Detention Block AA-23 : The OT.com's Banned Members... — Page 42

Handman said:

Autistic people aren’t retarded, constantly linking the two together kind of bothers me. I know the intentions are well-meaning, but I can’t get over that.

I don’t think he’s trying to link the two. I just think he’s trying to go against the linking of those two by other people.

All I know is one of Frink’s responses during the incident was

TV’s Frink said:

pleasehello said:

DrDre said:

TV’s Frink said:

chyron8472 said:

TV’s Frink said:

Nandi said:

TV’s Frink said:

DrDre said:

at which point he suddenly becomes a retard.

Oh fuck off already.

Before I just disagreed with your opinion on a film. Now I think you’re an asshole too.

How do you keep avoiding moderator warnings with all fights you start

Go ask them, but maybe it’s partly because I don’t use “retard” as an insult?

I have to admit, that’s a pretty weak defense.

“Retard” as an insult is offensive, but “asshole” is not. Telling people to “fuck off” is not, as being belligerent is also not.
Umm… okay.

Your objection is noted.

Using “retard” as an insult makes you an asshole. Sorry.

I see. Calling someone dumb is also insulting. If I call Snoke a dumb character would that also be passing those high and mightly standards of yours? How about Snoke is ugly? Is that an insult, which makes me an asshole, or simply the truth?

I think insulting a fictional character is not really on the same level of dickery as insulting real people, but hey that’s me. Anyways, I will avoid the r-word with regards to fictional characters from now on, as it seems to be inflammatory to some.

Frink loves being outraged. Best to just ignore him.

How’s your autistic child doing these days? Mine sends her love.

in defense of his reaction to someone using that word.

Handman said:

yhwx said:

Handman said:

Autistic people aren’t retarded, constantly linking the two together kind of bothers me. I know the intentions are well-meaning, but I can’t get over that.

I don’t think he’s trying to link the two. I just think he’s trying to go against the linking of those two by other people.

Indeed, but most times it’s used here, they aren’t linking the two.

So if I use the n-word, not intending to link it to slavery, it’s fine?

yhwx said:

Handman said:

yhwx said:

Handman said:

Autistic people aren’t retarded, constantly linking the two together kind of bothers me. I know the intentions are well-meaning, but I can’t get over that.

I don’t think he’s trying to link the two. I just think he’s trying to go against the linking of those two by other people.

Indeed, but most times it’s used here, they aren’t linking the two.

So if I use the n-word, not intending to link it to slavery, it’s fine?

I hate that comparison. Not all derogatory words are equally derogatory.

R is not automatically equal to N on the scale of offensiveness.

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

Handman said:

yhwx said:

Handman said:

Autistic people aren’t retarded, constantly linking the two together kind of bothers me. I know the intentions are well-meaning, but I can’t get over that.

I don’t think he’s trying to link the two. I just think he’s trying to go against the linking of those two by other people.

Indeed, but most times it’s used here, they aren’t linking the two.

So if I use the n-word, not intending to link it to slavery, it’s fine?

I hate that comparison. Not all derogatory words are equally derogatory.

I wasn’t trying to rate the the badness of bad words (mostly a worthless endeavor); I was just trying to state that good intentions don’t change the way things are taken.

Handman said:

yhwx said:

Handman said:

yhwx said:

Handman said:

Autistic people aren’t retarded, constantly linking the two together kind of bothers me. I know the intentions are well-meaning, but I can’t get over that.

I don’t think he’s trying to link the two. I just think he’s trying to go against the linking of those two by other people.

Indeed, but most times it’s used here, they aren’t linking the two.

So if I use the n-word, not intending to link it to slavery, it’s fine?

That’s ridiculous. The two words are completely different.

They offend people in similar ways, right?

Ironically, people are taking the wrong point from my post, which is mostly my fault.

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

Handman said:

yhwx said:

Handman said:

Autistic people aren’t retarded, constantly linking the two together kind of bothers me. I know the intentions are well-meaning, but I can’t get over that.

I don’t think he’s trying to link the two. I just think he’s trying to go against the linking of those two by other people.

Indeed, but most times it’s used here, they aren’t linking the two.

So if I use the n-word, not intending to link it to slavery, it’s fine?

I hate that comparison. Not all derogatory words are equally derogatory.

I wasn’t trying to rate the the badness of bad words (mostly a worthless endeavor); I was just trying to state that good intentions don’t change the way things are taken.

That is true. One can not know how things might be taken and so one should endeavor to not say things that can be construed offensively.

At the same time, a person on the receiving end ought to endeavor to be mature, and not automatically assume that something that is said was intended offensively.

yhwx said:

Handman said:

yhwx said:

Handman said:

yhwx said:

Handman said:

Autistic people aren’t retarded, constantly linking the two together kind of bothers me. I know the intentions are well-meaning, but I can’t get over that.

I don’t think he’s trying to link the two. I just think he’s trying to go against the linking of those two by other people.

Indeed, but most times it’s used here, they aren’t linking the two.

So if I use the n-word, not intending to link it to slavery, it’s fine?

That’s ridiculous. The two words are completely different.

They offend people in similar ways, right?

Do they? In the context of the relevant incident, the person who said R was calling a TLJ character an R for not seeing something coming when he thought they should have, as an example of the film for not living up to their expectations. Afterward, he seemed to think calling a fictional character R was not as offensive as calling an actual person that.

Personally, I didn’t know that to say “that is retarded” about some annoyingly unfortunate event occurring is extremely offensive. Crass and moderately profane, yes, but not offensive.

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

Handman said:

yhwx said:

Handman said:

yhwx said:

Handman said:

Autistic people aren’t retarded, constantly linking the two together kind of bothers me. I know the intentions are well-meaning, but I can’t get over that.

I don’t think he’s trying to link the two. I just think he’s trying to go against the linking of those two by other people.

Indeed, but most times it’s used here, they aren’t linking the two.

So if I use the n-word, not intending to link it to slavery, it’s fine?

That’s ridiculous. The two words are completely different.

They offend people in similar ways, right?

Do they? In the context of the relevant incident, the person who said R was calling a TLJ character an R for not seeing something coming when he thought they should have, as an example of the film for not living up to their expectations. Afterward, he seemed to think calling a fictional character R was not as offensive as calling an actual person that.

A lot of the people using derogatory slurs probably don’t know how derogatory they are.

Personally, I didn’t know that to say “that is retarded” about some annoyingly unfortunate event occurring is extremely offensive.

But you still agree it’s offensive, though? The point I was trying to demonstrate with the post you quoted was to explain that trying to peg a level of offensiveness to derogatory words is a hopeless endeavor since derogatory words, by their definition, offered people, and that’s what we should be trying to avoid.

I suppose where I’m at with it is this: People saying things need to be mature and sensitive of others; and people hearing things need to be mature and not overreact.

The arguments people make about offensive conversation seem to gravitate toward one side or the other, when I think both are exactly equally important. On the one side people accuse the offended as “snowflakes”, and on the other side people accuse the offensive as racist, whatever-negative-stereotype.

I think the important thing is to be mature about things, whether speaking or listening in equal measure. And that doesn’t mean people have to watch everything they say, but that they can also diffuse a tense moment quickly and easily when it happens by being civil and mature.

A: "[unknowningly offensive word]"
B: "Please don’t use that word. It’s offensive to me."
A: “Oh. Okay, I’m sorry.”

Now, I admit that I myself have not backed down when barked at about something I said, and maybe that makes me a hypocrite. But usually when I don’t back down it’s because I feel the response toward me is an overreaction, and I have had personal experiences with being bullied so I feel some need to stand up for myself.

Aside from that one post, it’s been long overdue with all the public name-calling, harrassing, baiting, trolling, bullying, stirring and continous de-railing of threads for years.

DominicCobb said:

yhwx said:

I would like to direct attention to rule number seven.

Jay said:

7. Personal attacks and slurs based on race/ethnicity/religion/gender/sexual orientation/etc. aren’t tolerated under any circumstances.

While Frink’s posts may well have been an overreaction, couldn’t using the “r-word” be considered a slur based on mental ability? Or is it not considered so on this forum? Pretty much every dictionary agrees that it is an offensive and derogatory term, so why do we treat it differently as other slurs? Also notable is that this rule, according to the announcement, is punishable by an “immediate and permanent ban with no prior warning.”

---

On another note, I can understand where Frink is coming from, but having to respond, mentioning your children, to every post that contains that word is a bit excessive. The fairest punishment would have been to ban all involved.

I agree the word is a slur and ban worthy, though I think he got away with it because he wasn’t using it in reference to any posters here (which I think is absolutely ridiculous and irrelevant).

I agree, especially since the most noteworthy use of that rule—Haseo’s ban—referred to no forum member directly. I smell hypocrisy, or at the very least, an inconsistent application of the rules.

Although of course recent history proves that you can use the word in reference to other posters here and still not get banned, so maybe Jay just doesn’t care.

Unfortunate, that would be.

ChainsawAsh said:

yhwx said:

…inconsistent application of the rules.

Welcome to OT.com, we hope you enjoy your stay.

If they’re going to be inconsistent, at least just state it clearly and don’t direct your moderators to say that they are interested in fairness.

LexX said:

Aside from that one post, it’s been long overdue with all the public name-calling, harrassing, baiting, trolling, bullying, stirring and continous de-railing of threads for years.

I quite agree. Sometimes he can say things and not get banned and it baffles me.

towne32 said:

chyron8472 said:

I suppose where I’m at with it is this: People saying things need to be mature and sensitive of others; and people hearing things need to be mature and not overreact.

The arguments people make about offensive conversation seem to gravitate toward one side or the other, when I think both are exactly equally important. On the one side people accuse the offended as “snowflakes”, and on the other side people accuse the offensive as racist, whatever-negative-stereotype.

I think the important thing is to be mature about things, whether speaking or listening in equal measure. And that doesn’t mean people have to watch everything they say, but that they can also diffuse a tense moment quickly and easily when it happens by being civil and mature.

A: "[unknowningly offensive word]"
B: "Please don’t use that word. It’s offensive to me."
A: “Oh. Okay, I’m sorry.”

I’m guilty of over-reacting here as well. And, for me at least, it’s because for a long time, it was nearly impossible to get the moderation to do anything unless a post was really over the top vile (like the guy who posted 100 anime dicks). So things naturally escalated, and we would all just basically act like bigger and bigger (anime) dicks toward each other. Walking away was probably the right thing to do. But with little moderation in place, walking away might have felt more like just handing over the thread to people who are in the wrong. Frink may have felt that way at times, and I certainly think people have thought it when they’ve stood up to Frink at times when he hijacked threads.

I quite agree. If you’re here, you’re probably of the argumentative type, which means that it might be hard to let your arguments go. I’ve felt that many times before. You hold on to your arguments like children.

We have moderation now. And Jason seems to be quite responsive. We should be able to deal with inflammatory posters in a reasonable way like many other forums do, now. Maybe I’m wrong, and Frink’s behavior doesn’t stem from this. I just think that a lot of the tension and escalation that happens here is due to it, previously, being a bit ‘wild west’ and people defending themselves instead of being able to rely on moderation.

I think this has a bit of truth to it.

yhwx said:

towne32 said:

chyron8472 said:

I suppose where I’m at with it is this: People saying things need to be mature and sensitive of others; and people hearing things need to be mature and not overreact.

The arguments people make about offensive conversation seem to gravitate toward one side or the other, when I think both are exactly equally important. On the one side people accuse the offended as “snowflakes”, and on the other side people accuse the offensive as racist, whatever-negative-stereotype.

I think the important thing is to be mature about things, whether speaking or listening in equal measure. And that doesn’t mean people have to watch everything they say, but that they can also diffuse a tense moment quickly and easily when it happens by being civil and mature.

A: "[unknowningly offensive word]"
B: "Please don’t use that word. It’s offensive to me."
A: “Oh. Okay, I’m sorry.”

I’m guilty of over-reacting here as well. And, for me at least, it’s because for a long time, it was nearly impossible to get the moderation to do anything unless a post was really over the top vile (like the guy who posted 100 anime dicks). So things naturally escalated, and we would all just basically act like bigger and bigger (anime) dicks toward each other. Walking away was probably the right thing to do. But with little moderation in place, walking away might have felt more like just handing over the thread to people who are in the wrong. Frink may have felt that way at times, and I certainly think people have thought it when they’ve stood up to Frink at times when he hijacked threads.

I quite agree. If you’re here, you’re probably of the argumentative type, which means that it might be hard to let your arguments go. I’ve felt that many times before. You hold on to your arguments like children.

I’m just tired of that. Just tired. It doesn’t matter who posts their opinion about anything, there’s always someone whining about it and needing to have the last word. It’s become so tiresome that it’s better to just keep your opinions to yourself if you don’t want the bully squad on your ass.