What's new
By:

Dante is a complete wuss.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Just want to say...... I'm for less censorship, not more. I'm for less politically correctness, not more.


Good job jazzfanz I say
 
fishonjazz said:
Just want to say...... I'm for less censorship, not more. I'm for less politically correctness, not more.


Good job jazzfanz I say
Click to expand...

I'm the opposite. Using gay as an insult is very 1950s and it's one of those things that should be found only in history books. I say this as one who talks to Trout semi-regularly and finds him a stand-up guy otherwise.
 
I had no idea Xsy was gay. I should try to follow JFC's personal lives more closely.
 
I see it now that schools on forms just say parent 1 parent 2. I don't think this will ever become better when we have to always be sensitive to everyone but Christians. Those ones can be attack and it's ok. We can't be sensitive them.
 
We have to like Caitlin and say it is courage, but Christian just have to go hide while gay is everywhere. I like them all but don't like see reversal in presucution! Everyone need to respect EVERYONE!!!!
 
dalamon said:
I'm the opposite. Using gay as an insult is very 1950s and it's one of those things that should be found only in history books. I say this as one who talks to Trout semi-regularly and finds him a stand-up guy otherwise.
Click to expand...

So what is your solution? Infractions for every gay reference? What about posts that offend people (intended or not) on religion, nationality, race, spirituality, gender, financial or some other area? Is there a requisite number of people that need to be offended first? or just one? What is acceptable and what isn't? What about when the implied offense is BS and it's a personal vendetta (quite common on here)?
 
Stoked said:
So what is your solution? Infractions for every gay reference? What about posts that offend people (intended or not) on religion, nationality, race, spirituality, gender, financial or some other area? Is there a requisite number of people that need to be offended first? or just one? What is acceptable and what isn't? What about when the implied offense is BS and it's a personal vendetta (quite common on here)?
Click to expand...

Financial?
 
Stoked said:
Making fun of people based on financial/economic class. Rich/poor, or even offending them over their choices of investment.
Click to expand...

Offending them over choices of investment? Why are you including this with the traditional protections? I'm laughing so hard!

"You're a Muslim which makes you a terrorist"
"You're the kind of person who buys into a new issue of a close-end fund"
"HOW DARE YOU SIR!"
 
Stoked said:
So what is your solution?
Click to expand...

Oh, from a moderating perspective? That's pretty tough, honestly. That comment was moreso directed to Trout specifically-- he can do better than calling people 'fägs' or 'gay' IMO. He's a funny dude. Moderators can only go so far in imposing proper posting etiquette, and I'd say I'm fine with it for the most part.

Infractions for every gay reference? What about posts that offend people (intended or not) on religion, nationality, race, spirituality, gender, financial or some other area? Is there a requisite number of people that need to be offended first? or just one? What is acceptable and what isn't? What about when the implied offense is BS and it's a personal vendetta (quite common on here)?
Click to expand...

Infractions should be levied towards poster where it is clear that their posts seem attacking in nature. Beneath that, it is up to peer posters to call the poster out if their content is misogynistic (common), homophobic, or racist. Etc.
 
Siro said:
Offending them over choices of investment? Why are you including this with the traditional protections? I'm laughing so hard!

"You're a Muslim which makes you a terrorist"
"You're the kind of person who buys into a new issue of a close-end fund"
"HOW DARE YOU SIR!"
Click to expand...

But if that person is offended or feigns offense? Then what?

Either way you get the point that I am making.
 
Cunning Linguist said:
He never mentions XSY and he must call people gay in threads once a week when he's throwing shade so I'm not remotely sure he knows he's gay. He was simply flaming (no pun I swear) all those who were giving Rev a hard time, no just XSY.
Click to expand...

He was 100% talking about Xsy, as Xsy was the main person who got mad.

I don't even really care, just pointing out the obvious that he was referencing Xsy.
 
UGLI baby said:
He was 100% talking about Xsy, as Xsy was the main person who got mad.

I don't even really care, just pointing out the obvious that he was referencing Xsy.
Click to expand...

I think both arguments are plausible. It was not only XSY who got made. Cappy, Gregbroncs, Red Jazz Fan and others all blasted him.

Whether it was specific to XSY or not it was dumb.
 
Stoked said:
I think both arguments are plausible. It was not only XSY who got made. Cappy, Gregbroncs, Red Jazz Fan and others all blasted him.

Whether it was specific to XSY or not it was dumb.
Click to expand...
Anybody here ever been called a roast beef curtain before? I hope one day we can reach a stage of enlightenment where meat-based insults are not okay.
 
Stoked said:
So what is your solution? Infractions for every gay reference? What about posts that offend people (intended or not) on religion, nationality, race, spirituality, gender, financial or some other area? Is there a requisite number of people that need to be offended first? or just one? What is acceptable and what isn't? What about when the implied offense is BS and it's a personal vendetta (quite common on here)?
Click to expand...

There was a short period of time a few years ago when using gay as a slur was a warnable/infractable offense. I think that's completely appropriate.
 
dalamon said:
I'm the opposite. Using gay as an insult is very 1950s and it's one of those things that should be found only in history books. I say this as one who talks to Trout semi-regularly and finds him a stand-up guy otherwise.
Click to expand...

Definitely not from the 50's. Probably more like the 80's and 90's.

In the 50's (and probably thru the 60's as well) it was used more as a compliment, meaning something along the lines of "happy and carefree"
 
Stoked said:
I think both arguments are plausible. It was not only XSY who got made. Cappy, Gregbroncs, Red Jazz Fan and others all blasted him.

Whether it was specific to XSY or not it was dumb.
Click to expand...

Ya, gregbroncs is the Utes fan, Xsy is the gay guy.

This is really not complicated at all.
 
moevillini said:
Definitely not from the 50's. Probably more like the 80's and 90's.

In the 50's (and probably thru the 60's as well) it was used more as a compliment, meaning something along the lines of "happy and carefree"
Click to expand...

And you could go to jail for homosexuality in the 50s.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page
Back
Top