Whether or not you think that there is a clear cultural answer to that question, we have to enforce the rules here and I don't think there should be a different set of rules for one person over another. If you personally attack someone, your post will be edited. If you're a repeat offender, you will be suspended. If Sly felt that MM had broken the rules enough to warrant a suspension, that's his decision and I support him, but I think we need to be more clear on what constitutes a regular, run-of-the-mill personal attack, or one that goes way over the line.
I think the mods should require proof that people who give out that much personal info on the board are actually who they say they are. I am not gonna say which female poster I am talking about but one of them past or present is just super hot to me and I for one demand proof that she is/was the real thing. This will make me happy and the mods will know how to moderate those insults because they know if the person is real. My idea of proof is this...nudes with a Blazer banner and my name written on them with a marker. These can be pm'd to the mods and I will scientifically examine them for further proof.
We will send you some of Sly's nudes so that you can prove he is in fact a man... that resembles a dog. For science.
No, there isn't. Because our life experience is not and will never be on the same level as a woman, a black man, or a homosexual. Context is key to responding properly to any situation. Ignoring these fundamental differences essentially strips the humanity from our response. We have the ability to reason and discern; context-based nuanced response is evidence of that ability.
From what I've seen, intent is the extra factor that goes into Sly's modding decisions. People insult Mags constantly for being rich, Asian, having a hot wife, etc. These insults contain vulgarities and racially insensitive words. But it's obvious to most that all parties are in on it and it's in good fun. MM called BF a whore to shut her down. Intent is obviously a difficult thing to weigh over internet communication. I think Sly does a good job at judging the intent of the many, many insults hurled on this board. His transparency after the fact makes these kinds of conversations possible.
I don't think moderating this forum will ever be black and white nor do I think it should be. If you boil it all down to a set of hard and fast rules you could just program a bot to moderate the forum. I think we as mods should take insults and problems on a case by case basis and use our best judgement as to what is the appropriate action to take. Using some kind of check list moderation policy wouldn't work.
Will that change if we keep acting that way? What if we start to act like everyone is really equal? Will straight white men pretend that it's true and when we get together still call women whores and people ******s and ***gots? See, I didn't even mean to add the world people as if women AREN'T people. I'm just programmed wrong dammit!!!!!
It just seems wrong to me, like it's culturally acceptable for a woman to slap a man, but it's unacceptable for a man to slap a woman. We teach our girls that it's okay to be violent towards men, but we teach our boys that it's unacceptable to be violent towards women. What is wrong with that picture? The rules should be the same for everyone. You insult someone, you are punished. If a woman slaps a man, that's assault. And for the record, Zags used personal information to try to hurt MM. Similarly, MM used personal information to try to hurt BF. He knows she's a woman, and he knows calling her a whore is going to hurt more than other insults, so in my opinion both instances are examples of using personal information to try to provoke and attack. The punishment should be the same.
MM knows full well that speech has consequences. I've told him racially-heated arguments in the OT section many times, he can say whatever word he wants but to assume there will be no social consequences is foolish.
To play devil's advocate what I've been saying for years is that when most people insult someone they choose the obvious thing. I believe that a lot of racial insults are just reactionary. I know there are millions of racists out there but it would be the same if some fat girl almost killed me with her car. I'd probably call her a blubbery ****. Or some variation. I don't have any ill will towards fat girls. Forgot the devil's advocate part. If someone is getting into an argument with someone and one person uses what we deem minor insults, and gets away with it.....if the other person gets pissed and uses one of what we deem is one of the bad ones.....what then?
Zags intent was no different than MM's. Use personal information to provoke and to hurt. So why was the punishment different? Because Sly perceived MM's attack to be worse, but why was it worse? Calling someone a whore is really no different than calling someone an asshole. Unless she is, in fact, a whore.... it should be no different than any other generic insult. On the other hand, poking fun at someone losing custody of children that they were taking care of is much more personal and hurtful. I guess that's just my opinion though.
To be honest, MM's been a problem poster for a while now. It's not this one incident that's all by itself enough to warrant the suspension. Think of it as the straw that broke the camel's back.
I'm not debating that there shouldn't be consequences. I'm debating whether the consequences should be the same.
Ladies and gentlemen, it seems we have a celebrity in our midst. I'd like to be the first to officially welcome Manti Te'o to S2! BNM
