The Queen of Spam

[NynJa]

It was Obsidian calling his dog a bitch.

[Day]

Lmaooo

[Zetanio]

rofl

[Xno Kappa]

LOL

[Gredival]

Let's mark this occasion with a FOIA release.

A few people have seen this before, through request, but we're at the point where isla has been gone long enough that I have been proven right so it's time for that dirty laundry to go public.

We've banned sexists such as Groggle for the inability to be civil even when expressing their shitty viewpoints. We've kept many more people with equally idiotic viewpoints for the purposes of entertainment without making BG unfriendly towards non-white males because we allowed certain mean words to be used without auto-infractions. And the forums didn't devolve into a haven for aggrieved white males to express their bigotry (who now generally hate me instead of her), though according to Maz I was the one actually responsible for hey's suicide.

---

I understand what isladar wants to achieve with the new rules; a place where potential members are not driven away by a proliferation of dudebros, or people lurk because they feel they will be called out on anything besides the content of their posts.

But I question whether the changes in the rules comes at the cost of fundamentally changing the identity of this forum in another, more essential way.

I like the old ban avatar. Not because I'm homophobic; I helped write for Supreme Court amicus on the recent DOMA and Prop 8 cases. I liked it because it was a symbol of the attitude of BG: the willingness to mock those who deserve to be mocked. That's why the forum I loved the most here was the cross-server warning threads, when we would dogpile the idiots who would make "warnings" about inane shit like stealing yellow mobs. Unlike FFXIAH, Allah, or KI, this forum wasn't a care bear special.

I hardly recall an instance in which "hate words" used on BG that were used in a literal "You are inferior scum of the Earth because you are XXXX." The vast majority of times I've seen faggot, or coon, or retard, etc. dropped, the words were used as colloquial substitutes for moron, idiot, etc. And I think in the spirit of this forum not being a care bear special, we should expect our members to be able to identify that these words aren't being used to marginalize and insult people for their race, sex, gender, religion, creed, etc.

When these words are being used as generic insults, this rule is tantamount to putting a bar on specific ways of calling a spade a spade. I think this is nonsensical. We have no problem with a stupid person getting their feelings hurt when other people call them stupid, but we bend over backwards to the thin skin of people who don't like certain words being used certain ways? I understand that there is a "chilling effect" that this language has on potential posters, but to me, anyone who can't get past that are posters who were never BG's target audience.

It's just like gay marriage itself; the right wing evangelicals throw a fit over the word "marriage" being used like it belongs to them and they define how it is for everyone. So if their marriage is man/woman, no one else's can be. Hate words are just the same though; the meaning of a word is contextual for different people in different situations. Just because someone uses it or interprets it one way, doesn't mean it can't be used or interpreted in another.

Moreover there is legitimate argument amongst prominent experts in linguistics about whether our fear of certain words simply empowers them. Why is "nigger" so much bigger of a deal than "nigga" still (see South Park)? Because we're fucking scared out of our minds to say the former and thus we are empowering the word and its dominance. The latter has been usurped and transformed by the black community. We see the same phenomena in Asian communities, where young Asians can "own" terms like "Azn ricer" because they've transformed it from a slur to something different. But the inability to progress other slurs like "chink" and "gook" mean that those words retain a power over my people when "ricer" no longer does.

Maybe the best world is one in which these types of words and associations never existed. But too bad, so sad, we're past that now. These words are here, and the best thing we can do is refuse to empower them like sacred cows and instead move them to a place they can't harm anyone. But you don't make an omelet without breaking some eggs. Quite frankly anyone whose fragile shell will be shattered by someone they don't know colloquially dropping any variety of X-bombs on an interweb forum is not someone I care to cater this community towards.

After years of people throwing faggot around casually, we still have many respected openly gay members of the community. Why? Because those posters know when someone drops faggot or gay in a post, that poster isn't literally saying "You're stupid because you're gay and being gay is inherently inferior." People who are too sensitive to be able to make that distinction will probably not be around long anyway.

In the instances when we have true bigots, I believe it is appropriate for the staff the get rid of them without having to resort to language rules. We can get rid of them because we don't want them. If it's within our powers to say we don't have to negotiate what language we accept on the forum, it shouldn't be beyond us to to choose who we grant the privilege of being a member without relying on a language clause to boot them.

----

I am enforcing a place where all members, old, new, and potential, are not marginalized by hate speech. I am also 100% in favour of changing the identity of the forum if that identity includes the tacit acceptance of racism, misogyny, and other forms of hate speech.

You get to like the old banned avatar because it doesn't specifically and directly use something fundamental about your personhood to alienate others. You're not the target. A willingness to mock stupidity should be smart enough to not have to rely on shitting on others to do so. Citing your credentials as a critic of DOMA doesn't excuse the use of 'faggot' as a pejorative. You, of all people, should know better. And be better.

As for what people mean when they say "faggot" or "cunt" or "coon":

There is an unfortunate tendency to think it's only racist when you say "nigger" with intent to be hurtful. This is what a dumb baby thinks! Racism is racism whether you're just kidding, saying it around 'cool' people [read: racists], or are pig-ignorant! HATE SPEECH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH INTENT.

By saying that members of this forum should simply accept hate speech with the explanation that it's not meant to marginalize, you're telling people it's their fault they're offended. If the spirit of the forums is calling someone a nigger and then mocking them for getting upset, then you better fucking believe I'm out to destroy that.

It is not my job to tolerate misogynist, racist, and hateful language. It is my job, and everyone's fucking job, to not use hate speech, and to shun people that do.

As for mocking stupidity: What's fantastic about stupidity is that it can be fixed. See also: my continuing to repeat myself on this topic! You cannot equate hate speech with calling someone dumb. This is the falsest of false equivalences. A gay man cannot change his sexual orientation. A black woman can't decide to be white.

Again, you're essentially asking for people to "get over" their offense. This is pretty common. It's uncomfortable to have the social order challenged, especially when the default white male reaps the most benefit from things staying exactly as they are. This kind of change asks that default white male to be inconvenienced. What you might not understand is that everyone who isn't a white male adjusts their language for white males every single goddamn day.

The more I see people outraged by being asked not to use hate speech the more I realize that they've never, ever, ever experienced what it is like to be told they are not wanted as they are. It's not a very pleasant feeling! Fortunately, while minorities, non-heterosexuals, and women have lots of amazing things to contribute to a community, bigots don't, so I'm willing to deal with the tears of a few kids being told to act like adults for the first time.

Actually, in response to your "After years of people throwing faggot around casually, we still have many respected openly gay members of the community. Why?", I would answer: because they decided to conform to your criteria of what is acceptable. After this you make another intent argument, and again, my response is that hate speech does not rely upon intent. You state that we have "many" respected and openly gay members of the community. I think we could have more.

In a similar vein, I've heard arguments regarding video games or sports or other "traditionally male" activities that say that women don't participate in these things because they don't like such activities, or they can't 'handle' them, or even more hilariously, that women just aren't disposed towards certain things. Of course, it never once occurs to these people that women don't get involved in those activities because they are actively, directly, and hatefully marginalized by the men in the community.

The problem isn't people being "too sensitive" on the what-does-this-guy-think-is-okay-to-be-offended-about scale. It's people saying ignorant, hateful shit.

And then we get to the "true" bigots.

Perhaps you're right, and saying bigoted things doesn't automatically make one a bigot. On the other hand, what advantage is there to raising the bar for qualifying as a bigot? Consideration for the feelings of assholes? That's not a terribly high priority for me, to be honest.

I'm not sure what advantage we would garner by avoiding talking about dangerous things like banning people for being bigots, and telling people we're going to do so. I think we should be quite loud about. I think it should be the first thing people think about when they think of our community.

I think quietly not mentioning this and going back to the way things were, where this wasn't enforced, would only serve to make sure a bunch of 'dudebros', as you call them, wouldn't have to experience a miniscule amount of inconvenience. I really couldn't be fucked to coddle them, honestly.

We've tried it where the people who are now complaining the most were the arbiters of what is acceptable. And it was fucking terrible. So now other people are going to be making those decisions, based on a different criteria than catering to juvenile asshats.

---

I am enforcing a place where all members, old, new, and potential, are not marginalized by hate speech. I am also 100% in favour of changing the identity of the forum if that identity includes the tacit acceptance of racism, misogyny, and other forms of hate speech.

And the very point in question is whether they are marginalized or not, and whether or not this speech does in fact infer a tactic acceptance of discrimination. I'm arguing against those very premises, but you seem more preoccupied in emphasizing how I must be speaking for the privileged white male agenda because my position differs from your own.

You get to like the old banned avatar because it doesn't specifically and directly use something fundamental about your personhood to alienate others. You're not the target.

The idea that only someone from a particular population demographic (whether it be race, sex or gender, religion, etc.) has the right to a place at the table discussing issues pertaining to that minority. This is obviously not true. While there is a certain amount of deference afforded to first hand experience, the fact that any minority has inner conflict within itself about the best approach to its own issues illustrates that first-hand experience is not definitive in helping determine single correct solutions to problems.

To illustrate the point, does the fact I am Asian/Latino mean that I can give the thumbs up for a new "You are a gigantic beaner" or "You are a gigantic gook" ban icon because then I would be the target?

Moreover since civil rights, minority/gender issues, etc. are intimately about how the rest of the world interacts with the concerned demographic, you can't expect people to change their attitudes without them being at the table.

A willingness to mock stupidity should be smart enough to not have to rely on shitting on others to do so. Citing your credentials as a critic of DOMA doesn't excuse the use of 'faggot' as a pejorative. You, of all people, should know better. And be better.

No that's precisely my point. My reference to civil rights work is to illustrate that I'm not, as you wish to paint me, sticking up for the rights of my dudebros. I'm making the principled stance that this is not "shitting on others." This is not a battle against discrimination. These are just words YOU are empowering.

There is an unfortunate tendency to think it's only racist when you say "nigger" with intent to be hurtful. This is what a dumb baby thinks! Racism is racism whether you're just kidding, saying it around 'cool' people [read: racists], or are pig-ignorant! HATE SPEECH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH INTENT.

What's the warrant for this? You just make a simple assertion with an embedded insult and think this proves your point beyond reproach?

By saying that members of this forum should simply accept hate speech with the explanation that it's not meant to marginalize, you're telling people it's their fault they're offended.

Yes I'm saying exactly that. It's thin skin and we shouldn't be bending over backwards for it.

If the spirit of the forums is calling someone a nigger and then mocking them for getting upset, then you better fucking believe I'm out to destroy that. It is not my job to tolerate misogynist, racist, and hateful language. It is my job, and everyone's fucking job, to not use hate speech, and to shun people that do.

Again says who? Because you instituted the changes unilaterally? Fine you're an admin and I guess you can do that. But while you may have the right to put the rule in, but that doesn't mean it will do what you believe so ardently it does.

The point of this is to discuss whether or not your changes are doing what you think they are, or whether they do more harm than good.

You haven't responded at all to any argumentation about why doing this is bad and empowers hate speech. You're so caught up in trying to associate my side with the privileged and with the white male power structure you've completely missed my argument that it is better in the long run for these words to be used frequently as synonyms for stupid/idiot/moron/etc. to break down their original hateful connotations.

As for mocking stupidity: What's fantastic about stupidity is that it can be fixed. See also: my continuing to repeat myself on this topic! You cannot equate hate speech with calling someone dumb. This is the falsest of false equivalences. A gay man cannot change his sexual orientation. A black woman can't decide to be white.

What does the genetic predetermination of race or homosexuality have to do with whether or not we allow these words on the forums?

This is tangential at best. But for arguments sake, while you can educate yourself the genetic lottery has a lot to do with how smart you end up just like how it can influence how pretty and tall you are. Given equal conditions, some people will clearly master certain fields of knowledge better and faster. Given infinite time, some people may still fail to grasp concepts that others find basic.

And preempting the actual argument that should be here, yes on a basic level the use of slurs as synonyms for stupidity connotes that those individuals. But the point is that because language is alive, eventually the word takes on an entirely new meaning unrelated to its original discriminatory origin. That's how "nigga" became acceptable. That's how "bitch" became acceptable.

Again, you're essentially asking for people to "get over" their offense. This is pretty common. It's uncomfortable to have the social order challenged, especially when the default white male reaps the most benefit from things staying exactly as they are. This kind of change asks that default white male to be inconvenienced. What you might not understand is that everyone who isn't a white male adjusts their language for white males every single goddamn day.

The more I see people outraged by being asked not to use hate speech the more I realize that they've never, ever, ever experienced what it is like to be told they are not wanted as they are. It's not a very pleasant feeling! Fortunately, while minorities, non-heterosexuals, and women have lots of amazing things to contribute to a community, bigots don't, so I'm willing to deal with the tears of a few kids being told to act like adults for the first time.

Assumption that I am a white male out to defend entrenched hierarchies that shield the current social order. You know nothing about me, so please stop trying to associate me with a certain image or agenda so you can dismiss my arguments. I learned very very young, kindergarten in fact, that some people will refuse to associate with you based on your last name, your skin tone, the shape of your eyes, etc. And yes it sucks.

But that has nothing at all to do with the vast majority of the uses of any slangs and slurs on the forum. I simply don't give a fuck about anyone's tears. I'm not going to care about someone being insulted as a cracker, trust-fund baby, or American capitalist pig either. I expect everyone on this forum to have a sense of humor, or keep a stiff upper lip and get even.

Actually, in response to your "After years of people throwing faggot around casually, we still have many respected openly gay members of the community. Why?", I would answer: because they decided to conform to your criteria of what is acceptable. After this you make another intent argument, and again, my response is that hate speech does not rely upon intent. You state that we have "many" respected and openly gay members of the community. I think we could have more.

Yes, that people can distinguish when language is used in different contexts and not be thin-skinned. As opposed to YOUR criterion of an acceptable member based on the ability to crtl+f and replace all instances of "faggot" with "moron."

Yes I realize it's not a big effort. But I don't believe in bending backwards to those with thin skin.

And your response to the intent argument says nothing. It's your mere assertion that hate speech intent is irrelevant and that all people who use that language are bigots.

In a similar vein, I've heard arguments regarding video games or sports or other "traditionally male" activities that say that women don't participate in these things because they don't like such activities, or they can't 'handle' them, or even more hilariously, that women just aren't disposed towards certain things. Of course, it never once occurs to these people that women don't get involved in those activities because they are actively, directly, and hatefully marginalized by the men in the community.

And that's a whole other can of worms, completely unrelated to this. In gaming there are industry problems with the objectification and sexualization of women, uneven market representation, and even a whole debate amongst feminists about what the correct approach to fixing various problem are.

This is a discussion about the use of language on a forum. All you've done is asserted that intent is irrelevant with hate speech. I've argued that, empirically, these words lose their power when we allow them to attain different colloquial meanings regardless of their discriminatory origins.

The problem isn't people being "too sensitive" on the what-does-this-guy-think-is-okay-to-be-offended-about scale. It's people saying ignorant, hateful shit.

And once again we come back to the intent argument. If you're wrong in the respect that active discriminatory animus is not required to make language hateful

Perhaps you're right, and saying bigoted things doesn't automatically make one a bigot. On the other hand, what advantage is there to raising the bar for qualifying as a bigot? Consideration for the feelings of assholes? That's not a terribly high priority for me, to be honest.

You make the basic assumption that if someone disagrees with you on the basis of how they feel about the amorphous nature of language, that they are an asshole.

I argue people's feeling getting hurt isn't enough of a priority for me to restrict any sort of speech.

I'm not sure what advantage we would garner by avoiding talking about dangerous things like banning people for being bigots, and telling people we're going to do so. I think we should be quite loud about. I think it should be the first thing people think about when they think of our community.

I don't see any advantage in coddling users and actively trying to make everyone play nice in a happy space. I welcome any poster of any color, orientation, religion, locale, and any other demographic... so long as they are willing to give as good as they take.

No one should be disrespected because they are homosexual, female, black, Latino, Muslim etc. -- but neither should they be respected just because of that either. And to me, when this language isn't used with literal discriminatory intent, it's not disrespectful.

I don't care if someone calls me a beaner, or gook, or bitch in real life. Same as when people assume I'm a teenager or virgin or no-lifer online. It's just shit people say.

I think quietly not mentioning this and going back to the way things were, where this wasn't enforced, would only serve to make sure a bunch of 'dudebros', as you call them, wouldn't have to experience a miniscule amount of inconvenience. I really couldn't be fucked to coddle them, honestly.

And I can't be fucked to coddle someone who gets offended by offhand comments.

If you want to get rid of them because they are shitposters, then get rid of them because they are shit posters. They can cry -- who the fuck cares.

We shouldn't need to cower behind some language rule to do that, and we shouldn't be empowering words.

This is like a bizzaro version of the gay "marriage" debate where the evangelicals claimed to be the only ones who could define a "true marriage." We're giving these words static meanings and saying anyone else who uses the word in a different context is wrong.

---

http://www.ucalgary.ca/cared/intention



http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...061.x/abstract



http://inside.bard.edu/~ansell/ansell_12.pdf this is a pdf, quote starts on page 20:



"Intent" and Equal Protection: A Reconsideration This is just a link to the abstract, I'm citing the full text through the university. This article is speaking specifically about legal intent insofar as it has been used in regards to suits of discrimination against the government, but it applies well, as putting the burden on the offended to prove intent on the part of the person using ugly speech is what we're talking about.



This one is neat as well, emphasis added:



Don't have a link because now I'm going poo-crazy, but here is the citation:
"Heart" Attack: A Critique of Jorge Garcia's Volitional Conception of Racism
Charles W. Mills
The Journal of Ethics , Vol. 7, No. 1, Race, Racism, and Reparations (2003), pp. 29-62



From Traditional to Liberal Racism: Living Racism in the Everyday
Margaret M. Zamudio and Francisco Rios
Sociological Perspectives , Vol. 49, No. 4 (Winter 2006), pp. 483-501
Published by: University of California Press

This is a really interesting article in general, so if you can find the complete text I'd very much recommend reading it. From the abstract, since I don't know how many folks have journal access on the regular:



The above is what I mean when I attack repetitions of "it's fine as long as different from default people don't 'ask for attention' [read: acknowledge issue]".



Continuing, the authors then address the fallacy that racism is "'a thing of the past,' something ameliorated during the gains of the Civil Rights Movement..." (p.484):


As far as my assumption of your ethnicity, Gredival, I referred only to "the default white male", and made no attempt to pin that label on you. However, whatever the ethnicity you identify as, you are supporting a structure that benefits that default, just like I was by not speaking up against hate speech.

---

It's not a slippery slope.

I've linked this before, but I'll quote some bits again:

Calling someone a cunt, especially a woman, objectifies that person and dehumanizes them into a cunt. As an insult, this causes the word “cunt,” which is technically a name for the vagina, to become a degrading term.

Part of a woman’s anatomy, just like the word “pussy,” has become an insult. That action alone is insulting to women.

By calling a woman—or girl—a cunt, you are shrinking her down to one part of her, the part that society deems most grotesque and taboo. In addition, calling a man the same thing degrades him in a similar way, because calling a man something generally associated with females feminizes that man; this is seen as the worst possible insult because, as society dictates, women are of a lower class than men.

There is the argument the words “cunt” and “pussy,” do have their male counterparts, such as “dick” and “asshole” (technically “asshole” is gender-neutral, but it has a masculine inclination)[edit: I disagree with the authors interpretation of asshole]—so by using insults both male and female, we’re being equal, right?

All these words are gendered insults, but they have different meanings and intentions. Whereas “cunt” demeans the person because of its association with women, “asshole” and “dick” are normal insults because being a man is normal.

These words are bad not because the gender they are associated with is bad, but because the act they are associated with is bad and taboo.

In the case of the poster, we could say it's not that bad because he wasn't directing it towards someone (other than the dog!), but it's still a normalization of a pejorative that doesn't need to be used.

I don't think I have anything else to add.

---

Shall I infract this guy for insulting white people, or are we only concerned when someone insults a historically underrepresented minority? http://www.bluegartr.com/threads/114...=1#post5976376

This slippery slope (and yes that's exactly what it is, despite the feeble justification for why it isn't; more on that to come) is pretty much why I had a problem with the unilateral rule change. I dropped it before because, despite my belief I was absolutely right, I knew as one mod going up against a hellbent admin, nothing would be gained from me actually going through and tearing Isladar's arguments about language apart.

But this argument...

All these words are gendered insults, but they have different meanings and intentions. Whereas “cunt” demeans the person because of its association with women, “asshole” and “dick” are normal insults because being a man is normal.

These words are bad not because the gender they are associated with is bad, but because the act they are associated with is bad and taboo.

contracts the whole previously given justification for banning language because it's still destructive even if the intent is not discriminatory.

Pussy is demeaning because it's a substitute for fear/cowardice; the discriminatory prejudice is the intent is to associate these with women and for that to be an insult. In the end, intent has everything to do with it. The reason dick is similarly supposed to be non-offensive is equally intent related.

While dick is a substitute for jerk, it's not similarly discriminatory because there's no intent for association with male genitalia to be insulting. Not because "being a man is normal" in the mind of the prejudiced, but because being a man is not an insult but rather the ideal. It's the reason why we have explicit insults like "You fight like a girl" or expressions like "Man up" or "Be a man."

There is absolutely no logically justifiable brightline that can be used to permit some instances of gendered/racial/sexist/etc. language and infract others.

This guy clearly should not have been infracted, but there's no way to justify that in the rules. If we are going to make judgment calls about when the use of language was benign, as in this case, the easiest and simplest method would be to revert to the previous policy (in spirit, if not in announced law) where we infract only when the use is deemed malicious per the judgment of the moderation team.

---

You sound upset.

Regardless, I agree that a universal edict has to be universal. If someone is infracted for saying that no one should shop at stores with black patrons (as they should be), then someone should be infracted for saying that white people are stupid. These are both generalizations.

They are generalizations with different levels of severity, but they are generalizations nonetheless.

---

Upset? Nah, I just don't care to mince words. I agree with Isladar that we should all be aware of any unique privileges we enjoy in life as a result of the genetic lottery. But I don't think that cognizance of privilege should have to be the foremost concern BG posters have while using the forums.

People said I overreacted and that we wouldn't need to go full care bear because of this new politically correct policy, but that was wrong. Virtually anyone can make a justification for why being insulted was tantamount to being discriminated against. Hell, given the fact that intelligence is at least partly genetically determined, you could even make the argument that we shouldn't be mean to dumbasses. This is the exact reason actual law holds people to "reasonable person" standards, and does not cater to the injuries of the thin-skinned.

Someone on BG called their dog a pussy, so now I'm marginalized and can't participate in this forum? Good! I don't want such a useless poster here.

---

http://www.bluegartr.com/search.php?searchid=1972640

This is a single thread about Naruto. Keyword search for "pussy" brings up 43 posts within the thread. Not all used in the pejorative sense, but certainly more than half, at least of the results I perused.

"I think you mean had Minato not been a pussy and let Kakashi kill him."
"And to think this would not have happened had Kakashi not been a pussy and just killed Obito."
"If you remember when Obito was first crushed/saved and met madara, he wasn't about that pussy shit, he played it cool."
"Would've been better if naruto hadn't been such a pussy the entire movie."
"The series can't end without Team 7 being permanently damaged and since Kishi pussied out of killing off Kakashi back at the..."
"That's like saying Zabuza turned pussy just because he was convinced by Naruto."

Granted it's a long thread (1000+ pages), but, for the most part, all of the posts were by different people. If the goal is to censor certain words, like pussy, then I agree with Kohan that perhaps actually replacing the words with ***** or whatever is the way to go.

Another option is to create an explicit list of what words people cannot say. I know this is something we don't want to do, and shouldn't do, but I bring it up because from the point of view of a poster who sees people getting lengthy bans for saying "pussy," it really does become a slippery slope and I'd be wondering what exactly I could and couldn't say without getting hit with a ban.

I don't like either of these solutions as they are both transparent and obtrusive forms of censorship, but I think we need to come to some relatively clearly defined consensus as to whether we are actively censoring certain words, and not leave the censorship up to the moral compass of whoever happens to be moderating a particular post.

---

I believe in consistency. I'll start moderating the use of "pussy" in Naruto (though I will argue that a majority of those pages were before I became a moderator), but only if the consensus is that we all go Nazi care bear mode on other threads and start infracting everyone in the celebrity death thread who insinuate that the people who don't care about Mandela are racist white people (even though they most certainly are) and infracting people for using "dick." Otherwise, I refuse to infract for generally benign uses of *potentially* discriminatory language. As Ksandra said, pussy is a word that has been sufficiently normalized and reclaimed that I feel that it has no discriminatory animus remaining.

I also believe an explicit list needs to be consistent. We have to be willing to add every and any word that someone can make a case is offensive. If you argue that any word has become normalized enough not to have discriminatory intent, like "dick" and "pussy," then you open yourself up to the charge that words we are prohibiting, like "faggot" and "nigger," are in the process of reclamation already and that censoring them is the exact thing that prevents them from becoming normalized.

If we are really going to set the precedent here and now for people using pussy as an insult, then I will correct the problem. But I'll also go ham on a ton of other users for using innocuous words with potentially discriminatory meanings/origins. Go hard or go home. But I think going hard is "really fucking shitty."

---

If people want word filters, it should be an opt-in for only those who want it and not a straight cut across the board.

Normal:
If not, let me say what I fucking want.

Babby Gartr Opt-In Service:
If not, let me say what I freaking want.

---

This is threatening to move away from the topic at hand—moderation tactics—and into the deeper issues involved, such as prejudices and how they are subtly perpetuated. I do feel it's important to say that what you're engaging in here is aversive racism, however. Gredival was, too.

By saying that "words are just words," you're justifying your use of them in a way that you perceive as rational, while a party that may actually be affected will understand that it isn't. You would balk at being called a racist, because you're not a racist in your own mind, but what you're thinking doesn't matter—and by presuming it does, you're being condescending toward those affected. Right now, you're likely thinking "no, I'm not a racist, and that's bullshit," or whatever your own internal equivalent to that phrase would be, and that response is predictable—it's what every party engaging in aversive racism believes.

This is the current and most commonly excused form of racism in today's society, particularly in the Western world. It's even perpetuated by feel-good but truthfully demeaning phrases, like "I don't see color; everyone is human." (If you're wondering why that's bad, it ignores culture, for one. It also erases the individual's actions in their lives related to said culture, implying that they're irrelevant.) The notion of "words are just sounds and letters" is the same. Considering, the amount of excuses that people can make are incredibly large, and that is why it's easy to be an aversive racist—it's the modern day's version of the overt racist.

---

Okay if we're going to engage in a rational debate, we have to set some ground rules. First and foremost is that any argument that makes it so that any disagreement makes me a racist is obviously tautological. So this reasoning that I'm being racist by arguing against the policy, and that denying that I'm being racist confirms I'm a racist, is a crock.

With that out of the way, I have two things to say.

1) Isladar has point blank stated that the purpose of these rules is to make it so that underrepresented populations feel that this is a safe environment for them to talk without potentially being harassed, either directly or indirectly, by the language others use. And you're right that these words hurt; I have NEVER stated otherwise. The difference is that I don't care. I am being condescending towards those affected. My stance is that care bear coddling is bad. Isladar has stated that anyone who is "racist" means their contribution will not be missed. I take the stance that anyone who doesn't post on these forums because of the language other people are using disturbs them are the ones who have nothing to contribute.

That doesn't mean that in blatant circumstances I won't infract people for their use of discriminatory speech. But I reject the notion that we should go around infracting people for calling their dogs pussies because that language could potentially demean someone. Yes their feelings are hurt; I simply don't care. To me, it doesn't make me a racist because I refuse to care about people who are overly sensitive. But if you think that's racism, fine.

2) I have argued for the reclamation and normalization effect of language, i.e. how non-offensive uses of words transform them. Case in point is that "pussy" has become sufficiently normalized in today's colloquial speech such that very few people interpret it to be an insult to women. There are other instances in which words have been reclaimed (the use of "ricer" by Asian youths, and the use of "nigga" by gangster rap and subsequently wider black communities).

Isladar's responses have mostly centered around how intent has nothing to do with the hurtful impact of words. This is not a direct response. I can concede Isladar is right in this, in fact I just did a few paragraphs up when I said those words probably hurt. The point is though that this is the necessary growing pains that are necessary for language to be reclaimed and subsequently turned into non-hurtful words. Policies like this empower words by confirming their strength and preventing their normalization.

Again if you think I'm racist because I want a world in which these words lose their power, rather than letting people deal with the transition period, then have at it.

And before someone says that by condoning the use of these words, we are just silencing the oppressed rather than the racists by way of a chilling effect, no. I think people who are offended should be free to call someone out for how their language is "really fucking shitty" and embarrass them for it. This is BG, we should prize the person willing to call someone out and prove it, not the person who has to hide behind rules.

Isn't that the point of having a mod team in the first place?

That's exactly my point about why I find the recent rule changes to be pointless.

I have no doubt that the proponents of these rule changes believe it is about making this place a "more decent" and more just forum, that is more inclusive, tolerant, etc.

I on the other hand find the rule changes to be "really fucking shitty" because they both a) require an onerous and burdensome amount of censorship or b) require us to be hypocritical about our enforcement, which I think is simply poor form after a soapbox demonstration.

I agree with you: Rhinox is generally a shit poster. I'd rather empower moderators to get rid of shit posters like him, who contribute nothing but avoid using discriminatory speech, than slap around posters who are saying something relevant and tossing around words that some thin-skinned people might take offense to.

I welcome all constructive talk about this in the thread, if you cant be constructive and you think Ive gone full batshit hitler and you dont want to be a part of this team anymore, I understand completely and I will not hate you.

I think the question comes down to setting the line here.

It seems that most are in agreement that the poster in question here should not have been infracted for calling his dog a pussy. But we have to be consistent and have a reasoning for why this guy shouldn't be infracted.

Is it because the word he used has been sufficiently normalized, or is it because the way he used the word without intent to discriminate?

I don't think the first is justifiable. This can't be a matter of who gets offended; we have to go Nazi care bear and also go after the use of "dick" as much as "pussy" or "cunt" and we have to be just as hard on white/male stereotypes as we are about stereotypes regarding underrepresented minorities.

I prefer the second option; the purpose of selecting a moderation team is to place people with the capacity for judgment to use that judgment in interpreting the rules. But if we're going to use the intent test, and trust in the ability of the moderation team, then we should get rid of this language in the rules that make a clear universal prohibition because we will obviously be selectively enforcing this.

And it would still be beneficial for us to have some collective guideline about what is discriminatory intent.

For example, what about other instances brought up in the thread? Should we be infracting people for saying that the people who call Nelson Mandela a terrorist/communist are "white people?" I honestly think that's harmless and I wouldn't infract for it. But at the same time if there was a news post about someone who stole fried chicken and watermelon and someone said "black people" then we would have to be consistent and not infract that person.

And again because it can't come down to who is offended, I think the only justifiable line is when someone is directly and non-humorously using words to make an explicit case of racial animus. In other words, you have to let racial jokes slip.

---

In times like this, people need to be careful and temper their zealousness, lest we become victim to someone who happened to utter "May we live in interesting times" a few fuckdozen times.

I warned you of this. Sad to see that it went unheeded.

---

1) Isladar has point blank stated that the purpose of these rules is to make it so that underrepresented populations feel that this is a safe environment for them to talk without potentially being harassed, either directly or indirectly, by the language others use. And you're right that these words hurt; I have NEVER stated otherwise. The difference is that I don't care. I am being condescending towards those affected. My stance is that care bear coddling is bad. Isladar has stated that anyone who is "racist" means their contribution will not be missed. I take the stance that anyone who doesn't post on these forums because of the language other people are using disturbs them are the ones who have nothing to contribute.

Then you're openly engaging in aversive racism. You may call it a crock all you like, but it won't be invalidated simply because you dislike the notion. It also isn't related to what you specified in your opening (i.e., that you're racist for disagreeing with the policy). It's about your lack of concern. Your defensiveness, your determination to let the offended be offended, your condescension toward their feelings—all of that is the textbook language of a privileged racist. As expressed through your actions, and in relation to these sorts of prejudices, you are the exact equivalent of a homophobe saying that they can't be homophobic due to their having a gay friend. You're proud of that, though. That's expected.

I am not surprised at all, either. The pride you demonstrated while talking about how you would have torn apart Isladar's post already revealed to me that you would be arrogant about this. As mentioned, you're a textbook example.

You've stated that you're interested in an intellectual discussion, but I believe you think I'm merely throwing terminology around. Would you like to read about it for a while? It may make you uncomfortable, but perhaps it should.

http://www1.psych.purdue.edu/~willia...o&Gaertner.pdf

That doesn't mean that in blatant circumstances I won't infract people for their use of discriminatory speech. But I reject the notion that we should go around infracting people for calling their dogs pussies because that language could potentially demean someone. Yes their feelings are hurt; I simply don't care. To me, it doesn't make me a racist because I refuse to care about people who are overly sensitive. But if you think that's racism, fine.

It is. The dismissiveness is one of the strongest indicating factors. From a position of privilege, it can be often said to someone that "oh, you're overreacting;" "oh, don't worry about it;" and this invalidates their experiences. It tells them they do not matter. From your place, you treat them like they are less for doing so.

If the aforementioned article was too thick for you to spend time on at the moment, here's something significantly more condensed:

http://www.nonprofitquarterly.org/go...ry-racism.html

And here's some snippets of sections that directly relate to your position:

Many people involved in nonprofit organizations forego considerable personal gain to dedicate themselves to making the world better in some way—through making health care more accessible, perhaps, or by promoting cultural richness or through human services or social change work in an impoverished community. Racism, we can probably all agree, is antithetical to this spirit. The problem is that oftentimes these same well-intentioned people are also racist, and, as we will discuss below, they are racist without being aware of it.

[...]

Aversive racism is the inherent contradiction that exists when the denial of personal prejudice co-exists with underlying unconscious negative feelings and beliefs. Unfortunately, the negative feelings and beliefs that underlie aversive racism are rooted in normal, often adaptive, psychological processes. For instance, people generally tend to like others who are similar to them. In contrast to the feelings of open hostility and clear dislike of blacks that characterize old-fashioned racism, the negative feelings that aversive racists experience are typically more diffuse, such as feelings of anxiety and uneasiness.

[...]

On the level of institutional racism—the aversion to addressing race concerns that is demonstrated through this research carries through to an aversion to discussing race as a driver in and a blind for bad social policy. (See Lani Guinier’s article, Summer 2002, page 12, for more on this.) We must stop thinking that someone else will intervene in the state of emergency posed by institutional racism and begin to address the appalling realities of its effects actively, head-on and in deeply committed cross-cultural partnerships.

2) I have argued for the reclamation and normalization effect of language, i.e. how non-offensive uses of words transform them. Case in point is that "pussy" has become sufficiently normalized in today's colloquial speech such that very few people interpret it to be an insult to women. There are other instances in which words have been reclaimed (the use of "ricer" by Asian youths, and the use of "nigga" by gangster rap and subsequently wider black communities).

Beyond its not being your place to make such statements, your saying them demonstrates that you have only surface knowledge of the things you supposedly champion. For example, saying that "nigga" has been reclaimed shows that you do not, in fact, know anything about the debates within black society. You are also implying that rap is listened to black people on a very large scale, generalizing anyone who does not have those stereotypical tastes. (This is racism, too.) Furthermore, you're saying that Asians have no problem with "ricer," ignoring all of the Asians in this world who don't speak English and who have never heard the slur, aren't of the ethnicities that the slur has been affixed to, and last but certainly not least, you're pushing aside those who would, in fact, take issue. Like the prior example, this is by-the-book aversive racism.

You are attempting to sound intellectual, and you believe your stance is defensible, but you are very, very far off the mark.

The point is though that this is the necessary growing pains that are necessary for language to be reclaimed and subsequently turned into non-hurtful words. Policies like this empower words by confirming their strength and preventing their normalization.

No, they do not. They have a great deal of strength that you refuse to understand, and which will be completely unchanged by your ineffectual and insensitive efforts.

Here's a reasonable article on Racialicious regarding this exact subject:

http://www.racialicious.com/2011/10/...bout-the-word/

And, as before, here is a selection—a much bigger one, though, so I've spoilered it:

Spoiler: show

Reclaiming Words (Slurs) That Aren’t Yours

But more to the point, the sign in question was about claiming identities. Slut isn’t an identity I would claim – I have no personal experience with it. But the application of the idea that woman is the nigger of the world to people who nigger has never applied is puzzling, to say the least. First, it would assume that all women are in the same boat. And as the statistics show when you start breaking down issues of wealth, representation, health, maternal wellness, and just about any other measure, that would be a lie. It’s also trying to pull the experiences and pain of a term on to one’s body without ever shouldering the burden that goes with that term. To me, that’s as asinine as me trying to adopt an anti-Asian slur or an anti-gay slur. Those kind of words would never be leveled at me. I never have to labor underneath their weight. I am not a part of intra-community discussions around those terms. No one has ever tried to make me fear them with those words. I don’t face that set of issues. I don’t carry those burdens. Therefore, it makes no sense to keep ham-fistedly applying terms that don’t fit.

For a woman to reclaim slut, it would imply that they are not apologizing for living up to the idea of the slur. It would imply that people will not apologize for their bodies, clothing, or actions even if some read those things as slutty. It would call into question the validity of the slur in the first place, if the enhanced focus on “sluts” allowed those who rape/sexually assault others to walk because they can not, and will never be, deemed sluts under our current system.

So, for people who have bodies policed by the term slut, or see enough kinship in their own struggle with this one, it would make sense to reclaim the term, to strip it of shame, to wear it with power and pride. (Word to Kenyon Farrow.)

For those outside the racial binary, they have a more complicated reality with racially charged terms. Nigger may be placed on their bodies, but in a way that is modified or different. One of my friends who is Desi remembers being held down and called a nigger by the girls at her all-white primary school. She remembered being confused – after all, she was brown, but not black. But no one said racism was logical. People from the Middle East/Central Asian region have a variety of epithets, but sand nigger is also in the mix. What is the relationship with the term nigger in these groups? An interesting dialogue rolls in the rap world, particularly about non-black emcees using the term, even in a hip-hop space which uses the term freely. But, as most people who have been the subject of a slur know, the politics are complicated. And that complication, once lived, probably speaks to why the vast majority of the pushback has been from white people.

Most white women have no relationship with the term nigger. It is not a term used on white bodies. Speaking historically (because words change and migrate over time) the term has ever been applied to white women, except in one clear way. Anna Holmes, in her post Jezebel life, has sent me reams of info on women in the civil rights movement. One of the women she fixated on what a young white woman who was murdered for her participation. The term they applied to her was not nigger. It was nigger lover. The idea that white women would willingly associate themselves with Black people was an offense where these women could not be allowed to live. Complicating this is the relationship that white women (and white people, more broadly) have instituting the term as a mark of difference. We could start with debates about suffrage, with some white women being aghast that black men were given the right to vote before white women, or we could go back even further to how white people used the term nigger to keep black people aware of their place in society. So, already, we are speaking about very different relationships with a term.

Again if you think I'm racist because I want a world in which these words lose their power, rather than letting people deal with the transition period, then have at it.

You are, yes. Education and experience with people far more familiar with the subject than you would be helpful. As it is, your arrogance is useless.

---

At this point I was about to take a steamy dump on Kohan, but Vandole explicitly told me to stop because Isladar had left out of outrage that this was even a discussion (notifying ONLY the other admins) and the remaining admins were going to change the rules in light of that.

[Mertron]

“im going to go home and beat my girlfriend in fantasy football” = the n word

[Mertron]

also i did not get banned because my wife-beater acrostic was too high brow to get noticed

[Mertron]

https://www.bluegartr.com/threads/11...n-quot-Edition

man that thread is a hoot, cail even got a slap on the wrist for saying the panthers were going to put a beating on the falcons

also that was the week nick foles threw seven tds, dram tram

well
if I have this right
from what I can see
everyone in this thread gonna get timeouted

because
especially in some cases
all we do is
talk about things
entirely unrelated
regarding football

[Mertron]

YOU ARE ALL RACISTS AND MISOGYNISTS AND IF YOU ARE MAD I AM BANNING PEOPLE IT MEANS YOU SUPPORT RACISTS AND MISOGYNISTS, MEANING YOU ARE ALSO A RACIST AND MISOGYNIST AND WILL BE BANNED

[dasva]

Well damn. I got some backreading to do lol. Looks pretty awesome so far

[Krandor]

lol that was also when Kubiak had a heart attack in the middle of a game.

What an entertaining week that was.

[Zetanio]

niggas gonna front ya know.

i remember reading this when i was a secret mod and cringing really really hard at some of the hot takes from isla. she dove in headfirst.

[Mertron]

lol that was also when Kubiak had a heart attack in the middle of a game.

What an entertaining week that was.

tyven: if he had the heart attack in his home, does that count as domestic assault

gg

[Mertron]

i just got to my domestic violence website joke, im proud of myself

[Brill Weave]

niggas gonna front ya know.

i remember reading this when i was a secret mod and cringing really really hard at some of the hot takes from isla. she dove in headfirst.

That was one of the most batshit idiotic things I have seen on this site. It was like a switch just got flipped and she lost her mind. She ended up leaving because in the mod forum Sonomaa refused to back her on one of her rants and she lost it.

[Cail]

I look forward to going back and reading that thread this weekend

[Day]

Isla Stuff

[Day]

i feel like i've seen some of that before, but thanks for sharing that was incredible. man fuck, what happened to her, i had so much fun in the isla section and shit w her until she took some grievance study class or something I guess

[Gredival]

Unlike isla, I don't need a bad word list to be the law.

i feel like i've seen some of that before, but thanks for sharing that was incredible. man fuck, what happened to her, i had so much fun in the isla section and shit w her until she took some grievance study class or something I guess

I've shared some of that with ppl through PMs so a person who has seen it before might have forwarded it to you, but this was the first time I went through and systematically reconstructed all the posts in order like that.

[Gredival]

I still want the old banned avatar back too.