Printable View
Don't forget that faggot can mean a bundle of sticks. Context is key and as someone from a Commonwealth country, fag is a totally acceptable word when it it means a cigarette. It can also mean a homosexual, then it is a slur. It s pretty simple, since we do have mods from commonwealth countries so then they will be able to tell the context.
:wall:
"Fag" may very well mean "cigarette" in the UK, but isn't it clear that, in the context Louis used it, he meant the slur and not "cigarette"?
Who here honestly believes Louis meant to say "Fragony is our resident Muslim cigarette", "Fragony is our resident Muslim sausage" or "Fragony is our resident Muslim bundle of sticks"?
:freak:
Or schoolboy. :sneaky:
Err, I grew up hearing it only in derogatory ways, as in when you called someone a cripple, you implied she/he was worth less than others. Nothing about being PC, else the N-word would be perfectly fine as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
Although it's possible that in english it doesn't have such a bad connotation, it seemed like a given to me that it does. :shrug:
Aye that could well be the nub of the problem. Cripple and fag are not considered derogatory in the UK. They may be in other parts of the world but as this is an international board it would end up being rather boring and meaningless if we tried to second guess offence caused to other nationalities by our regional variations of the English language.
Maybe we should all just pack up and go home.
No, the word fag is not appropriate for an international (read: audience whose English and perception of English most closely resembles American English) PG-13 site in almost all circumstances, the big exception would be threads about smoking. <insert rant about influence of American culture here, if you must>
To claim context for the combination “Muslim fag” strikes me as a nice try but no cigar.
EDIT: Of course if you feel otherwise, you can put out a warning notice. Like: <british></british>.
Yes it does. It says it has to be addressed at the individual or group. And it wasn't :book:Quote:
Originally Posted by Andres
I don't see how you can misread that as meaning anything other than "don't call someone a fag, etc".
And I don't see how anyone can defend the position that it's ok to say "Fragony, our resident Muslim fag" here at the .Org given the .Org policy on language from the last... well, for as far as I can remember, so it has be .Org policy since at least 5 years.
I wasn't aware that policy has changed recently.
Let's say a member is known for his controversial viewpoints on black people. Would it have been ok for Louis to say in that same post "X, our resident [n-word]"?
How I understand it, "fag" and "[n-word]" are in the same category. Surely, "fag" has to be worse than the acronym "WTF".
I don't mind staff being strict about language. I know why it is like that, I tend to agree with the ratio behind it and I have defended that policy more then once in the past.
The general consensus among staff here in the WT when somebody complained about not being allowed to use a certain "bad" word was always that that is the policy followed by an explanation why that policy is in order. The answer to the complaints about not being allowed to use bad language has always been "no" and the policy remained. Which is a good thing, I think.
And now, a staff member posted a bad word, a patron called him out on it, and look around you.
The policy at the time Louis posted "Fragony, our resident Muslim fag" was the same policy that has always been there.
I don't understand this and none of the explanations given so far have been satisfying. A lot of blahblahblah, smoke and mirrors, all of it unnecessary, because it is obvious that posting "Fragony, our resident Muslim fag" is simply not allowed here at the .Org; it hasn't been for at least 5 years.
Why is it being allowed now?
It hasn't been org policy. Org policy is exactly what Secura described herself doing in the other thread.
nvm
I believe you are fully aware of the reasons this hasn't been addressed. The moderator who was supposed to be in charge of this sub-forum was mistakenly not given edit rights, so she was not able to do what needed doing. Louis, rightly or wrongly, believes that he is being trolled, and is standing firm that he ain't gonna edit nuthin' under these circumstances.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andres
Now that the editing rights have been fixed, Secura will be able to do whatever she believes needs doing. As Sasaki Kojiro indicated, Secura has done an admirable job of articulating the correct role of the mods.
- We are not word filters.
- We will consider context.
- We will consider the level and type of provocation.
- We will consider a poster's history.
- We will make mistakes, and fix them as we can.
The Org is built around human self-governance, not automated word filters. The danger of human justice is that it winds up being uneven and imperfect, as this incident shows. The danger of machine justice or (worse) perfect justice is that it is inhumane and incapable of considering things like context, intent, motive or circumstance.
Thank you for your quoting, Drunk Clown, earlier in the thread. Because I forgot I posted such gems and I ended up laughing at my own jokes. :blush:
Louis went over the line with "Muslim fag", fact. No point discussing it or bringing up Pork Faggots or cigarettes because his post was clearly not on about those. Close links however, there is the possibility of Etonian usage meaning 'lapdog' 'bitch-boy', but then that is not really acceptable either. I agree with Andres that this is pretty clear.
It may be pretty clear, but in the same vein I am 100% sure Fragony does not care. He knows it's a bit of teasing and being the grown man that he is, he will be able to get past it. Him and Louis have a long history that is full of these jabs. It's a bit of fun.
If we warn him for this then we need to warn him for all the times we described our sex life, because that is actually happening. And it is just as much of a breach of the rules.
It pleases me to see that I am quite consistent in my views of potentially disruptive words:Quote:
Originally Posted by Drunk Clown
:thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI
Fragony would be most pleased to find himself poked fun at. Even though back when it was posted I used it to mildly tease him about his, shall we say, 'exploration of a minority point of view' about the incident in Norway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
That's a great function of humour too, isn't it? One can shout and scream at Fragony over his views of Islam and gay rights. Or instead if he goes a bit too far one can gently give him a nod with the quick mild tease. I daresay the latter makes for a far more relaxed atmosphere than the first. ~:grouphug:
But others read it too. We do not need to chase away anybody unfamiliar with jabs between friends.
But then, we also do not want to chase away anybody with a heavy handed atmosphere of rampant PC, such as raged in academia in the 1990s.
Where to find the right balance between these considerations?
IMO Louis crossed the line. Context should be considered while moderating so I would say...
1. The context shows he clearly used the word "fag" as a derogatory word for homosexuals, and not cigarettes, sausages, or Mr. Brain's pork faggots.
2. The context also shows that Louis was not malicious. He knew Fragony would not be offended. And so this offence was less serious IMO than when Shibumi showed a real lack of respect for the 9/11 victims.
I think Louis did break the rules and if a mod edited his posted and maybe gave a 0-point warning that would be fine.
While it is fine to point out moderating inconsistencies, to compare Louis post to Shibumi's as if they were similar offences is IMO ridiculous.
One way playful (if inappropriate) banter, the other was real nasty. And you're allowed to have nasty opinions on these forums, I specialise in them after all. But you've got to be respectful in how you portray them and how you conduct yourself.
EDIT: Woah, I voted option 3, but I just realised how misleading the poll is. That was a bit cheeky there Louis IMO. "Fag" should be allowe if someone is clearly talking about, say, having a cigarette. But it should not be allowed when clearly referring to homosexuals.
Fragony, like the others, loved to be in that post. On the contrary, people were sad to not find themselves included. However, there remains the casual visitor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfylwyr
The rules have always been that we allow fag for humorous use. (At least in the Backroom). The question here is if we want to change the rules to account for today's sensitivities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhy
To quote EnglishAssassin's hallmark wordplay, the one who taught me the word: 'Five minutes? That's twice, including the fag afterwards'. Sadly, our solicitor is no longer around to amuse us with his wit. I've always wondered whether he did it just for the looks on the faces of our North American friends.
Allow people to write it anytime they please. If you do the whole "depending" case, then you going to still have overzealous/political correct Mods we have here running around and slamming people for saying Fag. There, I said it.
I mean, I got Warned for saying "Screw" and I wasn't evening referring to sex or insulting something;
Quote:
Warning
'Screw' is inappropriate language.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...f-nazi-germanyQuote:
Same.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/image...c/gc-daisy.gif what the world thinks. It's time to move on.
So just let people say it. If you don't like it.... Then don't go to the backroom then or put that person on ignore like everyone tells me.
:yes::yes:
Personally I find the word as offensive as a racial slur.
It's a hateful word which is used hatefully by homophobes against people who are homosexual and against other people whom they accuse of homosexuality in order to emasculate them. In this second context it is indirectly rather than directly hateful and homophobic.
In the context that Louis used it the word wasn't directly hateful but the use of it in a joke perpetuates its force as a term of hate. You wouldn't use the "n" word in a joke in the same context (or in any context) would you?
Also, I resent that the phrasing of the poll is loaded so as to discourage people from picking option three for fear of 'political correctness' which is itself a term of abuse routinely used by those who wish to discourage criticism of their offensive or discriminatory language or actions.
In fact option three should really read "Never allow fag as a term of abuse." And option two should likewise read "Allow fag as a term of abuse depending on context." Because we're not really talking about its alternate meanings are we, we're talking about its meaning as used by Louis?
I just noticed that it says above your post #3 and some of the subsequent posts "Re: Puff on a Fag or else you can Lick my Balls ".Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
You refuse to correct what was obviously wrong. You fail to see that sometimes to apologise, even when you think an apology is not needed, can be the best course of action and also a sign of modesty. It would also save a lot of your colleagues a lot of trouble. You are now forcing people who are showing that they are true friends of yours' to come out and defend what is not defendable in an attempt to save your sorry [behind] and who are now standing up for you more than you deserve.
But no, instead of simply saying a "sorry" and doing an edit, you have to keep digging. You couldn't help yourself and simply had to continue to make it worse.
The fact that "Re: Puff on a Fag or else you can Lick my Balls" is above some posts here can only mean that that was the original thread title.
"Context is everything", you say? "It's meant as a joke", I can hear you coming. Nonsense.
For starters, it's highly inappropriate and just like "Fragony, our resident muslim fag", something that has never been ok here for as long as I'm a member of this forum.
But, good, context is everything is your point, hm? Given the context of all this mess of the last few days, my dearest Louis, such a thread title can also been read and interpreted (a perfectly valid interpretation, if I may add!) as you pointing your middlefinger to the membership of this site. You could as well have written "go [f-bomb] yourself, I can do whatever the hell I like". Maybe you should try such a title next time; perhaps you'll get away with that too, given what has preceded.
Poor show.
I agree with Andres and phonicsmonkey. I will post more later, too tired (Yay!).
Not exactly...Quote:
Originally Posted by Andres
Bullying is one of the things that should be banned.
I think that some people seem to fail at understanding that Louis is a good guy.
Because it is all about context. It's not like I could say that Louise VI is a fat wench with PMS issues. Because that would be horribly wrong.
I am actually somewhat disgusted writing that. But hey, it is context based - so it's ok. Or?
Hmmm...I'm getting the creepy suspicion this may be behind quite a bit of misunderstanding the past week.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andres
We have always allowed the word fag in the manner in which it was used. (In the BR/WT) The question is whether we want to change that.
Also, the finest of .org traditions demands that one approaches subjects such as this lightheartedly, and slightly naughtily. The famous 'which Bitish slurs are allowed' thread, with legends IA, EA, and Adrian outdoing each other:
'Why does the Mersey run through Liverpool?
...because if it would walk it would get mugged'
Londoner EA: 'It's going to be a bit of a strain to have to remember not to ask InsaneApache where his whippet is, and he'll have to get used to not calling me a soft shandy drinking poof'.
Sheer genius. Alas, all of that is no longer possible in 2011. In the current internet climate of permanent outrage, the lighthearted approach was a bad choice, destined to fall flat.
These are good points.Quote:
Originally Posted by phonicsmonkey
Personally, I don't feel strongly either way. To always avoid possibly problematic words (Frog, Pom, Yank), or to allow some leeway. Both have good arguments for and against.
If people take offense, then fine, they take offense and we avoid the use of them. No point causing in needless discomfort. :shrug:
Exactly - we aren't always going to know a priori whether something we say is offensive. There are always grey areas and differences of opinion and we should not be afraid to express ourselves naturally because that is the life blood of a discussion forum. The important thing is to be responsive to feedback and learn from our interactions with those from different cultures.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
For example, while travelling in South East Asia a left-handed travelling companion of mine was made aware that he should not use his left hand for picking up food. Why? Because in that culture the left hand is used for cleaning ones private parts after using the toilet.
He could have obstinately stuck to his guns and said "well I'm left handed and I'm not from this culture so I'm not going to change (and by the way I don't use my hand for that)" but instead he was responsive to feedback and respectful of the culture he was interacting with and had a much better travel experience (I'm sure!) as a result.
According to the poll, only Cute Wolf and Warman agree with your frequent and unrestricted use of the word.
No Louis, we haven't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
The entire Backroom is full of people making the other out for gay or pretending to be gay themselves. We not only allow it, we daily practise it. Everywhere you look it's gay this, poofter that. ('I bet the he's making Dave's my nipples hard')Quote:
Originally Posted by Catiline
Let's not get carried away here into thinking we are dealing with some sort of singularly unique event. We're talking common daily practise.