasionally revert back to that habit pattern I've formed.

Same thing applies to speech. Once you stop thinking about it, you revert.

[The Sevenshot Kid]

Here's what I don't get: If you know that something offends someone, why continue to do it?


I mean, sure, they could be the most unreasonable person ever, getting offended because of a word like spoon, but if you know that it offends them, why continue using it? It's not like it's hard to NOT use language that offends people based on words, and not the connotation that you're giving them. Even if they're being unreasonable, you don't have to be.

I know! When did common decency just go out of vogue? People shouldn't struggle to be P.C. but they should at least be nice enough to consider that they may be hurting someone's feelings with what they say. Stick and stones still applies but that doesn't mean we should all just be assholes.

Society shouldn't police what people say, but people should ask themselves every now and then if they feel that the way they say things is appropriate or not.

[Seil]

What do you think Mr. Carlin? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71fuKrD2FvQ) And you, Mr. Rock? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1zeekn3zUc&feature=related)

[Krylo]

The notion that people's immediate emotional responses are actually the result of some sort of conscious decision is really going to need more support before I consider it anything more than a spurious claim. And the notion that this somehow removes blaming is also fairly unbelievable since as OC demonstrates above, it is absolutely about blame, IE, blaming the individual having an offended reaction for that reaction. It's about sense of agency, not blame.

When you say 'You make me angry' or 'When you do this, it makes me angry', you are eliminating your own sense of agency, your own free will, and giving control of your life to another person. What's more, you're giving it to a person you see as belligerent.

Indeed, this is exactly how trolling works, and why trolling is so obnoxious. It is a bunch of people abusing people's natural tendency to give away their own freedom to others in anger to get them to react in a way that is humorous.

It's not about blaming the injured party or about passive aggressiveness, it's about reestablishing the injured party's sense of agency and teaching them to move through life without being controlled by what other people do to them.

EDIT: I should say, I can certainly see where there is a place for the sort of thing you're talking about, but really, it likewise shouldn't take a lot to see where that sort of thing can easily be used as a shutdown tactic against people's entirely valid reactions to injurious conduct.

Oh, certainly, and it shouldn't be used as such. Indeed, I would argue that if you're calling someone a faggot and that person informs you that they were offended by it, it is you who is in the wrong to tell them to fuck off.

On the other hand, it is entirely not the proper response to this situation to call that person a cock gobbling ass muncher or hit them in the face or whatever. That simply escalates the situation and causes more issues for everyone involved, yourself included, and does absolutely nothing to make that person change their views.

They're an insensitive prick, and your best bets involve either avoiding them or learning to live with it--or, in a situation where you are not given the option of avoiding them, going to the proper authorities (your HR department if it is your boss, etc.)

That's the sense of agency involved here. You don't have to lash out and get all bent out of shape and have a shitty day because someone says something injurious to your person, but you also don't have to just take it. We are adults now, and as adults we have better ways to deal with these issues.

[rpgdemon]

What the heck? He changed suits halfway through that clip.


Edit: Though, I kind of think he has no point at all there, since he's saying that using a label as an insult isn't insulting to the people who were originally labeled as such. I mean, if we started calling people who started silly threads Seils, well... Crap.

[Overcast]

By your own admission above, you were not asking a sincere question, but rather, were indicating that people who don't share your viewpoint are idiots.

It is specifically that blunt dishonesty and insincerity in your OP that I responded to and objected to.

Again, I really cannot stress enough that by your own words, your intention was to use the posture of "asking questions" to condescend to people who don't share your views, because you consider them idiots.

That being your view, it's fairly amazing that you would then go on to say that I'm obligated to respond to the rest of your post, premised as it is on a false claim.

Okay I'll admit I went about it wrong, I won't admit to it being a false claim, but I will admit to making a stilted claim because I have such a high opinion on my opinion. Really, my bad, but at this point it is a little beyond being able to to go back and edit it. A lot of reads have been done and I think that aside from the bad beginning I did state a fairly natural point in the rest of the post. And really I would like to know your honest opinion on it.

[Nique]

What the heck? He changed suits halfway through that clip.

His DVDs are like that. They just edit them heavily to take the best parts of each show I guess.

I'm not sure I buy into comedians' justification for using offensive terms 100% of the time, even as socially aware (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuLrBLxbLxw) as many of them claim to be. But they do make a good point about context.

[Amake]

Yes, it's hard to be conscious of how you speak at all times. It is hard to respect people all the time. But if you like talking to people, then suck it up and apologize when you offend someone and try to learn from it. Try really hard and people may actually like to have you around.

[Seil]

Edit: Though, I kind of think he has no point at all there, since he's saying that using a label as an insult isn't insulting to the people who were originally labeled as such. I mean, if we started calling people who started silly threads Seils, well... Crap.
His DVDs are like that. They just edit them heavily to take the best parts of each show I guess.

I'm not sure I buy into comedians' justification for using offensive terms 100% of the time, even as socially aware as many of them claim to be. But they do make a good point about context.

DVD called 'Kill The Messenger' Wasn't great - normal Chris Rock stuff. He does the same material in Johannesburg, London and Brooklyn, and I guess they took his best set and stuck it on the clips of him in each area.

Yes, it's hard to be conscious of how you speak at all times. It is hard to respect people all the time. But if you like talking to people, then suck it up and apologize when you offend someone and try to learn from it. Try really hard and people may actually like to have you around.

Yes miss, sorry miss, I'll try harder next time miss.

[Premmy]

I

Oh, certainly, and it shouldn't be used as such. Indeed, I would argue that if you're calling someone a faggot and that person informs you that they were offended by it, it is you who is in the wrong to tell them to fuck off.

On the other hand, it is entirely not the proper response to this situation to call that person a cock gobbling ass muncher or hit them in the face or whatever. That simply escalates the situation and causes more issues for everyone involved, yourself included, and does absolutely nothing to make that person change their views.


I feel like there's some math involved. Where if you call me a nigger/faggot and I call you a cock muncher once, You're still in the wrong. But if you call me a nigger/faggot once, and call you a cock muncher once. Leave, come back, do it again, leave come back, and hit you in the nuts, THEN we can talk about how I should react.

And if you go around fucking with people I'm not gonna feel bad for you or pursue the guy/girl who did it with all that much vigor when you get your ass kicked.

[Krylo]

But what if I'm some skinhead packing heat that you didn't see and you kick me in the balls and when I get up I shoot you in the chest? Maybe I have a knife? Maybe I'm just better in a scrap than you and give you a thorough curb stomping?

It's just not a good idea to unnecessarily escalate any situation, even removing the very legal repercussions you could be facing.

[Premmy]

But what if I'm some skinhead packing heat that you didn't see and you kick me in the balls and when I get up I shoot you in the chest?
It's just not a good idea to unnecessarily escalate any situation, even removing the very legal repercussions you could be facing.

This has some bearing on the "Who's the asshole" conversation we're having?
Edit: Basically what you're saying is "people respond to shit"
Whereas this conversation and ANY "Political Correctness" conversation being had ANYWHERE is basically the "who's the bigger asshole" conversation on the part of the initial asshole. And the guy who throws the first punch in a fight is usually in the wrong.

[Krylo]

I

Oh, certainly, and it shouldn't be used as such. Indeed, I would argue that if you're calling someone a faggot and that person informs you that they were offended by it, it is you who is in the wrong to tell them to fuck off.

On the other hand, it is entirely not the proper response to this situation to call that person a cock gobbling ass muncher or hit them in the face or whatever. That simply escalates the situation and causes more issues for everyone involved, yourself included, and does absolutely nothing to make that person change their views.
I feel like there's some math involved. Where if you call me a nigger/faggot and I call you a cock muncher once, You're still in the wrong. But if you call me a nigger/faggot once, and call you a cock muncher once. Leave, come back, do it again, leave come back, and hit you in the nuts, THEN we can talk about how I should react.

And if you go around fucking with people I'm not gonna feel bad for you or pursue the guy/girl who did it with all that much vigor when you get your ass kicked.

Your post.

Note what you quoted.

It has everything to do with what you quoted. And this discussion has nothing to do with who's the asshole. Everyone's the asshole. The person who said something insensitive in the first place, and the person who decided to fly off the handle because of it.

You're both assholes.

Who is the bigger asshole is a stupid question to ask. There is no bigger asshole. There is only asshole and not an asshole.

[rpgdemon]

There is no bigger asshole.

Well, technically, if we're having a conversation (at least partially) about gay slurs...

[Overcast]

While I can understand being PC to be polite, after all my state of mind isn't the only one, but there are some things I just can't stand. One is trying to make a single word a total no-say. The campaigns to police the word gay just bother me as a fag, that people consider it that big of an issue just gives me a headache. Nobody else gets this advantage, why the fuck should we?

In the same vein, when people who are not part of the demographic being slurred against decide to take offense FOR the party. If I didn't respond to the person who called me fag, and you happen to be one of the straight people who fully support that anti-gword thing I don't want to hear you bother me and my friends with a tirade on how offensive the word fag is.

[Premmy]

Your post.

Note what you quoted.

It has everything to do with what you quoted. And this discussion has nothing to do with who's the asshole. Everyone's the asshole. The person who said something insensitive in the first place, and the person who decided to fly off the handle because of it.

You're both assholes.

Who is the bigger asshole is a stupid question to ask. There is no bigger asshole. There is only asshole and not an asshole.
Well it's my fault for not quoting out the relevant part, but if it was just an issue of people being rude to each other the concept of political correctness wouldn't come into play.

But I'm seriously disinclined to be mad at the guy who slaps the guy who punched him in the face. If he goes on to savagely beat they guy, sure, but quick, simple reaction to shitty behavior? That's what you get for being an asshole. if you were'nt TRYING to be an asshole? then you go "Wait, sorry dude, didn't mean it, let's talk!"
THAT'S the issue of people being rude and people responding to things and the concept of escalation in aggression and whatever

Which is not at ALL what's going on in the "Political Correctness" conversation on any level. "Political Correctness" is all about shifting blame for the assholery to the person reacting.

[Krylo]

Which is not at ALL what's going on in the "Political Correctness" conversation on any level. "Political Correctness" is all about shifting blame for the assholery to the person reacting.

To be fair, I a) don't think that's entirely correct, and b) don't actually care about the political correctness discussion. Just the minor psychology side discussion I started. Which does, admittedly, tie into the political correctness discussion, but I don't really care about my 'right' to use nigger or faggot or whatever in mixed company. I obviously have that right, but if I utilize it I should do so with the full understanding that, right or not, I'm really just kinda asking to get punched in the face.

Edit: To be more fair I also see the concept of 'political correctness' as anything more than people not being rude to each other as kinda silly in most inceptions, I guess.

[rpgdemon]

In the same vein, when people who are not part of the demographic being slurred against decide to take offense FOR the party. If I didn't respond to the person who called me fag, and you happen to be one of the straight people who fully support that anti-gword thing I don't want to hear you bother me and my friends with a tirade on how offensive the word fag is.

Reminds me of when I made a flippant remark about having OCD in regards to something silly, someone was all, "DUDE YOU SHOULDN'T DO THAT IT'S HURTFUL YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT IT'S LIKE TO HAVE OCD", and I'm like, "Okay, do you want me to go get a doctors notice letting you know, hey, yeah, I do legitimately have it to some degree? Because I can go do that." The person shut up quickly.

Like, it can be more hurtful sometimes to jump in being offended on behalf of this "other group". I was legitimately annoyed/aggravated/upset that I had to defend the fact that I have compulsions that I either do, or get bothered by constantly until I cave anyways and do them. This person was offended and angry at me, for "slighting" a group by saying that I was a part of it, and was expecting me to apologize for it.


I mean, I'm not saying, "Don't try to defend people being picked on", but there's a difference between that, and being offended on their behalf.

[Premmy]

To be fair, I a) don't think that's entirely correct, and b)
I have never heard it used in any other way.
don't actually care about the political correctness discussion. Just the minor psychology side discussion I started.
Oh yeah we can do that, definitely. It's just what happens when you come into a thread with that title

Which does, admittedly, tie into the political correctness discussion,
Yeah kinda, but the only valid discussion to be made from the PC discussion is the "Why the hell are we having this dumb-ass argument" discussion

But I don't really care about my 'right' to use nigger or faggot or whatever in mixed company. I obviously have that right, but if I utilize it I should do so with the full understanding that, right or not, I'm really just kinda asking to get punched in the face.
my point exactly. I'm not going to feel all that bad for you, individually.
Edit: To be more fair I also see the concept of 'political correctness' as anything more than people not being rude to each other as kinda silly in most inceptions, I guess.
ayup

[Overcast]

And I guess I just want to know why, why do people continue to hype up this personal catering to other people's sensibilities for the sake of some exaggerated form of politeness? Why do people think censoring society will make it a less hurtful place?

I honestly wish to pursue the opposite, I wish we could just flood the world with these non-PC phrases to the point they become so mundane they don't have that power they had over most of us. But that's just big hopes from a little bastard.

[Seil]

Would you prefer that I said I don't agree with that idea, sir - or - that's a totally shitty idea, dingus?

[Overcast]

I'd prefer you told me the truth. But anyway, I figure we're about done here.

[katiuska]

I didn't realize that couples therapy was based on passive aggresion and denial :/

The notion that people's immediate emotional responses are actually the result of some sort of conscious decision is really going to need more support before I consider it anything more than a spurious claim. And the notion that this somehow removes blaming is also fairly unbelievable since as OC demonstrates above, it is absolutely about blame, IE, blaming the individual having an offended reaction for that reaction.

I think the claim is less that it's a conscious decision and more that our reactions are based partly on how we interpret a situation and that we do have some control over that.

On the other hand, you don't get to define words for other people.

To be fair, I a) don't think that's entirely correct, and b) don't actually care about the political correctness discussion. Just the minor psychology side discussion I started. Which does, admittedly, tie into the political correctness discussion, but I don't really care about my 'right' to use nigger or faggot or whatever in mixed company. I obviously have that right, but if I utilize it I should do so with the full understanding that, right or not, I'm really just kinda asking to get punched in the face.

...Kind of like that.

Like, for some reason, the theater geeks in my HS thought it was funny to call each other "fat" in good fun; this works as long as everyone understands that no one is actually calling anybody fat or expressing any kind of underlying disdain. But I can't talk like that indiscriminately, because a lot of people aren't going to take my fat-calling as an innocuous joke, even if I mean it that way. If I do this to people outside the group not knowing how it's going to sound, I might be forgiven, but at some point I'm going to have to realize that it sounds insulting and adjust myself if I want people to not think I'm insulting them. Once I get to the point where I insist on using "fat" this way at Weight Watchers meetings (or like, with an anorexic girl, expecting her not to take it personally), then I'm just being jerkish.

EDIT: I should say, I can certainly see where there is a place for the sort of thing you're talking about, but really, it likewise shouldn't take a lot to see where that sort of thing can easily be used as a shutdown tactic against people's entirely valid reactions to injurious conduct.

Which is why I ultimately come down more on the side of political correctness. There's an argument to be made that words are just words, but a lot of times when people say they're against political correctness, I end up getting the impression that the person just wants to say hurtful things without being called out on the fact that they're hurtful.

EDIT: Man, I'm slow. This conversation kind of went in another direction in the time it took to type all that.

[Amake]

A cannon fires only once, but words detonate across centuries.

Don't underestimate the power of your words. They will likely survive you, at the very least.

Just saying.

[Overcast]

Admit it IQ, you are just trying to be deep now.

As for me, I'm not trying to get away with being able to say hurtful things, but I want to believe that something hurtful should be based on intention of the phrase more than the words that are in them. That what is polite is not universal, and people should think about what someone is saying before they automatically explode.

[Amake]

It's a deep question to me. Something I've dealt with every day since I was five years old and my mom told me one thing that's always stayed with me, long and deep I've wondered about its meaning and blah blah.

She said, "Think before you speak."

[Seil]

and people should think about what someone is saying before they automatically explode.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HQh4YRw9H8&feature=related

[shiney]

And people should post more than youtube links. Moved on from webcomics, have we? :p

I see both sides of the debate. I think there's a lot of focus on being offended lately, and very little focus on the intent of the speaker (particularly in cases where a word was used that isn't derogatory)...people are quick to feeling an injustice, and cool to measured responses. There's also a lot of people out there who simply don't care about anyone else's feelings, and when their lack of sensitivity is brought to light, double down on it and claim moral high ground. We saw both sides of the debate, I find myself falling more on the side of "they're just words" to the degree that if a speaker isn't using a derogatory term, and someone is offended nonetheless, and it is explained that the term was not being used offensively, then people need to acknowledge this. Otherwise we may as well go about censoring any word that might possibly offend everyone, and restricting the use of non-derogatory language as a means of coexistence is ridiculous in my opinion.

I guess I just find there's too much focus on "you hurt my feelings" and not enough on two-way communication. If your feelings were hurt then I'm sorry, but if your feelings were hurt as a matter of course using terminology that doesn't have a derogatory connotation then you probably need to suck it up a little bit. It's like doctors getting sued for stating their patients are overweight. "How dare he!" Well, you're overweight. What do you want them to say? Sorry you were offended, but you're overweight. It's your doctor saying it, and not wanting to offend but stating a clinical fact, and the fact that you were offended rests solely on yourself.

[Specterbane]

Just to toss in my own 'two bits', after having looked over all the stuff that's started this up and looking at both sides as objectively as I can here are the said 'two bits'.

The whole PC language idea stems from a desire to have calm discussion that doesn't offend people, but clearly that can have devastating failures. Sure the 'anti-PC' group can say that they don't give a fuck what people care, but that shouldn't give you some right to be an ass about not caring and you certainly shouldn't start getting self righteous about it. Likewise, if you've been offended it's still not helpful to lash out in anger like a toddler having a tantrum. But like it was said (I think by RPGdemon) it's easier to be offended.

For the talk of 'common decency' that's come up, no one actually said that this whole issue could have been avoided if BOTH sides had simply stepped back and said they were sorry for lashing out. Words are words, but how they're taken gives them a great deal of power and meaning; we've seen what being mistaken can cause and few more words of an apology would have over come and quenched the flames that got started.

[Solid Snake]

I see both sides of the debate. I think there's a lot of focus on being offended lately, and very little focus on the intent of the speaker (particularly in cases where a word was used that isn't derogatory)...people are quick to feeling an injustice, and cool to measured responses.


Frankly, I don't think the intent of the speaker should matter. If I as a beneficiary of institutional privilege by being born a heterosexual white male am having a conversation with someone who is in an oppressed minority group and I happen to make a reference to them being "abnormal" or women being "emotionally unstable" or gays being "extravagant" or black people liking offensive "ghetto rap music," the fact that I may have intended to simply make a joke, express a lack of understanding for a "foreign" or "unique" culture, or make a broader and unrelated point has no bearing on the fact that I just said something stupid and really offensive.

Now there are two ways that the person I've offended in this hypothetical situation can respond to this: they can let it slide (in which case the privilege just perpetuates, and I continue to say stupid untrue generalizations because I've never been called out on it, and I continue to inadvertently offend people out of ignorance) OR they can get angry and call me out on it.

Personally, I'd much prefer the latter approach. NonCon and a few other people here had to basically call me out for my stupidity over several years, and had they not done so as aggressively and convincingly as they did, I'd still be an ignorant asshole conservative Republican. Like, I cannot emphasize enough how people here on NPF were largely responsible for converting me to "liberal New Deal Democrat" precisely because they were overtly hostile in a way that I originally felt was politically correct and absurd and offensive. Had NonCon or Smarty or Fifthfiend or whoever else basically been like "Oh that's okay, I disagree with you but you have a right to your own opinion" I might still be marching to the tune of George W. Bush and John McCain's lunacies.

Fact of the matter is, hostile confrontation works, particularly if you actually happen to be in the right and the other person is wrong. Granted, some folks here can sometimes take this a bit far into an extreme and yes, sometimes a better wording of criticism would suffice, but if I say something ignorant and privileged I fucking want you to call me out on it and bash my head in. I will frankly despise you for days or weeks or maybe even months but eventually if I'm subjected to being persuasively and overtly told that I am dead wrong and being an asshole long enough I will eventually come to my senses.

[CelesJessa]

they can let it slide ... OR they can get angry and call me out on it.


Or there's always the choice of a not-so-hostile confrontation. Personally, it's always been my experience, at least in arguments/debates that the minute you insult your opposition or belittle their side of the argument is the minute you've lost the debate, because the nature is to shut down and not listen when someone is being rude and just be like "well so-and-so is just being an asshole so I don't have to listen."

I mean, I used to be pretty ignorant and conservative too but getting me to really listen to the other side has always been a case of logical points being brought up and blah blah personal anecdotes don't hold much weight.

I'm not saying that a hostile confrontation can't work (getting mad can be super very effective, usually depending on your demeanor 99% of the time), I just wanted to point out that the decision wasn't so much a binary "let it go or get mad" option.

[shiney]

So because I'm not in a minority somewhere, I should have to tiptoe around what I say, taking into account the potential that someone MIGHT get offended by a word or nomenclature I use, and instead strive to use vanilla terms that are either not as effective or not as descriptive to get across the point which I am trying to make? Saying women are emotionally unstable is a crass generalization so it's a poor example. Ghetto rap music as a phrase is derogatory in itself, classifying a subgenre of people as living in the ghetto, so it's a poor example. Both of those terms already have negative connotations before using them. The term or word abnormal may relate directly to something that is, in fact, not normal. Just because I'm not a gay mexican black woman shouldn't mean I need to constantly censor myself to I can preserve the ego of people who might take offense at something. I repeat my position that people need to pay attention to the speaker.

A large problem with this is communication over the electronic medium, where we lose out on tone, inflection and body language, which themselves actually comprise the vast majority of interpersonal communications, so arguing a lot of this over the innernet is difficult when a discussion is largely data.

Your argument is you want people to get pissed off at you when you offend them. That isn't the argument I'm trying to make, which is you shouldn't censor yourself to not offend them. If you did that, then you never would have changed, because you'd have never said the viewpoints that offended them to begin with.

[Solid Snake]

Or there's always the choice of a not-so-hostile confrontation.

In my personal experience, though, not-so-hostile confrontation just doesn't work. It certainly was ineffective with me. Like, generally speaking if I said something stupid and someone on NPF tried to politely correct me in a respectable manner, I'd usually respond agreeably but inadvertently or subconsciously interpret the entire ordeal as permissive. It would not prevent me from still remaining intolerant or conservative or a bit of a douche, and it would not force me to reassess my opinions or my perspective. Instead I'd probably just come back a month or two later and say the same stupid shit, aggravating the same people all over again.

Personally I think that's how my experiences on NPF generally went -- like initially I think NonCon and Mirai and Fifthfiend and others were trying to be polite and non-confrontational with me, but every time they'd do so I'd just come back in another thread a while later and make the same mistakes or the same kinds of ignorant statements. Eventually they'd have to get aggressive or I'd just keep doing it and offending them.

And it was only after they were aggressive that I was forced to truly reassess my beliefs and the way I behaved and the things I said and the thoughts I thought. Like sure initially I'd respond in the exact way you've noted -- like being all upset and riled and incapable of responding logically and derailing the conversation -- but days or weeks after the fact I'd actually find myself thinking back to what happened -- in large part because I was upset with the overtly hostile nature of the debate and the way things degraded...and then I'd say, "Huh. Shit. Maybe I was wrong."

That kind of reassessment just doesn't happen if someone just says "I'm sorry Snake, I know you didn't mean to be offensive but that comment could be interpreted in a poor way against women / the LGBT community / ethnic minorities / whatever." If someone tries to be civil about it the criticism will usually brush right by me and no lesson will be learned.

Yeah, logical arguments are a part of the equation too, and a pretty important element of NonCon and others' hostile criticisms of me was that they actually needed to be right -- and have the logical underpinnings of a cohesive argument against my ignorance -- in order for the hostility itself to lead to the desired outcome. I'm not saying that isn't important but I am saying that if I say something ignorant and offensive to others in society and you want me to actually learn and reform and grow in response you had better call me an asshole when I deserve to be called such or I will continue to be an asshole.

[Overcast]

Simultaneously I'm not perfectly sure, but you might have a particular kind of ignorance in you Snake. A lack of perspective. Someone with perspective can look at the whole picture and see flaws in their thinking when someone else lays down solid facts on the opposite end. If you were that kind of ignorant then I can see why you'd need someone to publicly embarrass you every single time you need to change your perspective.

But honestly I think that is a bit much, and that if you aren't gaining perspective from the action and are just becoming religiously attached to a different set of ideals then I don't think you are gaining enough.

[Solid Snake]

Your argument is you want people to get pissed off at you when you offend them. That isn't the argument I'm trying to make, which is you shouldn't censor yourself to not offend them. If you did that, then you never would have changed, because you'd have never said the viewpoints that offended them to begin with.

My argument is more that people who get angry and respond with hostility to the ignorant statements of others should not be held more responsible for the argument by Moderators and others than the individual who said the stupid and ignorant and offensive comment in the first place.

Unfortunately on NPF it tends to go in the opposite direction -- the people who are ignorant and who say offensive things tend to get away with less a punishment than the people who get justifiably angry by their stupidity and bash them for saying something inappropriate. Ideally it should be the other way around. You can interpret that as enforcing "political correctness" at the expense of sharing divergent viewpoints but I think that's precisely what a good internet community should do. We should not tolerate cultural insensitivity or stereotypical thinking. You should not be able to make feel people terrible here simply for committing the "offense" of being "different or abnormal" in a way that leads to the beneficiaries of institutional privilege making stupid jokes at their expense.

[Nikose Tyris]

Frankly, I don't think the intent of the speaker should matter. If I as a beneficiary of institutional privilege by being born a heterosexual white male am having a conversation with someone who is in an oppressed minority group and I happen to make a reference to them being "abnormal" or women being "emotionally unstable" or gays being "extravagant" or black people liking offensive "ghetto rap music," the fact that I may have intended to simply make a joke, express a lack of understanding for a "foreign" or "unique" culture, or make a broader and unrelated point has no bearing on the fact that I just said something stupid and really offensive.

Agreed to a point, yes! Regardless of intent, if you say something that is taken offensively, or if you use an outdated and impolite terminology, congrats, you've said something stupid and offended someone.

Now there are two ways that the person I've offended in this hypothetical situation can respond to this: they can let it slide (in which case the privilege just perpetuates, and I continue to say stupid untrue generalizations because I've never been called out on it, and I continue to inadvertently offend people out of ignorance) OR they can get angry and call me out on it.

Disagreed. Why does someone have to get ANGRY about it, before someone takes notice? Getting 'angry' only gets my hair up and makes me more likely to fight back about the issue, even if I know I'm wrong. Anything can be conveyed in reasonable discussion, barring the listener being a) really, really dense, or b) really, really stubborn. [see a].

EXAMPLE: I use the term 'Queer' in my community. It's our word. We prefer it because of it's expansiveness; it doesn't limit it to the 'gay' community, the 'trans' community, because those are seperate things. It's an umbrella term that we feel incorporates all of us.

However, some groups dislike it, and refuse to participate in this blanket term; some prefer "LGBT Community", which doesn't include genderqueer and incorporate them. I've encountered many people, including my Aunt, who despises the use of the term 'queer' in the name, and I've had disagreements with her over it.

Who's technically in the 'right' here? Short answer, she is. She's allowed to be offended. She's not capable of saying "That's offensive,"- that implies everyone would be offended by this, which isn't the case. However, that she is offended, and asked me to stop using it, is different. I've agreed to stop using it around her.


Also- It changed from Transexual/Hermaphrodite to Transgender because They are confident and individual in their sexuality, and they are not 'both sexes'; they identify as a specific gender, and are entitled to be the gender they choose. Their gender also doesn't define their sexual orientation.

That's the short answer, as I've been given.



Edit: Wow, took so long to write that one, I got left in the dust.

[Solid Snake]

Simultaneously I'm not perfectly sure, but you might have a particular kind of ignorance in you Snake. A lack of perspective. Someone with perspective can look at the whole picture and see flaws in their thinking when someone else lays down solid facts on the opposite end. If you were that kind of ignorant then I can see why you'd need someone to publicly embarrass you every single time you need to change your perspective.


Yup, that's right, the clear conclusion here is that I'm a dense idiot who is ignorant, lesson learned, everybody go home now.

...No, I don't think that's it at all. If I had no ability to express empathy towards others or view things "from their perspective" I'd still be making arguments about how gay marriage should be illegal or how everyone of Arabic descent should be subject to additional scrutiny in airports.

Perhaps to be more blunt, I think that everyone has a bit of dense ignorance and prejudiced bias to them. I suppose your criticism of me is accurate, therefore, but one I would expand to encompass everyone and not one I would narrow into a matter of my personal shortcomings. I don't think Bob the Merc, for example -- sorry for using you as an example Rob -- was any more or less suspect to falling victim to his predisposed biases than I was, and I think he needed just as many people shouting and bickering with hostility in his direction to achieve his orientation shift. Same with anyone, really. We're all suspect to believe what we're taught to believe by our parents and our communities until something radical shakes us from our foundations and forces us to reassess.

Nonetheless, if you say something offensive how you feel about the ignorant shit or what you think you intended by it is not nearly as important as what the offended party feels. Making that distinction is critical. Really, the hostile responses to my stupid statements were not only intended to "reform" or "educate" me but also to inform others in the community who were offended due to their minority status that they had allies and were supported and that intolerant shit wouldn't be tolerated.

In other words, if I say something stupid and offensive that could be interpreted as insulting to gays, even if I did not mean the insult, if someone calls me an asshole, he's/she's not only sending a message to me, but he/she is also sending a positive message to the LGBT community here on NPF. That message is "You are welcome here, and if someone tries to suggest otherwise we will bash him with a fury to protect you and ensure you continue to feel welcome here."

...That is fairly important, I'd wager.

[CelesJessa]

Personally, I agree (and I think everyone else would too) that anyone should be comfortable and welcome here, and I can think of times where mods have stepped in when people made posts that boiled down to "women, amirite?" and said "Hey guys this isn't appropriate" that made me feel better/more welcome (which maybe should have happened in the other thread, if there had been time before flying off the handle happened). But I'm not sure if "We will have crazy flame wars if you get insulted" would make me feel much more welcome.

In any case, I just dislike any bashing in general.

[Fifthfiend]

So because I'm not in a minority somewhere, I should have to tiptoe around what I say, taking into account the potential that someone MIGHT get offended by a word or nomenclature I use, and instead strive to use vanilla terms that are either not as effective or not as descriptive to get across the point which I am trying to make? So because I'm not in a minority somewhere, I should have to tiptoe around what I say, taking into account the potential that someone MIGHT get offended by a word or nomenclature I use, and instead strive to use vanilla terms that are either not as effective or not as descriptive to get across the point which I am trying to make? Saying women are emotionally unstable is a crass generalization so it's a poor example. Ghetto rap music as a phrase is derogatory in itself, classifying a subgenre of people as living in the ghetto, so it's a poor example. Both of those terms already have negative connotations before using them. The term or word abnormal may relate directly to something that is, in fact, not normal. Just because I'm not a gay mexican black woman shouldn't mean I need to constantly censor myself to I can preserve the ego of people who might take offense at something. I repeat my position that people need to pay attention to the speaker.

It's massively disingenuous, to claim that "abnormal" has no pre-existing negative connotations.

Like I really can't imagine what you're trying to prove by pretending we don't all understand that calling a person abnormal is an incredibly insulting, terrible thing to say.

So because I'm not in a minority somewhere, I should have to tiptoe around what I say, taking into account the potential that someone MIGHT get offended by a word or nomenclature I use, and instead strive to use vanilla terms that are either not as effective or not as descriptive to get across the point which I am trying to make?

And it gets even worse when this incredibly broad, unspecific descriptor is your example of a word you just have to use because it's just so much more effective and descriptive than terms like "transgender" or "bigender" which, you know, actually directly describe what is being discussed.

I really don't know what your deal is with political correctness that you're willing to defend this, of all things, because TDK successfully wrapped it up in that banner.

[Overcast]

I don't want to know I have allies, I don't want someone else to try to represent me. If a person wants to say they were offended by something that was just fine but don't try to drag the whole community into the issue. I want people to just own up to the fact that they aren't protecting everyone who shares this public image when they are just shutting down what I see as imagined ignorance. Them doing so doesn't tell me I'm welcome. A mod coming down on someone who spoke what I consider real ignorance, that makes me feel welcome. A woman talking in a public conference about how a baseball coach said homosexual slurs doesn't make me feel welcome. An administration finally passing a situation that allows gays to serve in the military properly that makes me feel welcome.

[shiney]

It's more of my personal preference that people are allowed to use the english language as a language instead of needing to constantly defend themselves against potential accusations of being offensive. Like, you can see when someone says something innocuously (at least in person)...I guess I should specify that a person can be offended all they want, nobody should say they can't be offended, but that before responding with vitriol or attitude they should attempt to clarify what the speaker meant initially?

That said, calling a person abnormal, directly, yeah I'll give you that. Splitting hairs in regards to normal/abnormal behavior is a bit more difficult, because I guess normalcy is subjective as to each separate individual since what's normal for me may not be for others. It almost requires someone to base it off the majority or the standard vs. the deviation which then leads toward prejudice and bias. This is where I believe the intent of the speaker comes in, but then it's difficult to make that determination...

I mean I'll agree with you outright though that saying a person is abnormal is pretty rude inasmuch as assuming you are doing so to say they're weird or wrong, but that just isn't the tone I got from the initial thing. Perhaps interpreting someone's tone over the internet is subject to the reader's predisposition as well.

A lot of subjectivity regarding this entire discussion, come to think of it!

[Archbio]

Shiney, what I'm getting from your explanation there is that you don't seem to realize that a lot of people who set out to be offensive actually usually work a bit to make their intent somewhat ambiguous or create a vague sense of plausible deniability.

If you wait for something more obvious than a gratuitous use of normal/abnormal in an odd context coupled with considerable smugness before you realize that someone is trying to be offensive; you're going to wait a long time. Especially since you've all made it very clear that some words are words, but some attitude is just beyond the pale.

[Nique]

I am being condescending

And how!

Simultaneously I'm not perfectly sure, but you might have a particular kind of ignorance in you Snake. A lack of perspective. Someone with perspective can look at the whole picture and see flaws in their thinking when someone else lays down solid facts on the opposite end. If you were that kind of ignorant then I can see why you'd need someone to publicly embarrass you every single time you need to change your perspective.


Hey everbody Overcast is just telling it like it is.

A lot of subjectivity regarding this entire discussion, come to think of it!


Basically. As far as I can tell no one is really wrong (except, perhaps in their approach) but just... All I'm seeing are different shades of grey.

[Fifthfiend]

Personally, I agree (and I think everyone else would too) that anyone should be comfortable and welcome here, and I can think of times where mods have stepped in when people made posts that boiled down to "women, amirite?" and said "Hey guys this isn't appropriate" that made me feel better/more welcome (which maybe should have happened in the other thread, if there had been time before flying off the handle happened). But I'm not sure if "We will have crazy flame wars if you get insulted" would make me feel much more welcome.

It's been made abundantly clear that it wouldn't have happened at any point in that thread, because the mods, or at least two of them that I see, have no problem at all with and emphatically are in favor of a person's right to engage in that kind of behavior.

There was certainly nothing whatsoever stopping them from doing that after the "flying off the handle"; they chose to deal with the handle-flying, and not the insulting behavior that caused it, because as they've repeatedly said, they see nothing wrong with the latter.

Or there's always the choice of a not-so-hostile confrontation. Personally, it's always been my experience, at least in arguments/debates that the minute you insult your opposition or belittle their side of the argument is the minute you've lost the debate, because the nature is to shut down and not listen when someone is being rude and just be like "well so-and-so is just being an asshole so I don't have to listen."

If that is, as you say, people's nature, then why are the people Solid Snake is talking about - who, as Solid Snake presumably agrees, Solid Snake was being rude to - somehow expected to be exempt from this human tendency? How is it Solid Snake who hasn't "lost" in that situation from the outset.

You're arguing that being insulted is the point at which people shut down and refuse to listen, but - as TDK's posts in Noncon's earlier thread pretty well demonstrate - plenty of people are happy to "shut down" from the get-go, regardless of how politely any objection to their views is stated. I mean TDK freely states that his response to being asked to use a particular term was "fuck you".

The problem with these complaints about having to be PC is that they rest upon a fairly massive double-standard, whereby they are very, very upset about having to 'tiptoe' around other people's objections, while at the same time having no problem demanding that the people who hold those objections meet some superhuman standard of politeness and civilitude for any statement thereof.

[Solid Snake]

Shiney, what I'm getting from your explanation there is that you don't seem to realize that a lot of people who set out to be offensive actually usually work a bit to make their intent somewhat ambiguous or create a vague sense of plausible deniability.


As someone who actually has (albeit several years ago and shit this is difficult to confess and own up to) deliberately attempted to be vague in an effort to simultaneously express dissatisfaction / contempt for a minority group I've opposed and "get away with it" and deny an intent to offend the "abnormal," like I can actually point to posts I've made with that deliberate intent in the back of my mind, I can say this is a very real phenomenon and something Moderators should watch out for.

...The sad thing is I remember at least one incident like at least four or five years ago where I used that deliberate tactic to ensure that someone else, in the action of "overreacting" to me, was the one who got the Modhammer slammed down on him. Like it wasn't so much that I was deliberately intending that result or that I knew it would happen, but I did make a conscious effort to phrase my comments in a way that I suspected would get the guy to explode in a passionate defense of the minority group I had demonized, and the fact that it led the person to be reprimanded was the icing on the cake.

I am not saying that every time I have been offensive in the past I have had this objective and it's difficult for me to own up to this in the context of the fact that many of you may assume I've habitually had more nefarious "motives" than I've claimed in the past, and in fact in the majority of past cases I've actually pretty much been ignorant of my biases and genuinely surprised when people have insulted me in response, but I must say that there were moments when Conservative Snake attempted the kinds of parlor tricks Archbio highlights here and I'm positive that Conservative Snake isn't the only one who has done so and benefited by the policies of NPF Moderators who've generally responded more harshly to those who take offense and respond to political incorrectness than those who propagate the ignorance in the first place.

...Shit this could lead to some bad assumptions re: my credibility.

[Thadius]

Let me say it as simply as possible: Humans are fucking complex.

You have hundreds, if not thousands, of biological processes that are taking place simultaneously without your direct control just to keep you alive. You have processes that you do have control over that are just as complex and essential to your well-being. And a failure large enough at any one point in your body spells doom.

Is it not inconceivable that human thought process could be just as fucking complex and convoluted?

Personally, I never did care for ignorance, stupidity, or the easily offended, which is what this thread seems to be about. But thanks to this thread, I took a quick once-over of what few prejudices I have, and realized it's not the stupid or ignorant or easily offended I hate in particular. No.

It's the ones who refuse to admit that they are. Even when you point it out multiple times, using their own logic against them. If you can call it that.

Everyone is different. This I realize! Everyone has inborn hatred of something, or fear of something, or a weak spot in their mental armor. This I also know!

But the ones that refuse to admit that maybe, possibly, they could ever so slightly be wrong and open their fucking ears for once in their goddamn lives, and instead just throw up a huge "I'M NOT LISTENING TO YOU BECAUSE YOU CHALLENGE MY WORLDVIEW WITH FACTS" wall?

Those people make me wish I had a goddamn flamethrower.

Nothing offends me. Well, more than the stated. You can try to insult me, call me derogatory names, point out holes in my thinking. I'll just sit there and calmly accept it, change my reasoning as needed, and inform you where you happen to be wrong so that you can fail to insult me more efficiently.

Sometimes I wish people thought a little more like me. But then I realize what a curse that would be, and take it back just as fast.

I might have gotten off-topic a bit, but you know what? Don't care. I'll reiterate my two points that I tried to make real fast before leaving.

1) Humans are complex things.

2) Fifth, you're a nice guy and all, but please show me you're an intelligent nice guy.

[Overcast]

Hey everbody Overcast is just telling it like it is.

I swear I don't even know when I'm doing it anymore. >>

[decent into narcissism]And my shade is obviously the greyest. And yeah that's with an e, I like it better and that obviously makes me right.[/decend]

[Solid Snake]

If that is, as you say, people's nature, then why are the people Solid Snake is talking about - who, as Solid Snake presumably agrees, Solid Snake was being rude to - somehow expected to be exempt from this human tendency? How is it Solid Snake who hasn't "lost" in that situation from the outset.

Shit I'm really setting myself up to be the punching bag here, aren't I. :P

Conservative Snake wasn't a complete asshole and my intent isn't to be self-deprecating to such an extent that everything I've ever typed from 2004 to 2008-ish or whenever is in question, I mean he had some smart posts, and he wasn't always a complete dickwad. I'm just trying to be brutally honest because I feel like being brutal honesty and using my past self as a sacrificial example is the only way to prove to the Mods the gist of my point, which is that I think they're a little too lenient sometimes on those who express politically incorrect opinions that effectively goad good-hearted, intelligent, tolerant folks here into responding in a passionate and necessary rage.

I am kind of regretting this already insofar as I'm really just making myself look like a dick, but, eh, most of you already thought I was a dick anyway. :)

[shiney]

Is this going to be a discussion about our perspectives on what type of speech is acceptable, fifth, or a referendum on decisions you didn't find palatable?

At no point am I going to suggest I'm happy to turn a blind eye toward someone being rude or thoughtless and then happily excusing it away by saying "Well I didn't MEAN for it to be that way" if it's clear they didn't, but I'm not the kind of guy who wants to take action as a mod on a complete grey area, particularly when there were no reported posts, particularly particularly when someone took it upon themself to escalate the situation (again) instead of following the clearly established rules.

I mean would it make things better if I gave TDK a public admonishment? Because that's as much as I'd have been able to do realistically. He's not the one who decided to make a huge scene instead of reporting posts.

Getting back to the point, since it seems like you're happy to classify me as supporting rudeness, I think the members here are smart enough to know better than that. I would like to think that I am allowed to discuss my position on things without being accused of anything. I personally wish people would use a little critical thinking and a little analysis before allowing their emotional (and often subconscious) reaction to lead them in a direction that derails everything. This isn't asking a lot. I also believe that people should at least think before they speak, as stated before by IQ, but that overt and constant self-imposed censorship for the sake of stroking an ego is unbecoming of us as a society. Being insulting is one thing, accidentally offending someone and being castigated for it is another.

[Nique]

Snake, I don't think anybody cares what stupid thing you typed up 5 years ago when your overarching impression has been fairly pleasent. All of us have been dumbasses.

[Solid Snake]

I mean would it make things better if I gave TDK a public admonishment? Because that's as much as I'd have been able to do realistically. He's not the one who decided to make a huge scene instead of reporting posts.


Just to clarify: you're against giving TDK a public admonishment for saying something brazenly offensive to a minority group regularly subjected to such hostile comments from beneficiaries of institutional privilege, but you don't mind publicly admonishing NonCon, a member of said minority group who was disparaged as "abnormal," from responding angrily, passionately, and in a completely human fashion to such insensitive comments?

I mean, is this policy supposed to make sense?

[Archbio]

Apparently it makes sense if you see the Report Post button as the most important factor in Moderation, Snake.

Quick, click it. And for the love of Dog, don't show any emotion.

Or your face will be stolen.

[Solid Snake]

Apparently it makes sense if you see the Report Post button as the most important factor in Moderation, Snake.


Sure, reporting to a Mod is well and good and should be encouraged, but if the Mod isn't willing to reprimand the person who made the offensive statement due to said statement being "vague" or "potentially interpreted as not intended to offend" or some shit, I'd sure as hell hope tolerant people in the community clearly indicated that the offensive comment made by the intolerant person was fucking insensitive and stupid so that everyone else in the community, including those targeted by said comments, knew that their friends on NPF weren't going to tolerate such shenanigans.

/run-on sentence

[shiney]

I can see where you're coming from. It's hard to be in this position, I feel like I'm in an interrogation room. =)

I don't make decisions based on who is or is not in a minority, though...the thing is, from my perspective, I see someone who gets hot under the collar over what sometimes is the slightest provocation, and want to see that stop. On the other hand, I saw someone use a word which has questionable meaning based on who they are speaking to/about. I base my decisions on a review of the facts and the history of the member(s) involved. Sometimes I get it wrong, and I still think I got it wrong on this one in a few instances, but again there are those who agree with me and those who don't. I will say that, if it comes to punishment, I try to leave emotion and personal belief out of it and look at things strictly from a "who/what rules are broken" perspective, because hell it's not like I care if Non is cisgender or anything. More power to him/her and I mean that, because knowing who & what you are in this world helps people cope and create a sence of belonging and society. But, I'm not going to allow someone to go on a tirade time and again and toss aside rules altogether just because they believe in something passionately. You know? Strictly from a rules perspective, it looks like TDK maybe violated the "flaming" portion to the degree of saying something thoughtless & insulting (to Non), but then Non jumped the shark thereafter.

I honestly don't want anyone to feel unwelcome here but part of that still involves remaining within accordance of our rules.

Edit: good god you guys. Would you prefer I run this place base don my personal beliefs and just threw around punishment based on what I believed? I may as well eliminate the report post function altogether because obviously I'm just supposed to accept that a histrionic reaction from a repeated offender (who's been banned at least twice in the past few months for the exact same behavior) and an insensitive comment are on the same basic level of violation.

Just, wow. Yeah TDK said a dickish thing, and then Non did what Non always does and got banned for it again, instead of just letting a mod handle it. Obviously this means shiney is a tyrant and hates everyone who disagrees...

[Nikose Tyris]

Actually, the way you phrased it there, Snake, is incredibly reasonable. I'm having a hard time not agreeing with Snake's latest post. It's a legitimate point that I made myself.

In post 71, i mean. I haven't read your latest one.

[Specterbane]

Just to clarify: you're against giving TDK a public admonishment for saying something brazenly offensive to a minority group regularly subjected to such hostile comments from beneficiaries of institutional privilege, but you don't mind publicly admonishing NonCon, a member of said minority group who was disparaged as "abnormal," from responding angrily, passionately, and in a completely human fashion to such insensitive comments?

I mean, is this policy supposed to make sense?

If I could put a little perspective on this. The original thread that started all this took 2 hours 11 minuets to get shut down for becoming the starting of a flame war (by my understanding of it).

Is it the job of the Mods to go White Knighting around championing controversial causes? Or is it their job to try and keep the peace and make sure calm discussion can be made without people being intentionality insulting?

Did TDK say something insulting? Obviously to Noncon he did. But did he intend to? I couldn't tell, and apparently the mods couldn't either. Shiney's repeated stated the most he could've done and still be considered a fair mod, and he's done a great job at it for years. I'd think that earns at least a little benefit of the doubt personally.

Edit: Gyah! This is moving fast.

[BitVyper]

So because I'm not in a minority somewhere, I should have to tiptoe around what I say, taking into account the potential that someone MIGHT get offended by a word or nomenclature I use

You know, that is almost exactly the same thing my mother and step father always said whenever I stood up to their constant emotional abuse and casual racism. Apparently watching what you say is just really gosh darned hard! Even when you are using a text based format where you literally have infinite time to be a bit mindful of others' feelings.

As far as the rest of this goes, whatever. But that in particular, I find irritating.

[Archbio]

Strictly from a rules perspective, it looks like TDK maybe violated the "flaming" portion to the degree of saying something thoughtless & insulting (to Non), but then Non jumped the shark thereafter.

Well, that's the thing, really. Strictly from a rules perspective, I wouldn't expect NonCon's behavior to wipe away TDK's behavior. Because then, that's just rewarding successful trolling.

[Solid Snake]

Just, wow. Yeah TDK said a dickish thing, and then Non did what Non always does and got banned for it again, instead of just letting a mod handle it. Obviously this means shiney is a tyrant and hates everyone who disagrees...

"Non did what Non always does?"
Shit we're not going to be able to actually have a rational and level-headed discussion about this, are we? I mean, really?

[Kerensky287]

Just to clarify: you're against giving TDK a public admonishment for saying something brazenly offensive to a minority group regularly subjected to such hostile comments from beneficiaries of institutional privilege, but you don't mind publicly admonishing NonCon, a member of said minority group who was disparaged as "abnormal," from responding angrily, passionately, and in a completely human fashion to such insensitive comments?

I mean, is this policy supposed to make sense?

If you put it that way, no. But that's not exactly what happened.

TDK made a stupid, insensitive comment. That isn't a bannable offense. I'd have given him an infraction and then requested that he issue a public apology because WOW that was a douche post that he made, but he isn't the one who turned it into a 3-thread-wide shitstorm.

The fact remains that while Noncon was the victim, he was not as much of a victim as he MADE HIMSELF OUT TO BE. Yes, a comment like the one TDK made is one that he deserved to be offended by. But no, starting a flamewar is not the way to let people know. Hitting the Report Post button would've gotten moderator attention and allowed the thread to continue on track, possibly with the offending post even being taken down.

Instead what happened is he knee-jerked every fucking thing anyone said, regardless of whether or not it actually had anything to do with the issue being discussed. TDK didn't turn it into a big thing, Noncon did, and the shit disturbing act was what I believe got him the ban.

[shiney]

Bingo @ Kerensky.

BitVyper: ah, admitted.

Arch: you make a good point too, I'm going to discuss this with the other mods at least...nothing cancels out, and I'm sorry if I made things appear that way.

Snake: at this point that is entirely up to you. Fact is Noncon is a repeat offender of doing exactly what happened, exactly, in this instance. You can take the admittedly flippant tone of my post and twist it if you like, or you can research post history and see the instances that resulted in Non getting a temp ban, how they happened, why they happened, and let me know your findings.

[Solid Snake]

TDK made a stupid, insensitive comment. That isn't a bannable offense.

I think part of my point is that making a stupid insensitive comment should at least warrant mod intervention or a warning to keep things civil, which would then prevent Non from overreacting in an entirely human, predictable, and rational manner in response to said stupid insensitive comment because he'd know the Mods weren't tolerating such shit, which would then prevent this whole situation from escalating in the first place.


Instead what happened is he knee-jerked every fucking thing anyone said, regardless of whether or not it actually had anything to do with the issue being discussed. TDK didn't turn it into a big thing, Noncon did, and the shit disturbing act was what I believe got him the ban.

...But that's precisely the problem.
From your perspective it is "okay" for people to say stupid and insensitive things, but it is not "okay" for people to respond rationally, cohesively and humanely to the stupid things someone has said.

If that culture persists then basically on NPF anyone can say anything offensive or insulting to any minority group, so long as it's sufficiently disguised as "vague" or "not intended to offend," and the Mods will do nothing or assume the best from the perpetrator, thus effectively forcing the hands of the tolerant and civil people on NPF to respond harshly in condemning the comment because the Mods won't condemn it, then effectively enabling the escalation of the situation and ensuring that the Mods eventually punish the people responding appropriately to the shitty and unacceptable comments in the first place, because they're the ones who "escalated" a vague situation into a Very Big Deal.

EDIT: Snake: at this point that is entirely up to you. Fact is Noncon is a repeat offender of doing exactly what happened, exactly, in this instance. You can take the admittedly flippant tone of my post and twist it if you like, or you can research post history and see the instances that resulted in Non getting a temp ban, how they happened, why they happened, and let me know your findings.

So basically you concede that you are punishing NonCon less because of the actual circumstantial evidence of the "present crime" he's committed, but moreso on the basis of sheer "reputational" or "past crimes" evidence of past acts where you've felt he's over-reacted. His reputation precedes the actual merits of his arguments. He's condemned in your eyes to constantly be the aggressor and never the victim just because he's "acted up in the past, and that clearly means he's acting up again."

...I'm glad America's criminal justice system deliberately bans the introduction of "past crimes" or "character" evidence, except in extremely narrow circumstances, to prevent these exact kinds of propensity judgments from determining whether someone is "guilty" or "innocent."

EDIT 2: Oh man I can't believe I somehow found a way to integrate this tangent into studying for my Evidence final by throwing in an FRE 404(a) reference there, that was pretty awesome.
...I should probably be studying right now. =/

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

Personally I'm all for people living whatever gender/sexual identity they want to (personally I am bisexual) but the whole 'intersex' 'transexual' 'cisgender', all those PC words they keep making up and changing for the purposes of being politically correct and not offending anyone? Those are fucking stupid. Especially 'cisgender'. GOD that word is stupid.

Like it wouldn't be so bad but they keep changing words and deciding things are offensive and crap. I used the term "hermaphrodite" in a discussion about people with both sets of genitals and someone was like "OMG THAT'S NOT PC"

And I was like "Fuck you."

I...really don't see why this is all that bad?
I mean looking through the rest of the thread, yeah some of what TDK says isn't nice but at the same time there's just nowhere near enough from my perspective to go to "You are an ass and a terrible human being"

TDK stops posting at page 2 of the thread, and then it just keeps fucking going and going and going and hell it doesn't even stop when the thread is locked because we damn sure needed two more threads for this.

[Kerensky287]

I think part of my point is that making a stupid insensitive comment should at least warrant mod intervention or a warning to keep things civil, which would then prevent Non from overreacting in an entirely human, predictable, and rational manner in response to said stupid insensitive comment because he'd know the Mods weren't tolerating such shit, which would then prevent this whole situation from escalating in the first place.

I think mods would have intervened if any of them had known what was happening, ie. if the post had been reported.

That said, it's not too late. There is no window of opportunity for issuing infractions. Maybe get TDK to clarify and/or apologize for being the catalyst to that whole event?



From your perspective it is "okay" for people to say stupid and insensitive things, but it is not "okay" for people to respond rationally, cohesively and humanely to the stupid things someone has said.

From my perspective it is NOT okay for people to say stupid and insensitive things. That's why I'm still lobbying for an infraction against TDK.

I'm perfectly okay for people to respond rationally, cohesively and humanely to stupid things people say, but that's not at all what Noncon did. He spent pages upon pages crying persecution against anybody within range.

[Thadius]

Snake. There is a thing called 'overreaction.' We've done it to you when you did the MLP/Metal Gear crossover. We've done it to you when you do Rarity-bashing and Pinky Pie-praising.

Admittedly this thing is a bigger, more serious thing. But the principle stands here. Overreaction gets you NOWHERE.

Granted, I agree that TDK, if he did indeed make an offensive post, should apologize, if not to the NPF at large, then at LEAST NonCon.

But NonCon, by dint of overreaction, gets to chill the fuck out with some punishment.

At least, that's what I think. Maybe I'm sitting on the fence here? Maybe I want to punish everyone? I'd like to think that if I were running the show, everyone who messed up got exactly what they deserved. 's how my mum raised me to be.

[Solid Snake]

I'm perfectly okay for people to respond rationally, cohesively and humanely to stupid things people say, but that's not at all what Noncon did. He spent pages upon pages crying persecution against anybody within range.

Maybe NonCon felt he had to cry persecution for pages upon pages against "anybody within range" because the Mods and others in the NPF community haven't exactly had the best reputation for actually rooting out the insensitive comments made by those offending or insulting minority groups, and so the only way to draw attention to what TDK said and explain why it was wrong was to act up a bit?

Or maybe everyone responded to NonCon's original and civil articulation of "what was wrong" with TDK's comment in such a ludicrous, over-defensive or self-denying manner that NonCon felt increasingly isolated and upset that his valid complaint was being ignored?

Or maybe people, particularly moderators expected to be unbiased and impartial, shouldn't respond to arguments with flippant My Little Pony .gif files and expect that not to offend someone?

I don't know -- I only wish I was present at the time everything happened because I would have had a lot to say, that's for sure.

[Kerensky287]

Maybe NonCon felt he had to cry persecution for pages upon pages against "anybody within range" because the Mods and others in the NPF community haven't exactly had the best reputation for actually rooting out the insensitive comments made by those offending or insulting minority groups, and so the only way to draw attention to what TDK said and explain why it was wrong was to act up a bit?

Or maybe everyone responded to NonCon's original and civil articulation of "what was wrong" with TDK's comment in such a ludicrous, over-defensive or self-denying manner that NonCon felt increasingly isolated and upset that his valid complaint was being ignored?

Or maybe people, particularly moderators expected to be unbiased and impartial, shouldn't respond to arguments with flippant My Little Pony .gif files and expect that not to offend someone?

I don't know -- I only wish I was present at the time everything happened because I would have had a lot to say, that's for sure.

So maybe he had a reason to be upset, sure. And if it had been an isolated event he might've gotten off with a warning.

But this is a repeat offense. He does this EVERY TIME anyone says anything remotely offensive to any groups considered "minority". Yes, I will admit that there were a lot of good reasons for things to get him upset this time, but he could just as easily have gone "Moderators, hear my plight" and walked away anyway. Instead he took matters into his own hands. As he ALWAYS does.

And anyway, the point here is that Noncon elevated it into a shitstorm when it didn't need to be elevated. His motivations aren't really relevant.

[Solid Snake]

So maybe he had a reason to be upset, sure. And if it had been an isolated event he might've gotten off with a warning.

But this is a repeat offense. He does this EVERY TIME anyone says anything remotely offensive to any groups considered "minority". Yes, I will admit that there were a lot of good reasons for things to get him upset this time, but he could just as easily have gone "Moderators, hear my plight" and walked away anyway. Instead he took matters into his own hands. As he ALWAYS does.

And anyway, the point here is that Noncon elevated it into a shitstorm when it didn't need to be elevated. His motivations aren't the point.

You have basically reaffirmed my earlier point that relying on someone's reputation to determine whether his present behavior merits Moderator intervention is a really bad idea.

Each circumstance should be analyzed under its own merits. Otherwise in a Moderation system that basically works on discretion as opposed to concrete rules you're empowering Moderators to effectively play favorites.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

Maybe NonCon felt he had to cry persecution for pages upon pages against "anybody within range" because the Mods and others in the NPF community haven't exactly had the best reputation for actually rooting out the insensitive comments made by those offending or insulting minority groups, and so the only way to draw attention to what TDK said and explain why it was wrong was to act up a bit?

I get the feeling that people would be more inclined to agree he had a point, or even defend him if he'd just stopped what he was doing.
As it went along the sympathy and justification in his argument was eroded away by what I think is best described simply as a tantrum. Which is what he does EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.
We're not speaking about using his past as evidence, we're talking about how he's a repeat offender for exactly this thing that to me hasn't shown any attempt at improving or avoiding these sorts of situations.



Each circumstance should be analyzed under its own merits. Otherwise in a Moderation system that basically works on discretion as opposed to concrete rules you're empowering Moderators to effectively play favorites.

The circumstance and the situation was analyzed under its own merits. But the punishment was based on his history.
Specifically that he has been warned and banned over and over for this exact thing.

What's even the point of warnings if you're not going to follow through later on when someone doesn't improve?
(Paraphrasing) I mean in dealing with my nephew I have to say that if he keeps on reaching out for a dangerous thing on the table that I can't move? The first time I tell him no, the second I reach out and move his hand back and again say no. Third time I grab him and move him away from the table entirely and then I give him a light smack on the hand.

I can't just sit in the chair from the far corner of the room and say "No" over and over again. Even if the situation is the same as the first time, it's obvious that the point isn't being made with such a simple warning.

[shiney]

I concede nothing, and I'm going to ask you to stop putting words into my mouth. Now you're just being disingenuous and purposefully obtuse. Of course we take post history into account. Would you prefer we let people break the same rules forever and never get an increasing level of punishment?

You're better than this. You're in law school for god's sake. I know you're intelligent enough to know we're not going to ignore people's history when determining what course of action to take, and I know you're intelligent enough as well to know that it's not the subject matter** but the reaction that determines how we act. Just because you believe that it's perfectly okay to respond to injustices in a way that sidesteps the firmly established rules (that everyone is supposed to follow) due to a lack of the response you want to see, doesn't mean that's it actually is okay.

The post(s) should have been reported. Whether or not you believe a mod should take action even if a post is not reported, is besides the point. The post should have been reported instead of Non doing what he did because that was a review would have occurred before the situation escalated, and Non probably would be here and this thread wouldn't exist and maybe he would have even been able to discuss the subject matter of being cisgender instead of it going the way it did.

** meaning, the topic of discussion, not necessarily the content of the post itself

[Kerensky287]

You have basically reaffirmed my earlier point that relying on someone's reputation to determine whether his present behavior merits Moderator intervention is a really bad idea.

Each circumstance should be analyzed under its own merits. Otherwise in a Moderation system that basically works on discretion as opposed to concrete rules you're empowering Moderators to effectively play favorites.

You're a lawyer, aren't you? So you're more familiar with the law and how it works than me.

In real life, aren't people treated differently for first offenses? The idea being, I mean, that a harsher punishment is reserved if they don't learn their lesson?

Noncon has done this thing before. He probably got infracted, maybe he got a short ban then too. Either way, he didn't learn from it. He did it again. It's a repeat offense, and thus a harsher penalty is necessary.

[Nikose Tyris]

Things agreed upon in this thread:
Man TDK, that post was douchetacular. It was also douchetacular when you did it on Facebook like 2 months ago, and I was sitting in Nonsy's spot calling you out on it.

Things not agreed upon and being discussed:
Was the action taken against Nonsy appropriate?
Core arguement there seems to be "he was defending himself" vs. "He was defending himself and also throwing a tantrum, tantrums as evidenced elsewhere".

Topic of this thread:
Political correctness, what defines it.

[shiney]

Realistically the thread should be split, huh.

Nikose stop being rational, you're not being yourself. :/

[Thadius]

Personally, I've always felt that until I fuck up enough that I get an ACTUAL infraction/ban, I can toss political correctness out the window, say what's on my mind, and apologize if I offend anyone.

Clearly someone in these forums forgot that last part.

Oh wait.

That'd be EVERYONE.

Good gods guys. Did we really need TEN PAGES of this shit?! We're reasonable human beings, and the moderators are neither perfect humans who can predict when a shitstorm is about to happen, nor are they cold unfeeling robots who dispense justice without any care for people. We've got a rules system, and I've read it. Noncon got what he deserved. If the only qualm with what happened is that TDK was the person who held the sharp pointy 'provoke NonCon' stick and hasn't been slapped for it yet, then WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU YELLING AT SHINEY?!

[Solid Snake]

I concede nothing, and I'm going to ask you to stop putting words into my mouth. Now you're just being disingenuous and purposefully obtuse. Of course we take post history into account. Would you prefer we let people break the same rules forever and never get an increasing level of punishment?

I'd prefer a system of concrete rules that Moderators typed, followed, and regularly and repeatedly enforced over a system of Moderator discretion that appears at first glance to appear inefficient, inconsistent and unpredictable insofar as I can say I have absolutely no clue whether or not a particular comment is going to result in a Warning, a Banning, or what have you.

If a cohesive system of rules were in place we'd actually know when we're able to / supposed to report posts as we'd have a halfway decent idea as to whether someone has committed an offense a Moderator will take seriously. I don't think I've ever reported a post to a Mod in my years of being here -- maybe once in the past however many years, if at all -- because honestly I have no fucking clue what a particular Moderator is going to deem an offense and each Moderator seems to have his or her own way of doing things anyway, and the problem with a discretionary system is that punishments doled out are unequal and unpredictable and...well I could keep going on but I'm not going to convince anyone at NPF that a different system would be any better or worse than what we have now.

You're better than this. You're in law school for god's sake.

Sure. My experiences in law school have taught me that:
A: FRE 404(a) deliberately prevents the exact "past acts" evidence you've mentioned from being introduced as evidence against a criminal defendant, precisely because a system of criminal law depends on determining present as opposed to past guilt or innocence;
B: A system based upon pure discretion by different administrators with different personal preferences and different policy interpretations inevitably is self-destructive, coercive, inefficient, ineffective and enables favoritism and petty patronage to trump actual determinations of offenses.

Just because you believe that it's perfectly okay to respond to injustices in a way that sidesteps the firmly established rules (that everyone is supposed to follow) due to a lack of the response you want to see, doesn't mean that's it actually is okay.

What "firmly established rules?" The same "firmly established rules" that prevented TDK from receiving a punishment despite the fact that you've conceded the fact that he broke a rule?

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

Sure. My experiences in law school have taught me that:
A: FRE 404(a) deliberately prevents the exact "past acts" evidence you've mentioned from being introduced as evidence against a criminal defendant, precisely because a system of criminal law depends on determining present as opposed to past guilt or innocence;
B: A system based upon pure discretion by different administrators with different personal preferences and different policy interpretations inevitably is self-destructive, coercive, inefficient, ineffective and enables favoritism and petty patronage to trump actual determinations of offenses.


Wouldn't this be in relation to...well, guilt of a crime?
I find it really really hard to believe that a judge isn't allowed to look at somebody who has been demonstratively proven to be guilty and think "This is his first offense, the punishment should be light" or "This is the sixth offense, something harsher is necessary."

If that's so then can perhaps we consider that TDK doesn't have much recent history of faffing about in such a manner, but NonCon does?

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I don't have a lot to say on this page after page of crazy but the last thing we need is a massively concrete system of rules that requires reading a million pages before we post and then every infraction turns into a massive courtroom. That is a terrible idea.

Also my amusement that the US justice system is apparnetley not a sytem of favouritism and petty patronage. Causes that is totally what it is.

As for the past offences, what about the three strikes rules in states? That seems exactly like what is going on here. As has been said they are not using past behaviour to decide guilt but to decide punishment and I find it hard to believe if I say kill someone, have some mitigating circumstances, go to jail, get out in a few years and kill again with mitigating circumstances that a judge wouldn't throw me in jail forever.

[Kerensky287]

Sure. My experiences in law school have taught me that:
A: FRE 404(a) deliberately prevents the exact "past acts" evidence you've mentioned from being introduced as evidence against a criminal defendant, precisely because a system of criminal law depends on determining present as opposed to past guilt or innocence;
B: A system based upon pure discretion by different administrators with different personal preferences and different policy interpretations inevitably is self-destructive, coercive, inefficient, ineffective and enables favoritism and petty patronage to trump actual determinations of offenses.

As Karesh so wonderfully said, you don't take past acts into account when determining guilt, but you DO take past acts into account when determining punishment. Which is why Noncon got a ban and not an infraction.

Noncon caused a shitstorm that did not need to happen. Can we agree on that?

What "firmly established rules?" The same "firmly established rules" that prevented TDK from receiving a punishment despite the fact that you've conceded the fact that he broke a rule?

I fully agree with this part though.

[Solid Snake]

Wouldn't this be in relation to...well, guilt of a crime?
I find it really really hard to believe that a judge isn't allowed to look at somebody who has been demonstratively proven to be guilty and think "This is his first offense, the punishment should be light" or "This is the sixth offense, something harsher is necessary."

Such evidence would be allowed to determine punishment once a jury sentenced someone as guilty for the present crime, yes. Theoretically speaking if a Moderator said "under the rules NonCon is guilty -- and determining his guilt was based on evidence of his present actions alone and not his past acts" -- then after determining that NonCon was guilty, the evidence would be introduced and NonCon would get a stricter penalty.

Problem was the wording of Shiney's previous posts suggested that he relied upon NonCon's past reputation in determining his propensity to act the same way this time around in order to prove he was overreacting and therefore breaking the rules. If Shiney had said "I analyzed the evidence of NonCon and TDK's respective actions impartially, concluded objectively that NonCon was the one predominantly responsible, and then took past evidence into account solely to determine what punishment to assign him," yeah, that's within the bounds of the American legal system.

Of course this is all totally irrelevant insofar as it's assuming that NPF forums would be moderated in a manner consistent with the American criminal justice system which I concede is a stupid argument because NPF clearly has its own way of going about things.

EDIT: Damn, Kerensky half-ninja'd my point there.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I'm totally for running NPF like the US justice system. Bags supreme court position.

[Fenris]

Snake are you seriously saying that you have an issue with the fact that NonCon got a punishment because he did a thing that he has been told several times in the past not to do?

Like, is this a thing that is happening? Because I was taking the most wonderful nap and I would really like to know if this is a thing that is happening.

[Gregness]

...I'm glad America's criminal justice system deliberately bans the introduction of "past crimes" or "character" evidence, except in extremely narrow circumstances, to prevent these exact kinds of propensity judgments from determining whether someone is "guilty" or "innocent."



So, uh, correct me if I'm wrong snake, but I thought it was pretty standard practice to punish repeat offenders more heavily than first time offenders. I mean, at least in California there's the three strikes rule for violent crime, but I was pretty sure that sort of thing was pretty commonplace.

EDIT: got massively ninja'd.

[Kerensky287]

Such evidence would be allowed to determine punishment once a jury sentenced someone as guilty for the present crime, yes. Theoretically speaking if a Moderator said "under the rules NonCon is guilty -- and determining his guilt was based on evidence of his present actions alone and not his past acts" -- then after determining that NonCon was guilty, the evidence would be introduced and NonCon would get a stricter penalty.

Problem was the wording of Shiney's previous posts suggested that he relied upon NonCon's past reputation in determining his propensity to act the same way this time around in order to prove he was overreacting and therefore breaking the rules. If Shiney had said "I analyzed the evidence of NonCon and TDK's respective actions impartially, concluded objectively that NonCon was the one predominantly responsible, and then took past evidence into account solely to determine what punishment to assign him," yeah, that's within the bounds of the American legal system.

You've been down this road too many times for me to give you just another warning. I'll see you in ten days.

It wasn't Shiney but it was still a moderator.

[Meister]

If a cohesive system of rules were in place we'd actually know when we're able to / supposed to report posts as we'd have a halfway decent idea as to whether someone has committed an offense a Moderator will take seriously.
You should report a post absolutely every time you see one that you think violates the rules or needs to be looked at, without exception. We're not going to get angry at, think any less of or ridicule anyone who reports a post that is actually completely okay.

[Thadius]

Wait.

You lot yelled enough about this that you awoke the other mods from their slumber beyond the infinite?

Good job. Are we done here now? Can we please be done here?

[Krylo]

I gotta head to work so I can't finish these last two pages, but I want to say this:

Snake, no one treated you like Noncon treats people. At least not without getting banned. No one looked at a post conservative snake made and said, "Jesus Christ, Snake, if you don't agree with me you are a woman hating baby murdering sociopathic shitfucker and THAT IS ALL I HAVE TO SAY ON THE SUBJECT" and then when someone was like, "Woah guy, maybe that's a bit much," no one flew off on them in the same manner.

What happened to you, and to Bob, and to every other conservative member is basically this: "Ugh no, how could you be this stupid? Listen, trickle down economics does not work that way because the x% of the richest people already have x% of the money and it isn't trickling down, and here's this factoid and this factoid." or "Jesus, seriously? You listen to that disingenuous asshole Beck? He's a goddamn moron! He lies (examples) and insults anyone he doesn't agree with baselessly (examples)" etc. etc.

What Nonsie does, and gets banned for, isn't helpful to anyone. He doesn't provide facts, he doesn't argue points. All he does is say "HEY YOU DON'T AGREE WITH ME YOU ARE A DICK!"

And yeah, he's usually CORRECT in that people that don't agree with him are being pretty dickish, but that has never in the history of ever changed somebody's mind.

[Solid Snake]

Snake are you seriously saying that you have an issue with the fact that NonCon got a punishment because he did a thing that he has been told several times in the past not to do?

Like, is this a thing that is happening? Because I was taking the most wonderful nap and I would really like to know if this is a thing that is happening.

My most recent half-facetious argument re: the American criminal justice system was predominantly in response to Shiney insinuating that I was dumb because "as a law school student I should know better," when in reality as a law school student I've been taught the exact opposite principle as the one I felt he was suggesting law school should have taught me, namely that past acts evidence can't be introduced to prove character propensity to commit an action to prove guilt.

IF Shiney / Fenris relied upon NonCon's past behaviors solely to justify a stricter punishment and NOT to determine NonCon's actual likelihood of committing an infraction in the first place, then my point is moot and was based on a mere misunderstanding of what Shiney typed.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

Such evidence would be allowed to determine punishment once a jury sentenced someone as guilty for the present crime, yes. Theoretically speaking if a Moderator said "under the rules NonCon is guilty -- and determining his guilt was based on evidence of his present actions alone and not his past acts" -- then after determining that NonCon was guilty, the evidence would be introduced and NonCon would get a stricter penalty.

Problem was the wording of Shiney's previous posts suggested that he relied upon NonCon's past reputation in determining his propensity to act the same way this time around in order to prove he was overreacting and therefore breaking the rules. If Shiney had said "I analyzed the evidence of NonCon and TDK's respective actions impartially, concluded objectively that NonCon was the one predominantly responsible, and then took past evidence into account solely to determine what punishment to assign him," yeah, that's within the bounds of the American legal system.

But...but...Shiny didn't ban him.
Shiny made a comment about the situation as he saw it and at a later point in time Fenris in what he described as an "Objectively as possible" way decided NonCon was at fault.



You lot yelled enough about this that you awoke the other mods from their slumber beyond the infinite?

Man I was thinking the same thing it's like all of a sudden one of our posts contained the song that ends the Earth and now the stars are right and the Elder Mods are rising.

[Fenris]

IF Shiney / Fenris relied upon NonCon's past behaviors solely to justify a stricter punishmentThis is the thing this is happening.

and NOT to determine NonCon's actual likelihood of committing an infraction in the first place

how the fuck does that even work on a forum

[Kerensky287]

IF Shiney / Fenris relied upon NonCon's past behaviors solely to justify a stricter punishment and NOT to determine NonCon's actual likelihood of committing an infraction in the first place, then my point is moot and was based on a mere misunderstanding of what Shiney typed.

You've been down this road too many times for me to give you just another warning. I'll see you in ten days.

.

[shiney]

And it's pretty clearly obvious to any idiot who can read american english that he did commit the offense for which he was banned, unless the username NonCon doesn't mean NonCon but means bizarro NonCon, in which case I demand the presence of a mustache.

[Melfice]

And it's pretty clearly obvious to any idiot who can read american english that he did commit the offense for which he was banned, unless the username NonCon doesn't mean NonCon but means bizarro NonCon, in which case I demand the presence of a mustache.

He shaves his legs, so a moustache seems out of the question.
I think you got the right NonCon.

[Solid Snake]

'Kay then, my bad on the whole law comparison. I was just overly sensitive to what I interpreted as an insinuation that "I did not know the laws."

I'll concede that sometimes the "White Knights" articulating anger or passionate resentment towards those who say offensive or insensitive comments may deserve to be punished. But I'll stick to my guns on the fact that I feel that those who do say offensive or insensitive comments sometimes get away with a bit too much on the forums and Moderators should be a bit harsher in warning / containing those situations or punishing the person who provokes the "White Knights."

And on that note I'm pretty much done with this discussion in part because I have to study for finals and in part because fighting against y'all really isn't in my best interests nor constituted my personal intentions. As someone who has believed NonCon actually deserved stiff penalties in the past for overreacting (and I say that despite considering myself his friend, and I know that even he would likely agree), I just felt like this time wasn't much of an overreaction.

Since this thread started though I've kind of gone into "White Knight" mode myself in fighting a perceived injustice, and if I continue going down this route I'm going to overreact myself, and let's face it that'd be pretty fucking stupid of me.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

And it's pretty clearly obvious to any idiot who can read american english that he did commit the offense for which he was banned, unless the username NonCon doesn't mean NonCon but means bizarro NonCon, in which case I demand the presence of a mustache.


http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m107/grthwllms/NonConAvatar.png

Something like that?


He shaves his legs, so a moustache seems out of the question.
I think you got the right NonCon.
Or was that EXACTLY WHAT HE WANTED YOU TO THINK

BEHOLD!
http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m107/grthwllms/IMG_0587.png

[Gregness]

And it's pretty clearly obvious to any idiot who can read american english that he did commit the offense for which he was banned, unless the username NonCon doesn't mean NonCon but means bizarro NonCon, in which case I demand the presence of a mustache.

To be fair, this honestly excludes a lot of actual americans.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Also discriminatory to us non-Americans. Offended!

[shiney]

Not true! You can still read american english!

[Seil]

I should say that Shiney has been more... active than previous and has made some abrasive posts in that time.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Not true! You can still read american english!

What if I'm dsylexic! Look at my posts and their atrocious spelling!

[shiney]

I should say that Shiney has been more... active than previous and has made some abrasive posts in that time.There's a mountain in Tibet that needs you at its summit.

[Seil]

I have a great pic for that. There's less moustache involved than what everyone else has been posting, though.

[Thadius]

So what does being indifferent to all things and telling people to calm the fuck down earn me? Cause I've tried to be a voice of reason before, but just like this time, people seem to be ignoring me.

[Fenris]

Hey, Thad, you must be stuck a few minutes in the past.

I'll wait while you catch up.

[Seil]

I've tried to ask people to calm down but most of the time I get ridiculed and peed on and then my lunch money gets stolen.

On the forum... yeah, the same thing happens.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

I have a great pic for that. There's less moustache involved than what everyone else has been posting, though.

everyone else

SOMEONE ELSE IS POSTING MUSTACHES?! WHERE?!


http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m107/grthwllms/CURSES.png

[Thadius]

I've tried to ask people to calm down but most of the time I get ridiculed and peed on and then my lunch money gets stolen.

On the forum... yeah, the same thing happens.

At least you get attention. When I ask people to calm down, I get ignored. When I express an opinion, I get ignored. I'm starting to think that nothing short of declaring war on all that lives would get people to pay attention to anything important I may have to say.

Of course, it would then get twisted around constantly by everyone to mean the opposite of what I said.

[Seil]

Somewhere over there - take a ride on that bus!

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4120/4908564907_0ddf625e8a.jpg

EDIT ...So... Superman... wat?

http://www.ectomo.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/supermans-mustache-ride.jpg

[Fenris]

I have never had a more appropriate avatar/usertitle combo than I do on this day.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

At least you get attention. When I ask people to calm down, I get ignored. When I express an opinion, I get ignored. I'm starting to think that nothing short of declaring war on all that lives would get people to pay attention to anything important I may have to say.

Of course, it would then get twisted around constantly by everyone to mean the opposite of what I said.

We ignore you as part of our grand discriminatory plan against.... whatever minority features you possess. You must be some kind of minority, and for that is why you are ignored.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

I have never had a more appropriate avatar/usertitle combo than I do on this day.

http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m107/grthwllms/Twilight-Avatar2.png

[Fenris]

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a121/NuklearFenris/Reaction%20Images/MLP22.gif

[Seil]

See, with the positioning and whatever, I see the pony reading the Animorphs quote.

[Fenris]

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a121/NuklearFenris/Reaction%20Images/Waugh-1.gif

[Seil]

Someone give this man a mustache, please! (http://jahar9.tripod.com/picmusic/m2ax.jpg)

[Specterbane]

At least you get attention. When I ask people to calm down, I get ignored. When I express an opinion, I get ignored. I'm starting to think that nothing short of declaring war on all that lives would get people to pay attention to anything important I may have to say.

Of course, it would then get twisted around constantly by everyone to mean the opposite of what I said.

Look at my two posts in this thread. You we're alone in being ignored and you didn't even know it.

[Archbio]

I don't read US english because I don't want to get diabetes. /wordsarewords

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I think you need to make hand contact for that to happen.

[Thadius]

Look at my two posts in this thread. You we're alone in being ignored and you didn't even know it.

High-five fellow voice of reason buddy!

http://s3.amazonaws.com/kym-assets/photos/images/original/000/097/494/1297052648723.png?1297056579

[rpgdemon]

Look at my two posts in this thread. You we're alone in being ignored and you didn't even know it.

I was gonna respond/rep you, but I was on my droid checking this thread, and can't remember my password. :P Then when I got back this thread exploded into OMGIDON'TWANTTOREADTHIS.

[Fenris]

Y'know I was going to let this post slide by despite it being brought to my attention because it went uncommented on and without whargh happening but you insist on continuously bringing it up.

Let me say it as simply as possible: Humans are fucking complex.

You have hundreds, if not thousands, of biological processes that are taking place simultaneously without your direct control just to keep you alive. You have processes that you do have control over that are just as complex and essential to your well-being. And a failure large enough at any one point in your body spells doom.It's actually millions.

Is it not inconceivable that human thought process could be just as fucking complex and convoluted?

Personally, I never did care for ignorance, stupidity, or the easily offended, which is what this thread seems to be about. But thanks to this thread, I took a quick once-over of what few prejudices I have, and realized it's not the stupid or ignorant or easily offended I hate in particular. No.

It's the ones who refuse to admit that they are. Even when you point it out multiple times, using their own logic against them. If you can call it that.This is an indirect flame towards some of the members of this forum, please don't do that.

Everyone is different. This I realize! Everyone has inborn hatred of something, or fear of something, or a weak spot in their mental armor. This I also know!

But the ones that refuse to admit that maybe, possibly, they could ever so slightly be wrong and open their fucking ears for once in their goddamn lives, and instead just throw up a huge "I'M NOT LISTENING TO YOU BECAUSE YOU CHALLENGE MY WORLDVIEW WITH FACTS" wall?See above.

Those people make me wish I had a goddamn flamethrower.

Nothing offends me. Well, more than the stated. You can try to insult me, call me derogatory names, point out holes in my thinking. I'll just sit there and calmly accept it, change my reasoning as needed, and inform you where you happen to be wrong so that you can fail to insult me more efficiently.

Sometimes I wish people thought a little more like me. But then I realize what a curse that would be, and take it back just as fast.That's... lovely. This comes across as trolling to me-"man if only y'alls were as awesome as ME this wouldn't have ever been a problem!"

I might have gotten off-topic a bit, but you know what? Don't care. I'll reiterate my two points that I tried to make real fast before leaving.

1) Humans are complex things.

2) Fifth, you're a nice guy and all, but please show me you're an intelligent nice guy.
Direct trolling, don't do that. Ever.

So can you get off your pedestal and stop pretending to be some victim because we're ignoring your AMAZING points?

[Magic_Marker]

I don't read US english because I don't want to get diabetes. /wordsarewords

As a fit American, I am offended!

[rpgdemon]

As [...] American, I am offended!

As an unoffended American, I am offended!

[Thadius]

I could blame this thread, I could blame a million other things, but it was all my fault, and y'know, I can deal with that. So yeah, I was in the wrong for posting that Fenris. I probably could have phrased all or any of that better, but since I'm at a loss as to how to do that, exactly, I'll just apologize for it.

[Fenris]

Thank you.

[Magic_Marker]

Guys, someone just apologized on the internet.

I don't think we have a protocol for this. My Google front page (http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1_____enUS431US431&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=someone+just+apologized+on+the+internet.#hl=en&sugexp=ldymls&pq=%22apologize%20on%20the%20internet.%22&xhr=t&q=%22apologize+on+the+internet.%22&cp=10&qe=ImFwb2xvZ2l6ZSBvbiB0aGUgaW50ZXJuZXQuIg&qesig=3Rn61Cq8wkd0rcCc4-OQ6w&pkc=AFgZ2tmK4Fsu20XOFhliQw4dxrksr58oyOJDQ6oAjnXFvv hCqd7DKcbN308T1rCBvkHoZ7Zns1UftQ3limwayCRdnq6QAUJj 1Q&pf=p&sclient=psy&rlz=1C1_____enUS431US431&source=hp&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=%22apologize+on+the+internet.%22&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=a316b5cdb3fe9040&bs=1) is just examples of people saying "Don't do it" and "It never happens."

I'm not even sure where I am anymore.

[Thadius]

Earth, the Solar System ZZ9 Pural Z Alpha, the Milky way, in a little reality I like to call 'home.' Today is a day when I'm somewhat reasonable and honest and nice, so make the most of it while it lasts.

[Magic_Marker]

I suppose I should stop making jokes and just put in my two cents, whatever that is worth (hint: exactly two pennies)

As a whole, communication is a rather messy affair. If I fuck up V-For-Victory in the UK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_sign#V_sign_as_an_insult) or give a thumbs up to a Persian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thumbs_signal#The_gesture_internationally) I'm liable to offend and anger this person not even meaning it. As the offender I've interrupted an otherwise fine social interaction and should apologize and indicate that the offense wasn't meant. Now, whether or not the person should have been offended, to me, is beside the point. I don't control them, only me, and my control over myself is tenuous at best.

Therefore, as a pragmatic means of enhancing communication, avoiding offense whenever possible should be preferred.

Now, in terms of my own reaction, I take a words are words approach and try not to get offended. Then again, as a white male in the US. There isn't much to be offended by.

/fencesitting.

[rpgdemon]

Here's what I don't get, like at all. Why do people think that getting mad and insulting people will help them AT ALL on the internet? Not to single Snake out, but this post here made me wonder this:

The persistent NonCon bashing is starting to get really annoying, like seriously the next time I see someone pull that shit I'm going to fly off the handle annoying, and it's been happening in way too many threads that have no correlation whatsoever with NonCon.

This post is being used as an example, there are a ton of other posts in many threads threatening the same things or DEMONSTRATING the same things, by many other people.

There is literally no logic in flying off the handle on the internet. Less than the lack of logic there is in real life. You fly off the handle, the person you fly off the handle at is all, "Wow, what a moron", and nothing is accomplished. You can't INTIMIDATE someone that way, unless you're trying to give off the impression that you're crazy and will track them down if they don't stop immediately, which I doubt anyone is trying to do. And it's not even like real life where in a real conversation, you have to react RIGHT THEN during the heat of the moment. If their actions are upsetting you, you can cool off and then respond, or you can just NOT respond, and no one will know that you never responded to them.

The whole concept of yelling at someone via a forum is incredibly silly, because the whole idea is: Yelling is not something you want to do ever, because it makes you look like a fool, and as soon as you start throwing insults, you've lost the argument. Both sides can lose an argument. In real life, people do it because they're caught up in the heat of the moment, but no moments exist on a forum.

Edit: Like, I don't always do this since I'm not perfect, but generally when people are saying things that I find stupid or offensive or upsetting or whatever, I just ignore the thread for awhile, until I feel like I can come back to it without taking anything personally. If people are going out of their way to make the thread personal, I'll generally just try to avoid the thread, and to be fair at the people making statements about Noncon, I've left threads 100% because he's started making things personal at someone, and it's just a waste of time and emotion to bother slogging through it anymore, or to try to respond.

[Loyal]

I suppose I'm grateful I was away while this topic ran its course.And it's pretty clearly obvious to any idiot who can read american english that he did commit the offense for which he was banned, unless the username NonCon doesn't mean NonCon but means bizarro NonCon, in which case I demand the presence of a mustache.I think he made a "Nocnon" not too long ago...?

[Fenris]

@Loyal: Let's pretend you didn't pretend my post didn't happen and not drag up old things that have already been taken care of, okay?

If you REALLY wanted to say that to him, it seems like it would be more appropriate for a PM or IM conversation.

[Solid Snake]

rpgdemon: At the risk of going into too much specifics over stuff that's already played its course I'm...somewhat surprised you picked my comment defending NonCon as an example of "getting mad or insulting people on the internet" as opposed to, y'know, the post that actually insulted NonCon and that actually triggered my response.

By contrast, I feel that my post was comparatively tame insofar as it did not single any particular forumite out. There's a difference between offense and defense, y'know, or like a difference between offending someone and saying that people ought not to offend someone.

[rpgdemon]

rpgdemon: At the risk of going into too much specifics over stuff that's already played its course I'm...somewhat surprised you picked my comment defending NonCon as an example of "getting mad or insulting people on the internet" as opposed to, y'know, the post that actually insulted NonCon and that actually triggered my response.

By contrast, I feel that my post was comparatively tame insofar as it did not single any particular forumite out. There's a difference between offense and defense, y'know, or like a difference between offending someone and saying that people ought not to offend someone.

Nah, it wasn't so much that you were getting mad/insulting people, so much as it was that the post was easy to use as an example, because you were outlining the process of getting mad, and as such it was the one that sparked the thought. I didn't mean any insult in using yours as the example, and I'm sorry if I did cause any, because it wasn't meant as an example of getting mad, so much as the thought process behind getting mad, which was easier to address than just picking a random post going, "BLARGH I AM ANGRY", and going, "Look at this guy. He's mad! That's silly."

I actually meant to avoid singling anyone out as being angry by using your post as an example, since you seemed to outline the exact thought process that a lot of people go through, and it was that thought process that I was interested in remarking upon, not the fact that someone was angry. And you didn't seem angry.

[Solid Snake]

Nah, it wasn't so much that you were getting mad/insulting people, so much as it was that the post was easy to use as an example, because you were outlining the process of getting mad, and as such it was the one that sparked the thought. I didn't mean any insult in using yours as the example, and I'm sorry if I did cause any, because it wasn't meant as an example of getting mad, so much as the thought process behind getting mad, which was easier to address than just picking a random post going, "BLARGH I AM ANGRY", and going, "Look at this guy. He's mad! That's silly."

Ehhh.

I sort of agree with you? But I think there's a crucial difference between instigating something and reacting to someone's instigation. I mean this isn't even equivocal to someone responding to a vague comment interpreted by the reader as a slight -- it's not akin to NonCon's response to TDK, even. In this circumstance another forumite directly insulted NonCon, like, point-blank, 100% intended to offend that specific person.

...And if someone directly insults another forumite, point blank, I think it should be entirely and utterly permitted -- by the Moderators and everyone else -- for friends of that person to interject and say "Shut the fuck up."

...If I'm wrong in that assumption and a Mod corrects me I'd honestly be really surprised.

[Fenris]

Ehhh.

I sort of agree with you? But I think there's a crucial difference between instigating something and reacting to someone's instigation. I mean this isn't even equivocal to someone responding to a vague comment interpreted by the reader as a slight -- it's not akin to NonCon's response to TDK, even. In this circumstance another forumite directly insulted NonCon, like, point-blank.

...And if someone directly insults another forumite, point blank, I think it should be entirely and utterly permitted -- by the Moderators

I agreed with this post through this word.

[Solid Snake]

I agreed with this post through this word.

So we're not allowed to stick up for our friends? :/

[Fenris]

You're not allowed to be a jerk, no.

You can totally stick up for your friends. The best way is to report the post. Alternatively, you can just be polite about it.

But no, you're not allowed to tell somebody to shut the fuck up based on a perceived slight.

[Solid Snake]

You're not allowed to be a jerk, no.


...How...
...what...

...we're going to have to agree to disagree on that one I guess.
(I feel as if that position empowers those intending to cause the offense insofar as they only have to worry about warnings from Moderators and not any consternation from anyone else. And if the offender isn't banned but merely warned, it's not much of a deterrent at all from the insulting behavior in the first place. It seems somewhat counterintuitive to expect friends of folks to just keep their mouths shut the moment they read an unprovoked insult, or to blame them for reacting normally to the insult.)

...I'll try to follow this rule because I don't look for any trouble but I just feel like it's going to be impossible, in practice, to actually prevent myself from mouthing off the moment I read an actual insult directed towards someone I care about.

[Fenris]

Sticking up for your friends does not imply being a jerk. There are plenty of non-jerk ways to stick up for your friends. Please use those ways.

[Solid Snake]

Sticking up for your friends does not imply being a jerk. There are plenty of non-jerk ways to stick up for your friends. Please use those ways.

Fair enough.

[Fifthfiend]

Is this going to be a discussion about our perspectives on what type of speech is acceptable, fifth, or a referendum on decisions you didn't find palatable? At no point am I going to suggest I'm happy to turn a blind eye toward someone being rude or thoughtless and then happily excusing it away by saying "Well I didn't MEAN for it to be that way" if it's clear they didn't, but I'm not the kind of guy who wants to take action as a mod on a complete grey area, particularly when there were no reported posts, particularly particularly when someone took it upon themself to escalate the situation (again) instead of following the clearly established rules.

There's not really any way to discuss this topic without discussing the moderator decisions regarding it because you've made it abundantly and repeatedly clear that your opinions about being PC and who shares those opinions is the basis on which moderation decisions are made.

EDIT: And again, I really can't believe you're continuing to pretend there's anything "grey" about calling people abnormal and telling them "fuck you" for asking them to be treated differently.

Bingo @ Kerensky.

BitVyper: ah, admitted.

Arch: you make a good point too, I'm going to discuss this with the other mods at least...nothing cancels out, and I'm sorry if I made things appear that way.

Snake: at this point that is entirely up to you. Fact is Noncon is a repeat offender of doing exactly what happened, exactly, in this instance. You can take the admittedly flippant tone of my post and twist it if you like, or you can research post history and see the instances that resulted in Non getting a temp ban, how they happened, why they happened, and let me know your findings.

Noncon is a repeat offender because it's been repeatedly made clear that people can say whatever they want to Noncon and nobody on the modstaff will do anything about it, assuming they aren't themselves involved in the trolling/flaming, and it's only as soon as Noncon does something that "crosses the line" that it becomes an issue, and it's only ever Noncon's conduct that is an issue.

It's especially ridiculous in the case of this thing with TDK given that, once upon a time, we repeatedly banned, and permabanned, TDK for just the sort of thing he pulled in Noncon's thread. It's just that this time he wrapped his feelings about how un-obligated he is to not be a jerk in the flag of Not Being PC, and he did it to Noncon, and that makes it okay.

Reported posts keep getting brought up as another reason Noncon's at fault here, as if a moderator wasn't actively participating in that thread as of post 18. Right here in this thread Outcast outright called me and everyone else who disagrees with him "idiotic" and of course that isn't even an issue, because hey, it's not like Noncon did it. Are you going to say you can't deal with that post because nobody reported it, in this thread where at least three moderators are actively participating and can, one would hope, be assumed to have actually read it? Are you guys maybe having some trouble with your American English that the rest of us would know about?

You can continue hiding behind reported posts as your excuse but people aren't going to waste time reporting posts when you've repeatedly stated your view that those same kinds of posts aren't a problem, just as Noncon isn't going to waste his time attempting to respect the rules when you've made it clear that you don't respect them either.

[Token]

You're not allowed to be a jerk, no.

Fenny. Bro. I love you and everything, but what. Pretty much everyone on this forum is a jerk. Some more than others NIKOSE, but through the years I've spent on this forum, it's become apparent that we're all essentially douchebags.

As for the whole "oh no Nonsy's offended" thing, he's always had a habit of blowing up and being self-righteous when it's really not necessary. Dunno why people are surprised this time.

[Solid Snake]

As for the whole "oh no Nonsy's offended" thing, he's always had a habit of blowing up and being self-righteous when it's really not necessary.

Y'know what worries me most about this line of reasoning is that it sounds like some people just interpret every conflict NonCon is involved in as "Oh, NonCon has a habit of pulling some self-righteous shit, it's all his fault," regardless of whether the actual facts of the particular situation at hand suggest that it really is his fault.

I'm not sayin' NonCon's always right, don't misinterpret me, I'm just saying that line of reasoning is dangerous because it enables people to "get away" with stuff against NonCon that they wouldn't "get away with" against anyone else because you're construing the events according to a preconceived bias. And sometimes your intuition may be entirely accurate but sometimes it's not.

[Fenris]

Fenny. Bro. I love you and everything, but what. Pretty much everyone on this forum is a jerk. Some more than others NIKOSE, but through the years I've spent on this forum, it's become apparent that we're all essentially douchebags.

As for the whole "oh no Nonsy's offended" thing, he's always had a habit of blowing up and being self-righteous when it's really not necessary. Dunno why people are surprised this time.

Nah, y'all are by and large asses, not jerks. There's a difference.

[Nikose Tyris]

ITT: conversation's keep on truckin'.

[TDK]

Don't suppose it would help if I clarified that the person I told Fuck You to for telling me to be PC was not the target of the Non-PC term I used? We have a non-hermaphrodite being insulted by the use of the term hermaphrodite being told Fuck You for telling someone not to use that word.

Also this is not at ALL what I was banned for.

[Nikose Tyris]

TDK, as explained- don't use that word. It's offensive for a number of reasons, and offensive to people I associate with.

[Magus]

Like if I was around a midget I'd probably say "little person" instead of purposefully going out of my way to say midget as a point of some kind. In fact I probably wouldn't call any attention to the person's height or lack thereof at all if possible. If the little person started a conversation on discussing dwarfism I probably wouldn't go out of my way to point out that I don't care that people are offended by the term midget and that I purposefully go out of my way to not say little person, since the actual topic was more related to talking about dwarfism and not how people refer to dwarfism, like totally out of the blue.

I also wouldn't act like there's absolutely no reason to have scientific terms for a person of average height when such terms are probably required in the fields of people who study people of various heights, whether they are considered "the norm" or not.

But that's just me.

Discuss your stance on this pressing issue and whether or not you are politically correct if it just seems like it's not really too inconvenient to be and in fact seems to take more effort to not be politically correct.

[POS Industries]

Like if I was around a midget I'd probably say "little person" instead of purposefully going out of my way to say midget as a point of some kind
While we're on the subject here, is it just me or does the preferred term in this situation actually seem more demeaning than the patently offensive alternative? Granted, there doesn't seem to be anything that actually sounds nice to choose from here but I gotta believe we as a society could have come up with something by now.

[Osterbaum]

Everyone just needs to get over themselves and their own perceived righteousness. Every. One.

TDK, as explained- don't use that word. It's offensive for a number of reasons, and offensive to people I associate with.
Hermaphrodite? Or what word do you mean?

e: 'cause It is literally a scientific word that refers to a being that has both sets of sexual organs..

e2: I mean, if someone does find the term offensive then I'm perfectly happy to use a non-offensive alternative infront of them, but in realation to my studies for example I'm going to keep using the very much clinical, scientific term I've been using up until now.

[Kerensky287]

Don't suppose it would help if I clarified that the person I told Fuck You to for telling me to be PC was not the target of the Non-PC term I used? We have a non-hermaphrodite being insulted by the use of the term hermaphrodite being told Fuck You for telling someone not to use that word.

Also this is not at ALL what I was banned for.

TDK, as explained- don't use that word. It's offensive for a number of reasons, and offensive to people I associate with.

....

You know what? I think this is honestly something we can discuss. Maybe we can change the subject finally from a 3-thread-old misadventure. Hell, it's actually somewhat related to the original topic.

Nikose - and believe me when I say this is meant as politely as possible - what could possibly be offensive about the term hermaphrodite? It's a standard word in the english language. It isn't a slur of any kind. Hell, it doesn't even carry any connotation. It is literally a scientific word that refers to a being that has both sets of sexual organs.

So here's what I ask: to what extent are people allowed to gain sympathy for being offended? If someone is a hermaphrodite - that is, they have both sets of sexual organs - and they dislike the word, should we be forced to stop calling them that? What about if someone's a narcissist? If they dislike being referred to as "normal" or "average", and prefer the term "ideal", do people have to stop saying that?

(Note that I am not saying that the majority is in any way ideal. This imaginary narcissist is of nonspecific race, gender/gender identity, and sexual orientation.)

I'm not trying to trivialize anyone's beliefs or anyone's personal identities. But there has to be a line drawn somewhere, and I don't understand why "popular opinion" has to be it. If enough Canadians wanted it to be so, could we force the world to stop calling us "North Americans" so as to avoid association with the USA?

[Fenris]

Y'alls.

Don't call them hermaphrodites. (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-09-16/dont-call-them-hermaphrodites/)

[Nikose Tyris]

Thanks Fen.

[Osterbaum]

In biology, a hermaphrodite is an organism that has reproductive organs normally associated with both male and female sexes.
In respect to social discussions I'm willing to use another term, but in relation to biology (humans included) hermaphrodite is perfectly valid for "an organism that has reproductive organs normally associated with both male and female sexes".

[Kerensky287]

Okay, "it's inaccurate" is as good of a reason as any. Thanks, Fen.

But I feel the rest of my statement stands. What precedent has to be set before someone's complaint about an identifying statement can be seen as "legitimate"?

[Solid Snake]

In respect to social discussions I'm willing to use another term, but in relation to biology (humans included) hermaphrodite is perfectly valid for "an organism that has reproductive organs normally associated with both male and female sexes".

Did you...did you actually read the article Fenris linked to?
Particularly the part about why intersex individuals object to the term "hermaphrodite?"

[The Kneumatic Pnight]

Don't suppose it would help if I clarified that the person I told Fuck You to for telling me to be PC was not the target of the Non-PC term I used?

Wrong, that is exactly what you did. When you defended the use of the identification of certain people as "abnormal" despite how hurtful it was (ceding the point that it was hurtful) because you didn't care whether or not you offended "abnormal" people, you did it to someone who openly identified as paranormative* in numerous ways.

This really couldn't possibly be more cut-and-dry.

*my word do not steal

[Osterbaum]

Yes, and I said that I certainly see no problem in calling such people 'intersex individuals'. I will, however keep using the term hermaphrodite where it applies.

e: Snake, I'm guessing you had this “It usually suggests to people that someone has all the organs of males and females—but that is not physically possible. The medical profession came to a consensus about three years ago to get rid of all terms based on the root ‘hermaphrodite’ (including ‘pseudo-hermaphrodite’) because they are stigmatizing and confusing.” part in mind.

I guess I should clarify that I will, however keep using the term hermaphrodite where it applies. that "where it applies" to me is my field of study, which is animal physiology. The term will be used to describe people when people are being discussed or studied in relation to animals. (Because many animals are actual hermaphrodites.)

I in no way mean to defend the use of the word in everyday usage in relation to human beings on the grounds that "that's how it's always been", which I think might have been what it seemed like I was doing before this clarification.

[Magus]

To me "cisgender" just seems like the term "heterosexual" i.e. a common term used by scientific folks to avoid confusion or save time. If you want to go out of your way to not use it, then by all means, do, but it would probably save you time, especially when conversing with a dude dropping all kinds of "-genders" and "-sexuals" a mile a minute.

Hell, "heterosexual" or "homosexual" saves time in regular life anyway, especially with kids who tend to, in their immaturity, use "gay" to describe anything and everything, for example.

I mean, hell, intersex is less syllables than hermaphrodite and easier to remember, if intersex people want people to use intersex frankly it seems like more trouble to go out of one's way to say hermaphrodite. At least with midget/dwarf v. little person you could argue midget/dwarf is simpler.

[Solid Snake]

I mean, hell, intersex is less syllables than hermaphrodite and easier to remember, if intersex people want people to use intersex frankly it seems like more trouble to go out of one's way to say hermaphrodite. At least with midget/dwarf v. little person you could argue midget/dwarf is simpler.

I am not sure why the number of syllables in a particular word should matter in determining which word is inoffensive and should be used in conversation.

[Osterbaum]

I doubt Magus meant that as an actual entirely serious point.

[Magus]

'Cause it happens to be less offensive apparently and you are just going out of your way to not be politically correct to use the other. The entire spiel of people who decry political correctness is it somehow an inconvenience to them, when presented with things that are actually more convenient that they continue to avoid kind of reveals that they are actually just kind of insensitive and callous.

Also everything I say is 100% serious all the time.

...or is it?!

[Nikose Tyris]

Oster's got it right. use a term where it applies properly.

[Overcast]

So after all this does anyone feel like doing a Jerry Springer final thoughts for me? It seems fitting to see what we learned here.

[Fenris]

So after all this does anyone feel like doing a Jerry Springer final thoughts for me? It seems fitting to see what we learned here.Words are hard.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

Everybody is dildos.

[Fenris]

Dildos are hard.

[Kerensky287]

Words are everybody.

....Deep thoughts.

[Seil]

Dildos are everybody?

[Krylo]

I think I actually liked this thread better when it was a shitty dramafest.

[Token]

Everybody is hard.

especially me

[Fenris]

Aaaaaaaaaand, goodnight everybody.