A Question of Context

delete, wrong thread.

The appropriateness of the word 'fag' in a carnivalesque 'reversal of roles' post has been raised. There is some doubt about it. I would very much appreciate the opinion of my fellow orgahs. Opinion from both moderators and 'ordinary' members. In particular the latter are invited, since the .org is all about you - a communal site for the fan of strategy games.

A) Nearly all of us will agree this forum is not a place where anybody should be called anything disrespectful. Transgressions must and will be cause for infraction. The .org is a place were everybody will be paid due respect.
B) Nearly all of us will agree that too much Political Correctness both stifles debate, and can replace an atmosphere of playful fun with an atmosphere of fear and d/repression. Who would want to be part of the 'alarmed senior citizens' groups who are standing outside supermarkets right now, demanding the removal of Ben & Jerry's Schweddy Balls icecream?


Where to draw the line between these two? Where does respect for all moves over into disrespect for the individual? Where does banter moves over into insult? Where does common decency moves over into runaway Political Correctness?

Difficult questions, several of which have rocked public debate the past decade:
- How to respectfully debate questions about immigration and multiculturalism without stifling the voicing of serious concerns?
- Are academics in the grip of fear for the PC-police, prevented from voicing their opinion openly? It has been observed that on many subjects one receives two very different answers, depending on whether one asks the scholar something in public or private.
- Are Mohammed cartoons objectionable? To censor the Danish cartoons or to allow them to be printed?


The day we allow anybody to call another poster a Muslim fag is the day I will resign. I will not stand for that. Nor will I stand for allowing anybody to tell another poster to 'Die, you filthy Italian scum'.
However, the day that 'Die, you filthy Italian scum' is edited out of mafia games in the gameroom also is the day I will leave the .org.
But, what of the phrase 'fag'? Should it, like 'you spaghetti eating Sicilian scum', be subject to considerations of context, or should it be banned from our fora outright?

I feel a poll coming up, here are the options:

The word fag:

1 - Allow it always

2 - Context is everything. For example, allow it in one or more of the following contexts:
- for the fagbug, that secret weapon of gay rights groups
- to mock the anti-gay rights politican with, after he has been exposed to have a liking for young shaved boys
- for some fun joking around, such as at the start of this post and the one above
- as part of Commonwealth slang for puffing on a cigarette. The Yanks don't, like, own the English language, ya know, okay?
- to mildly tease the anti-Islam, slightly anti-gay rights poster with

3 - Never. The word must never be allowed.

~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~

Should we allow this on the streets, the 'gay rights batmobile', the fagbug? Or should it be banned? :

https://img839.imageshack.us/img839/...fagbugindu.jpg

Most importantly, allow this, where the word fag is used in carnivalesque banter in the second post? :

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...?137044-Gender.

Contrary to the at times playful tone of the two posts above, I do seek serious replies, for a serious question that has occupied my mind. I would not want to post anything that is offensive to anyone, and fag is a word which can evoke strong emotion. So serious opinions are invited and most welcome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Contrary to the at times playful tone of the two posts above, I do seek serious replies, for a serious question that has occupied my mind. I would not want to post anything that is offensive to anyone, and fag is a word which can evoke strong emotion.

---

So don't use the word fag at all.
So don't make stupid and not clever jokes, like poles going inside you.
So just apologize for being in bad taste in the gender thread, instead of acting as if this backlash against you is because of a lack of stated rules regarding context.

There are many, many ways to make a silly joke about someones sexuality as an in-joke. However, "fag" is not one of them, at least when you are posting in public.

EDIT: Not to mention slut, or the fact that everything about you said about PJ is also crossing the line when joking about homosexuality because it plays up a stereotype.

I can say 100%, that if you were to call Secura and not Furun the slut, that crap would have been stomped on, but since you called a female slur to a guy, everything is all fine and dandy right?

Context, context, context. Just placing a blanket ban on a word is bad, next up would be a ban on a belief or an idea.

Also, was it intentional that one could select all options for the poll?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

So don't make stupid and not clever jokes, like poles going inside you.

---

I did not make a stupid joke about poles going in me.

They were Czechs.



Thank you for your opinion that one has best not used the word fag at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

I can say 100%, that if you were to call Secura and not Furun the slut, that crap would have been stomped on, but since you called a female slur to a guy, everything is all fine and dandy right?

---

I don't see what the confusion is.

If someone made a thread accusing gandhi of something bad, a sarcastic person might reply "oh yes, gandhi that fascist!". They would say that because they think gandhi isn't a fascist. And that's the tone of all of Louis's descriptions. He doesn't think TinCow is a woman, etc :book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

I don't see what the confusion is.

If someone made a thread accusing gandhi of something bad, a sarcastic person might reply "oh yes, gandhi that fascist!". They would say that because they think gandhi isn't a fascist. And that's the tone of all of Louis's descriptions. He doesn't think TinCow is a woman, etc :book:

---

At last, somebody gets it! ~:worship:



Why does it not make sense when I say that I would immediately resign from the .org if we were ever allowed to call anyone else a Muslim fag?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

I don't see what the confusion is.

If someone made a thread accusing gandhi of something bad, a sarcastic person might reply "oh yes, gandhi that fascist!". They would say that because they think gandhi isn't a fascist. And that's the tone of all of Louis's descriptions. He doesn't think TinCow is a woman, etc :book:

---

I agree, but the main point was lack of consistency. Numerous times i have been given infractions and warnings under the pretense that the org is for all intents and purposes, "PG-13". A lot of this isn't "PG-13". If it was up to me, I would be 4chan style of whatever goes, but unless someone wants to say to me that the org is rated R, then I have a few issues here.

Your post was clearly a joke but still inappropriate Louis.

It's not appropriate for banter. This is a PG-13 site, and I suspect you don't understand the full meaning of that word in some regions.

Ban it outright.

CR

Context is always important. In the UK and some other parts of the world, "fag" is slang for a cigarette.

It's like "the N word." If you use it in an improper context, such as just saying it in normal conversation, that's not a good use. However, if you use it academically, then it is. Example in question, you cant really give a historical point of view of Agatha Christie's novel "And Then There Were None" without mentioning its original title.

The point being is that you cant please all the people all the time, and you shouldn't even try to. The only thing you can do is remain professional and hold a sense of decorum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

So don't use the word fag at all.

---

I love to put a fag in my mouth in the morning and blow away.

You see, being an international board I can say that.

Damn Kekvit Irae beat me to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

I agree, but the main point was lack of consistency. Numerous times i have been given infractions and warnings under the pretense that the org is for all intents and purposes, "PG-13". A lot of this isn't "PG-13". If it was up to me, I would be 4chan style of whatever goes, but unless someone wants to say to me that the org is rated R, then I have a few issues here.

---

There's a hybrid system. One the one hand, there's a semi-standard set of rules. But rules are inexact and clumsy. You can't write a set of rules to properly moderate a forum. So the other part is that the moderators follow their instincts and common sense. But that results in inconsistent moderation from forum to forum, mod to mod.

Ergo, sometimes people will be infracted when they don't deserve it because the moderator is trying to follow a standardized rule. Other times that same thing will pass because they are following their instincts. But both rule following and instinct following are necessary. So injustice is a necessary byproduct of the ideal yet realistic system.

However, complaining about the injustice is also necessary for the ideal, to keep everyone's sights set high. So your post is a-ok. Realism is necessary, so my post here is necessary as well. The proper follow up from you is acknowledging the glorious wisdom of my philosophy and asserting your renewed faith in this forum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

There's a hybrid system. One the one hand, there's a semi-standard set of rules. But rules are inexact and clumsy. You can't write a set of rules to properly moderate a forum. So the other part is that the moderators follow their instincts and common sense. But that results in inconsistent moderation from forum to forum, mod to mod.

Ergo, sometimes people will be infracted when they don't deserve it because the moderator is trying to follow a standardized rule. Other times that same thing will pass because they are following their instincts. But both rule following and instinct following are necessary. So injustice is a necessary byproduct of the ideal yet realistic system.

However, complaining about the injustice is also necessary for the ideal, to keep everyone's sights set high. So your post is a-ok. Realism is necessary, so my post here is necessary as well. The proper follow up from you is acknowledging the glorious wisdom of my philosophy and asserting your renewed faith in this forum.

---

Man Sasaki, you really are genius....wait, what just happened?

EDIT: But seriously, once again you have given me something to think about. I don't think I necessarily agree, but it is something I'm gonna think about.

To add to Sasaki's points, moderator experience and forum being moderated are also factors that can contribute to inconsistent moderation across the board.

I voted for numbers two and three, but I only meant to vote for number two. :shame:

First of all, the drama surrounding the post in question is completely ridiculous. In my opinion, it was brought up purely to serve the interests of a particular member and his alter-account who has way too much time on his hands and a chip the size of Nebraska on his shoulder. The feigned outrage and innocence abused act is pretty obvious, especially considering the complete lack of it in the actual thread.

re:Fag. It is definitely a slur, and when used in serious conversation it almost always carries a negative connotation. By the way, the common phrase 'that's gay' used to mean something is bad or messed up is also pretty hurtful and I've read it here quite a bit, but that's beside the point.

What is the point, is that it was obvious that Louis' use of the term was not serious in any way, shape, or form. I think the vast majority of members (who are not pursuing alternate agendas) are perfectly capable of interpreting context, and it would be somewhat insulting to make blanket pronouncements about language use that sterilize conversation for the benefit of the greatest common divisor that make us out to be a bunch of morons.

In general, people need to understand that the mods are members first and foremost. They are here to enjoy interacting with their friends and the community. Becoming a mod certainly comes with significant behavioral expectations, but they are still allowed to have fun. At this point I can remember most of the mods before they wore the green - and, quite frankly, I miss a lot of their more aggressive posts in the Backroom. BQ, for example, was never rude but he was much more willing to engage in a bit of less-than-cordial repartee over sensitive subjects he cared about. From what I can tell, the job already comes with a lot of self-censorship and an assumed air of seriousness that must be at least a little constraining.

There seems to be an expectation among some, though, that dealing with a mod should in some way resemble customer service, where you can ceaselessly abuse the poor Indian girl working for slave wages on the other end of the phone for receiving the blue socks when you know you ordered the red socks (even though you clearly ordered the blue socks) and all she can do is apologize and ask you if there is anything else she can do for you today. Mods are not employees, they are not operating off the same script, and they do not owe you any particular experience. They are doing their best to make this an enjoyable place to spend time. Litigiousness as a tool to right past wrongs, score points, and generally create drama does nothing to further that purpose.

Again, Drunk Clown isn't really my alternate account PJ.

I think he's refering to our Phantom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catiline

I think he's refering to our Phantom.

---

Oooooh, kk. I thought my joke a while back was biting me in the ass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

First of all, the drama surrounding the post in question is completely ridiculous. In my opinion, it was brought up purely to serve the interests of a particular member and his alter-account who has way too much time on his hands and a chip the size of Nebraska on his shoulder. The feigned outrage and innocence abused act is pretty obvious, especially considering the complete lack of it in the actual thread.

---

I couldn't agree more.


Nevertheless, the subject may be raised. I value serious opinion on the matter. There have been previous threads in the Watchtower were we ask the opinion of members on what language they deem appropriate in what context, and what should be moderated. Sensitivities change over time, differ from place to place. Words take on different meanings, PC seems to ebb and flow.

fag can refer to english sausage or cigarretes as well

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cute Wolf

fag can refer to english sausage or cigarretes as well

---

When I eventually visit the UK, I'm definitely going to taste some local faggots.

Quote:

---

Posts containing any generally objectionable material: knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise in violation of any law. Posting of copyrighted material, unless the copyright is owned by you or by The Org, is discouraged. The Org expects its patrons to remain civil even in the face of disagreements. Any kind of "flaming", slurs, or insults -- addressed to either an individual or a group -- is extremely inappropriate. Please respect etiquette at all times.

---

It doesn't say anything about "context" :shrug:

And please, don't compare "you spaghetti eating Sicilian" to "Fragony is our resident Muslim fag". That's so utterly ridiculous.

I don't understand why the appropriateness of the phrase "Fragony is our resident Muslim fag" even needs a discussion. Seems like a complete no-brainer to me. This whole thread is absurd.

Quote:

---

We need more Political Correctness. Never allow fag.

---

Never allowing "fag" on this site doesn't mean "more" PC, since it wasn't allowed before this question was asked. Your poll is :daisy:, because it's suggestive.

Has anyone actually asked Fragony or are we bleeding on his behalf?

=][=

Context is very important. It's the difference between ironic and slur, the difference between public fornication and home titulation, it's the difference between consent and rape, it's the difference between black humor and vicious sarcasm.

Louis post had all the hallmarks of a Mel Brooks slapstick... Actually reminded me of the Roman court scene.

Not the most witty exchange but clearly satirical. Satire is protected in most advanced nations as a means of the press to lampoon political and economically powerful figures.

I do think if Fragony's feelings are hurt then the policeman er moderator will not abuse his position of power. He will do the right thing.

Err, if you write this to Fragony in a PM, I think he would understand, you could both laugh about it and go on with life.
If you write it in the Watchtower, new members and others, not knowing about your intimate Backroom-relationship, could easily think this is how we roll here.
Apart from that I think words like "fag", "cripple" and some others are derogatory, have a bad connotation and imply that one thinks lower of a certain group in society, their use may be okay if everybody involved knows it isn't so, but in the Watchtower you represent the moderators of this site to a lot of strangers.
Strangers who may take your post as an example and make loads of similar jokes and then wonder why they get infracted for them, partly because we don't know these strangers and don't get the context, partly because they got confused and went a bit too far beoyond the line, partly because obviously, some moderators have a different view on the use of the word and the meaning ranges very widely.

Since we're talking about context, in the context it was used, I doubt anyone could honestly think you meant he's a muslim cigarette. ~;)

Are you serious?

So we have had a thread about the use of WTF and MILF in which most of you think it should not be used.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...post2053215508

Now we discuss the use of the word fag, and it's all about context? WTF is more an expression of amazement, so it's all about context right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

Let's sum it up as follows: what on earth do you need such crude expressions of your feelings of bewildered amazement for when all you need to say is how sexually attractive you find a certain woman?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Better off without them.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Kind of what caravel said. On the org it doesn't make much of a difference because they just pop up once in a while, but on less restricted forums it is very noticeably unpleasant.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito

There's a time and place for such language. In front of someone elses youngster or a young lady is neither the time nor the place. Yes, those people can go just about anywhere on teh interweb or elsewhere and find that and much worse, so they don't need to read it here.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis IV the Fat

Two cents:


I'd prefer no use of 'wtf' and capitalised 'MILF'. They could conceivably be allowed, but with some reluctance.

Small case 'milf' is mostly acceptable - to me it's not an acronym, but a new word. Where 'milf' serves a literary purpose, it could be allowed.



Naturally, I myself would never use such dreadfully common language as 'milf'. I scoff at people who do, and heap scorn on posters whose lack of imagination forces them to resort to the shock value of vulgarities such as 'milfy' to get their point across.

---

You joke again, but I assume you were against WTF?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

If the F word is not allowed, concealed versions should not be allowed either.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

Well not exactly. First there's no particular use that you cannot easily express otherwise (it's not even moderately hard to do). Second it's not polite nor particularly appropriate. And third liberal use of mingled oaths, swearwords, curses, and other expletives quickly gets wearisome. Not unlike some of the animated GIFs or pictures of half naked women people seem fond of using in their forum avatars elsewhere; or for more direct analogy: whatever it is that comes out of the speakers when my brother plays his GTA 4 and failing any semblance of “dialogue”. And then Hooahguy is quite right: if you allow the f there, why not elsewhere and why not other less profane expressions?

Yes when done right a good curse, oath or other expletive can actually improve a bit of informal writing like a forum post. But mostly it tends to do the opposite.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Only 7 year olds use 'WTF' and 'MILF', and they are too young to have access to a 'Teen' rated website. Therefore for their protection, possibly look in temporary banning them for 6 years, till they meet the 'Teen' rating requirement.

Though, in the memorable words of Star Wolf "What the heck?".

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin

I would agree with keeping swear words and these acronyms off limits. Its nice to know that I can come to the .org and not have to read garbage all the time. Think of the .org as a fine dining establishment and other forums as the world's pubs and sports bars.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

I agree actually, the refreshing thing about the Org is the lack of swearing, along with the whole uniform style with the avatars. Removing those characteristics just makes the Org 'another forum'. The use of language greatly affects peoples opinions of the poster, and if all the posters experience a 'drop in standard', other users will also drop in their standard. You may get a few more members, especially those from a more immature crowd, you but you begin to lose what it is great with the Org.

Some one types: "wtf louis u milfy french frog eater", you instantly begin to characterise that poster as some one who has failed the educational system.

On the otherhand, when some one types: "I dare say, Louis VI the Fat, it appears you overexerted yourself on the mastication of fresh water amphibians." you would naturally have a higher opinion of the poster.

Rather extreme example, but the assumed quality of posting on the forum elicits similar responses. Imagine going to a upper class restaurant for a fine dining experience, you dress in a fine suit, you remember your manners, and you have an enjoyable cultured experience, this is the Org. Then there are other forums where you come across, which are akin to a ran-down pub with leaky smelling toilet, Bert at the bar is drunk, looks like he hasn't showered for 5 weeks and he scratches his nuts, it is definitely not the same experience.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuJuBee

Coarse language degenerates conversation in my opinion. The subject matter seems to suffer if curse words are used for adjectives and the like. I like the rigid swearing policy, avatar use, etc. that is employed here. It would be kind of funny if people were turned away from the .org because they couldn't swear in thier posts and get rep for semi naked avatar pictures and the like. But back on the topic of bad language, I vote no. Let us continue the trend of behaving like little gentlemen and little gentlewomen when interacting with one another. I for one won't complain.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord of Lent

I cannot agree more, Beskar. Warman recently posted a thread about elitism. There's no elitism here, but the Org. is most elite of all TW forums or any other forums that deal with the stuff we discuss here.
That's because of discussions that actually make sense, but also because people here use clean and civilised speech instead of WTF or MILF.

We do not want to lose our high standards, do we?

So, NO to all of them. Keep it clean, keep it nice.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frogbeastegg

On the matter of children and the org, there's two points:

How many here have younger children? How many of those people want their child to come visit when they're on the computer? Lots, I bet. Children show up frequently and often where you don't want them to; it's a defining feature. Most children begin to read at 5 years old.

Our youngest member was lisabeanie. She was 10 years old when she signed up an account to ask for help beating her Dad at TW. Naturally Dad was a member here too. She was quite active here for a time. There have been others a little older; it's rare but does happen.

Why would women be offended by the term MILF?
Better to ask, why wouldn't we?

It reduces a person into an object intended for another's gratification. The f-word has nothing but negative tones in a sexual context, especially when applied to women as it ties into that whole 'easy/slut/whore' thing and the whole 'I don't need to bother about them so long as I get my rocks off' thing.

Not comparable at all with calling someone a dick; that term is so mild it's practically a joke. There is no direct male comparison; culturally and historically men just do not have the same overtones applied to them in a sexual context. The double standard is alive and well.

I won't cry. I will think that whoever used it is a contemptible, crude idiot. Just as I think anyone who wants a f*** should go find themselves a blow up doll (or vibrator, if female) because that's the best they deserve for aiming so low. Huh, at least aim high enough to want sex. At least that has some ambition and mutuality to it, even if it's still a long away from making love. All the different labels exist for a reason; they all have different connotations.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis IV the Fat

Originally Posted by frogbeastegg
I will think that whoever used [milf] is a contemptible, crude idiot.
Well said. I couldn't agree more.

I say posters who describe women as 'milfy' are immature sex-starved attention seekers. In fact, I think it is perfectly obvious they aren't getting any and plEASE GOD ANYONE IF YOU'RE READING THIS I NEED A GIRLFRIEND I NEED ONE RIGHT NOW ANY WILL DO I CANT TAKE IT ANYMORE

---

You're quite the joker, still, you agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

Even if this is a forum for older folks, not using such language makes the .Org a nicer place to be, as others have said.
I fail to see why this is even an issue.

---

... I think you get it.:laugh4:

Of course I post my own post too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drunk Clown

This is exactly what I wanted to say. I've never heard/read MILF on this forum, and I think it's is totally out of place to use.

WTF on the other hand, I don't mind. What's wrong with it? It's a so much used expression that it has become normal. F--- is just a word; in WTF it isn't even related to sexual intercourse. I really don't get what's the hassle about the word f--- in that particular context. If you say c--- (this is an exeption thread, amirite?) for instance I get it, cos it's always pointed toward a person. But WTF is just as Brennus said, an expression of amazement or disbelief.

I don't think the will work. Everybody knows what you want to say, so why not just say so? Is it more harmful to have it written than interpret it like that?

The problem of the women and young children who would get exposed to this use of language is out of question. First of all children till the age of 12 (I think) wouldn't come here (then you won't be playing total war as it is probably too difficult). Unless you guys who are older, and have children let them read with you at this forum (highly unlikely). And children older than 9-10 already know the word f---.

Why would women be offended by the term MILF? It's not like they are going to cry when they read it. If a woman would call someone a d---; I won't feel disrespected cos I have a d---. It's not like they're weak and take everything personal.

My opinion is that this forum could loosen up a bit.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis IV the Fat

the alleged language one by frogbeastegg (for which you have yet to produce any source).

---

Well, Louis there it is. Just compare the words with frogbeastegg's post above.

It amazes me we are even talking about the use of the word "fag", if WTF isn't even allowed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Has anyone actually asked Fragony or are we bleeding on his behalf?

---

Is that relevant?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pape

=][=

Context is very important. It's the difference between ironic and slur, the difference between public fornication and home titulation, it's the difference between consent and rape, it's the difference between black humor and vicious sarcasm.

---

Yes, context is important. But slurs are never appropriate. Louis said what he said in jest. An edit and a 0-pointer would have been enough for a regular member. Nobody was asking for Louis' skin; in the end, it wasn't a big offense. But it was a violation of the rules.

I've said this in the other thread too: nobody ever died from admitting a mistake and correcting it. All of this nonsense is completely unnecessary. A simple "Oops, that might have been a bit too much; sorry about that." And a sponteanous edit. Instead, time and bandwith is being wasted on the absurd question whether "Fragony is a Muslim fag" is appropriate or not here at the .Org.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pape

Louis post had all the hallmarks of a Mel Brooks slapstick... Actually reminded me of the Roman court scene.

Not the most witty exchange but clearly satirical. Satire is protected in most advanced nations as a means of the press to lampoon political and economically powerful figures.

---

Yes, yes, a lot of funny stuff contains f-bombs and the bad word for poop. But this is the .Org, not "totalcomedy, only 18 year and older allowed". Around here, even a link to a video that contains bad language, needs to be spoilered and a warning for bad language has to be posted and even then, if it's really ugly, it's sometimes not ok.

Why would posting a slur all of the sudden be ok then? Or do we have to expect a drastic change of policy and change of the rules now all of the sudden?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cute Wolf

fag can refer to english sausage or cigarretes as well

---

Or a junior schoolboy.

Frinstance I'll bet BG has had a fag or two thrusted onto him from his old school.

@ Husar what is unacceptable about the word cripple? I know we live in pc times but this is just ridiculous.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

@ Husar what is unacceptable about the word cripple? I know we live in pc times but this is just ridiculous.

---

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.
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>.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

It doesn't say anything about "context" :shrug:

---

Yes it does. It says it has to be addressed at the individual or group. And it wasn't :book:

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drunk Clown

So we have had a thread about the use of WTF and MILF in which most of you think it should not be used.

Now we discuss the use of the word fag, and it's all about context? WTF is more an expression of amazement, so it's all about context right?

---

It pleases me to see that I am quite consistent in my views of potentially disruptive words:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI

Where 'milf' serves a literary purpose, it could be allowed.

---

:thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfylwyr

The context also shows that Louis was not malicious. He knew Fragony would not be offended.

---

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 Rhy

I think Louis did break the rules

---

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.

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.

---

Quote:

---

Same.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/image...c/gc-daisy.gif what the world thinks. It's time to move on.

---

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...f-nazi-germany


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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

I feel a poll coming up, here are the options:blahblahblah

---

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 ".

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!).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

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.

---

Not exactly...

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

has never been ok here for as long as I'm a member of this forum.

---

Hmmm...I'm getting the creepy suspicion this may be behind quite a bit of misunderstanding the past week.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phonicsmonkey

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.

---

These are good points.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

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.

---

No Louis, we haven't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catiline

No Louis, we haven't.

---

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')

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.

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')

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.

---

No Louis, No.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

No Louis, No.

---

:huh:

One need not look further than the very thread we're most closely focused on here. Here's the rundown of the posts not by me:
Strike is called a transgender.
Cutewolf is said to have a gender identity crisis.
Strike is called a slug.
Lemur is described as a homosexual with certain...'preferences'
There are risky picture of a naked bear
Cutewofl is described as 'ambiguous'
CuteWolf and Hax are said to resemble girls in real life pictures
Kralizec is called a leather gay bear

It is common daily Backroom practise to call each other all sorts of gender and orientation based 'slurs'. We have always allowed it. The question is whether we need to change that to take today's sensitivities into closer account.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

:huh:

One need not look further than the very thread we're most closely focused on here. Here's the rundown of the posts not by me:
Strike is called a transgender.
Cutewolf is said to have a gender identity crisis.
Strike is called a slug.
Lemur is described as a homosexual with certain...'preferences'
There are risky picture of a naked bear
Cutewofl is described as 'ambiguous'
CuteWolf and Hax are said to resemble girls in real life pictures
Kralizec is called a leather gay bear

It is common daily Backroom practise to call each other all sorts of gender and orientation based 'slurs'. We have always allowed it. The question is whether we need to change that to take today's sensitivities into closer account.

---

There's a difference between "... is a muslim fag" and "... is a leather gay bear".

A few quick thoughts.

1. What a terribly done poll. Can anyone possibly think it's a good start to a serious discussion, or that the leading poll choices allow for anything like an accurate reading of people's opinions?

2. Related to the above, why is using the word in the pejorative sense but only joking in the same category as using it as a slang term for cigarette? From the discussion that prompted this it's obvious that the criticism was focused on the former usage.

3. I imagine both Louis and Andres may be right about pass usage. That is, that the word used in a joking manner may not have been infracted by some backroom mods (either going unnoticed or not seeming severe enough to them) and that more generally the word has not been allowed here.

If I had been asked before all this came up I would likely have said "no way that could be allowed", and I think that's the way it should be. "I'm joking" is not an excuse for using the word in the pejorative sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

:huh:

One need not look further than the very thread we're most closely focused on here. Here's the rundown of the posts not by me:
Strike is called a transgender. Never seen this before, possible referencing to wearing a dress, either way, I don't see 'fag' being thrown around.
Strike is called a slug. Never seen this before.
Kralizec is called a leather gay bear Never seen this before.
Lemur is described as a homosexual with certain...'preferences' Lemur is a happily married man with kids, his homosexuality isn't real neither is being a homosexual a bad thing, but going around calling people fags as it is akin to using the n-word (in reference to darker skin) and not acceptable and in any context, where I have seen Lemur make possible homosexual references, he has always done so respectfully.
There are risky picture of a naked bear ???
Cutewolf is said to have a gender identity crisis. This may be a fact
Cutewofl is described as 'ambiguous' This is a fact, but being called 'ambiguous' is not the same as calling him a 'fag'.
CuteWolf and Hax are said to resemble girls in real life pictures They do, but still calling them 'fags' would be unacceptable and there is nothing wrong with their feminine choices.

---

Quote:

---

It is common daily Backroom practise to call each other all sorts of gender and orientation based 'slurs'. We have always allowed it. The question is whether we need to change that to take today's sensitivities into closer account.

---

Only 'gender related' or sexual orientation that occurs if either when Devastation Dave decides to post, or when you and Strike are flooding topics with your fantasy internet homoerotic relationship. Even then, you and Strike doing your fake homosexual relationship isn't the backroom patrons going around calling eachother 'fags'.

If I said the word 'fags' in the context you used it, I would expect a minimum of a 1 point infraction and nothing less. It is an utter embarrassment to the mod team that you are keeping up this charade. It is bad enough when the Moderators have to handle these sensitive issues without one of their own trolling them in the watchtower.

Also this prolonged charade is making it worse for you, everytime you try to worm out of it and instead of simply admittedly your error just frustrates people and starts turning that little molehill which was so easy simply to say "Sorry" into something far grander and more serious like questioning your ability as a moderator.

Beskar, I do not feel strongly either way. If people take offense, then they take offense and I shall refrain from such wording. There is no need for me to cause needless offense or disruption. :shrug:

It is all rather inconsequential. I think we differ mostly in a sense of emotional investment, urgency in this. It is just not a big deal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

It is all rather inconsequential. I think we differ mostly in a sense of emotional investment, urgency in this. It is just not a big deal.

---

Then stop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monk

Then stop.

---

I suppose I will. I think this thread reads very differently to many others than to me, and I obviously fail to convey a sense of relaxed, good-natured exploration of the subject. When people think this is about 'worming out' or 'charades', then something has gone horribly wrong in our communication.

I shall bow out and leave you all to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

I suppose I will. I think this thread reads very differently to many others than to me, and I obviously fail to convey a sense of relaxed, good-natured exploration of the subject. When people think this is about 'worming out' or 'charades', then something has gone horribly wrong in our communication.

I shall bow out and leave you all to it.

---

I apologise for the nature of my post, I was overly harsh.

But yes, there was a feeling that you was simply stringing along a 'charade' in attempt to trying to 'worm/weasel' out of the situation opposed to simply commenting that you meant it as a good-natured joke and apologise for the lapse in error.

We are all human Louis, even moderators, making mistakes is fine, but sometimes even though you feel really bad about how you didn't mean to intend it, sometimes just taking a step back and go "I only meant it in a good-natured jab, perhaps I should have worded it better, my apologises". That is all what people ever wanted, we have a good idea you meant it as a good-natured jab and we can easily forgive it, it was just the way you seemed to continue it as a 'charade' or a 'farse' which got underneath peoples skin, including my own. Similar to how another poster in another thread brought up about a highly inappropriate comment on 9/11 was "okay" as 'a joke' even at the very end, you came across as doing the exact same thing.

So I hope you forgive me for my harsh tone, I do like you as a poster/moderator, even voted you as "Best Member" in a few of those yearly polls. :bow:

It's farce.

Apt I s'pose

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

It's farce.

Apt I s'pose

---

It's just about manners.

Maketh man.

Louis has now successfully gotten his way out of apologizing. Be absurd, then claim miscommunication and "bow out". Well done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Louis has now successfully gotten his way out of apologizing. Be absurd, then claim miscommunication and "bow out". Well done.

---

Don't be vindictive or even deceitful.

I think you are easily aware that Louis is no longer even a moderator (for reasons unannounced, but the timing is well... 1+1), so he hasn't successfully "gotten out" of anything. If you are referring to my post where I apologised for being overly-aggressive, then you clearly misread it :shrug:. I only apologised for the tone of my post since I was pushing the boundary with it, I simply reworded that post and put forward what I already said in a different format, the idea being, I am being sympathetic towards Louis to show him that I am not simply "Out to get him", which I am not doing, and trying to explain to him how he is coming across so he has a better grasp and understanding of it.

I have known Louis for a long time, him saying an ill-taste joke isn't going to make me or anyone else hate him universally for it, people were more upset with the so called 'charade' resulting from it than the event itself. Wanting universal condemnation of Louis is ludicrous and defies any common sense of society in large that we live in (except of that found in trashy tabloid press and Fox News).

If you want me to defend Louis's ill-taste joke and his reaction to it being highlighted, then you are not going to get it, I don't agree with those actions and Louis didn't show the best side of his character. If you are simply calling for arbitrary and total condemnation of Louis, you will not get this either, because he has posted many good posts on this forum, even at a far greater ratio than your own contributions, so simply wanting "Louis = Scum" branded about will not occur and I will defend Louis myself from any such malignant attacks upon his character.

tl;dr version: Don't bother to troll.

I think the thread has run its course and the discussion seems to shift focus rather on the person athn on the issue.

Closed

:bow: