[vermicious]

Well those remarks are definitely demeaning... to you. But I don't see how your ersatz sexual standards are a threat to the rest of us.

and now I'm being flippant ;-)

But in all seriousness, if this violates the user agreement: cite it. If it doesn't -- leave the post alone.

 

[sachiwilson]

Okay, but you can't deny that "offensive and demeaning" are highly subjective terms. Not having had the opportunity to see the original message I'm not in a position to agree or disagree with your assessment but I would hope that if you're going to take the time to censor a user you'd give them a less flippant explanation.

Yes, they are subjective terms. I try always to consider what this site is like and what generally goes. There is a lot of pretty hard banter here, and that's fine. But there are a couple of areas where I feel I should step in. This was one of those areas. By the way, the words used were not offensive just to gays -- they were offensive to women as well.

As far as "censorship" goes, what I did was not "censorship." I am not telling Airhawk not to express his opinion about Senator Clinton - just to do it with acceptable words. There's a difference between moderating the words used and barring statements on a topic.

I don't understand why you feel my comment about "political correctness" to be flippant. It was not. "Political correctness" is, as I said, the argument people tend to use when they have been told not to use offensive language. From my point of view, I'm simply asking people to understand that the language is offensive. Let's take some examples of language that people now know are offensive and so are no longer used in any sort of discourse:

****
Jew-boy
The N word
****
*****
Mick

. . . and so on. People understand that these words are offensive. They don't use them. If someone said these words in this forum I'd likely mod 'em out. Could anyone realistically complain that by modding those words it would be "political correctness"? Yet it is exactly the same as me modding out the offensive language in Airhawk's post. (And by the way, his explanation sanitized the comment he made.)

There are a LOT of words that people continue to use to demean women and gay people. A LOT. I've modded out other homophobic stuff without complaint. The folks here at this site push those lines sometimes, but this time Airhawk's language went over that line, IMO.

 

[The_AirHawk]

Why are you showing us this?

Because she's attempting a jab at me on the sly by insinuating that I have a Persecution Complex brought on by Dementia Praecox and am imagining that she is singling me out for "special consideration" for Moderation.

The likely part she's particulary attempting to draw-attention upon is most-probably this excerpt:

"Paranoid personality disorder is an unwarranted tendency to interpret the actions of other people as deliberately threatening or demeaning."

Only, those without Moderator Priviledges (and, possibly those with said-same) are hitherto unaware of the arguments her and myself have conducted "behind the scenes", so-to-speak.

 

[The_AirHawk]

****
Jew-boy
The N word
****
*****
Mick

You might add upon yon gentle list, phrases bandied-about with alacrity upon this venerated and hallowed chronicle:

Jap Bike
Jap Crap
Rice Bike
Rice Rocket
Crotch Rocket

All words that I personally find reprehensive.

Subjectively, of course.

 

[55028]

Uh oh. People are making judgements about my humor. This coupled with the rage that one of my parents had, which I must now understand as "founded" are causing me to question my self esteem. Why are you looking at me like that? OK it was an inapropriate attempt on my part to inject humor into a subject that I feel has begun to take on too much of a life of it's own. I'll bow out of this thread and start boarding up the windows in my house now, it's for insulation honest....

 

[vermicious]

As far as "censorship" goes, what I did was not "censorship." I am not telling Airhawk not to express his opinion about Senator Clinton - just to do it with acceptable words. There's a difference between moderating the words used and barring statements on a topic.

moderate, censor... tomato, tomahto I'm not trying to start a semantic argument I'm trying to suggest that any alteration to a person's posts should be accompanied (at the outset) with an appropriate level of explanation.

I don't understand why you feel my comment about "political correctness" to be flippant. It was not.

Agreed, I wasn't referring to the remark solicited by Airhawk's objection but rather by the sparsely worded warning "watch it bucko" that accompanied the edit.

"Political correctness" is, as I said, the argument people tend to use when they have been told not to use offensive language. From my point of view, I'm simply asking people to understand that the language is offensive. Let's take some examples of language that people now know are offensive and so are no longer used in any sort of discourse:

This was unnecessary and beside the point (or beside my point at any rate). I won't bother quoting the list of examples. Again, my objection is to the absence of both an upfront explanation and any reference to a quasi-objective standard by which Airhawk (or any one of us) might gauge the acceptability of his/their future posts.

IMO

My point made in three letters.

 

[seruzawa]

Because she's attempting a jab at me on the sly by insinuating that I have a Persecution Complex brought on by Dementia Praecox and am imagining that she is singling me out for "special consideration" for Moderation.

The likely part she's particulary attempting to draw-attention upon is most-probably this excerpt:

"Paranoid personality disorder is an unwarranted tendency to interpret the actions of other people as deliberately threatening or demeaning."

Only, those without Moderator Priviledges (and, possibly those with said-same) are hitherto unaware of the arguments her and myself have conducted "behind the scenes", so-to-speak.

Heh heh. Pay no attention to the stupid psychiatric crap. Most of it is pure rubbish. If you've ever had to deal with shrinks you would have learned that they are the most insane people you can find. Who else could come up with the concept that infidelity in a marriage is a good thing? Or that the inability to do math is a mental disease? What garbage.

 

[Buzglyd]

Heh heh. Pay no attention to the stupid psychiatric crap. Most of it is pure rubbish. If you've ever had to deal with shrinks you would have learned that they are the most insane people you can find. Who else could come up with the concept that infidelity in a marriage is a good thing? Or that the inability to do math is a mental disease? What garbage.

You clearly were never married to my ex!

 

[The_AirHawk]

Uh oh. People are making judgements about my humor. This coupled with the rage that one of my parents had, which I must now understand as "founded" are causing me to question my self esteem. Why are you looking at me like that? OK it was an inapropriate attempt on my part to inject humor into a subject that I feel has begun to take on too much of a life of it's own. I'll bow out of this thread and start boarding up the windows in my house now, it's for insulation honest....

There you go again - attempting to use that Reversed Psycho-ology on me.........

 

[sachiwilson]

sachiwilson:
IMO

My point made in three letters.

I'm not sure what help your point is. Many of the decisions a mod has to make depend on our opinion and judgment. There are a couple of things that are obvious -- deleting a double post and fixing busted links, for examples. But even something that is patently barred by the terms of the site -- spam is a good example -- requires us to judge whether a post is or is not spam. It's not always obvious, and the mods even have had threads at times to discuss whether something is or is not spam. We have to exercise our judgment whether to can the post.

Now, one might think that we'd be better off if there were more specificity in the terms of the site, on the theory that with more specificity we wouldn't have to exercise our judgment and thus people would know what was permitted and what was not permitted. That can be a good idea to a certain extent, but humans being what they are, even the most specific rules or laws can't cover everything that we can dream up to get around those rules. For example, let's say this site expressly bans that list of words that I posted above. Someone could try to get around it by using "*****" or "****", or some other misspelling. In short, no matter what terms this site imposes on its users, the mods will ALWAYS need to have the discretion to decide whether some post violates those terms.

 

[sarnali2]

I insinuated Hillary Clinton was a Lesbian, but claimed that would be no deterrent to my having sex with her, if proffered.

In vulgar terms. (i.e. - not "Politically Correct", and phrased in vulgar vernacular, or "common speech"). No Profanity involved.

Strictly speaking If I knew you fantasized about boinking Hillary I'd have banned you myself........

Somethings you just need to keep to yo'sef.....

 

[The_AirHawk]

Strictly speaking If I knew you fantasized about boinking Hillary I'd have banned you myself........

Somethings you just need to keep to yo'sef.....

You should have me tell you about my Fantasies of Janet Reno some time.

Oh, and - watch that "boinkin' " language, OK Bucko?

 

[pplassm]

I'm not sure what help your point is. Many of the decisions a mod has to make depend on our opinion and judgment. ................ In short, no matter what terms this site imposes on its users, the mods will ALWAYS need to have the discretion to decide whether some post violates those terms.

In other word, this is YOUR site, and you will decide what is offensive on it.

Fine.

Note that I am not a paying member of this site. I used to be. I used to like the insanity that played out here.

Now, any kind of envelope pushing gets *blanked*, edited or the user gets banned.

You're not really making a case for a better MO, IMHO.

 

[seruzawa]

In other word, this is YOUR site, and you will decide what is offensive on it.

Fine.

Note that I am not a paying member of this site. I used to be. I used to like the insanity that played out here.

Now, any kind of envelope pushing gets *blanked*, edited or the user gets banned.

You're not really making a case for a better MO, IMHO.

Actually only one user was banned and that was for making threats to another member and that was with the concurrence of the administrator. I'm sure you know who it was. Right now there's some diuscussion amongst the mods as to what is unacceptable. I'm on the let 'er rip side.

 

[Kenneth_Moore]

I'm on the let 'er rip side.

Me too. Censorship becomes a very slippery slope, and most judicial interpretations always err on the side of free speech. I really don't think the word used was that outrageous, and "there in lies the rub." I, Kenneth, don't think...

 

[sarnali2]

You should have me tell you about my Fantasies of Janet Reno some time.

Oh, and - watch that "boinkin' " language, OK Bucko?

Ah yes, Janet Reno, Madeliene Albright, a box of wine, a vat of jello, some viagra and me.....

 

[vermicious]

I said my piece, I don't really have anything else to say without repeating myself.

 

[pplassm]

Actually only one user was banned and that was for making threats to another member and that was with the concurrence of the administrator. I'm sure you know who it was. Right now there's some diuscussion amongst the mods as to what is unacceptable. I'm on the let 'er rip side.

Thanks for the insight. I'm with you.