Thread: Rook and Hell Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024291
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
This (*) is just one remark too far even in hell - especially for an admin. Comments and action please
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
[QUOTE] Thinking that symbolically eating your dead-jew-on-a-stick cult leader somehow makes it OK to cause suffering is also pretty funny, I admit.
Formal complaint about you and your language arriving in the styx now. Racist and bigoted.
Posted by comet (# 10353) on
:
As per Hell rules, it's not too far. Feel free to call him to Hell for it, he wasn't posting officially.
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on
:
What comet said.
Posted by jerrytheorganist (# 4720) on
:
I hate to ask this, but how can you tell when he is posting officially as an admin or not since he doesn't use any designator to differentiate between admin posts and shipmate posts?
Posted by comet (# 10353) on
:
He will sign his posts as an Admin if he's being official, as we all do. if I post something ending with "Hellhost" you call me to Styx. if I don't, feel free to chew my ass out. same goes for all the staff around here. If RooK hasn't signed his post as Admin, he's fair game. give'em hell.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Racist and bigoted.
What's racist about it?
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
Well, I can't say anything official here.
Unofficially, though, let me admit that the delicious dead-jew-on-a-stick was actually shamelessly stolen from a now-inactive Admin. One that, in days of yore, made me look like a lolcat in a bonnet by comparison.
Your assumptions about how things should be on The Ship might be flawed.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
So it is okay to advocate killing Jews in the Hell forum and putting their bodies on sticks like popiscles?
{edit - crosspost}
The inactive admin advocated this, you don't and the reference was a tribute? That the referenced admin is inactive, well, sounds like a good idea.
[ 30. November 2012, 02:43: Message edited by: no prophet ]
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Formal complaint about you and your language arriving in the styx now. Racist and bigoted.
Given that I may have goaded RooK into typing what he did, I would like to answer your plaint.
Darn.
Did you know that a sense of humor can be a valuable thing?
Posted by Mullygrub (# 9113) on
:
quote:
no prophet: So it is okay to advocate killing Jews in the Hell forum and putting their bodies on sticks like popiscles?
RooK wasn't advocating killing Jews in general, no prophet. He was referring (crudely, yes), as I'm sure you're well aware, to a specific practice within Christendom.
[cross-posted with cross-posts galore]
[ 30. November 2012, 02:50: Message edited by: Mullygrub ]
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
So it is okay to advocate killing Jews in the Hell forum and putting their bodies on sticks like popiscles?
{edit - crosspost}
The inactive admin advocated this, you don't and the reference was a tribute? That the referenced admin is inactive, well, sounds like a good idea.
Is there some bonus in life for taking everything at face value?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Is there some bonus in life for taking everything at face value?
Requires less of that annoying "thinking" stuff?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
So it is okay to advocate killing Jews in the Hell forum and putting their bodies on sticks like popiscles?
If you actually think that was what Rook was referring to, then clearly this is NOT a Christian website because obvious references to weekly Christian practices are sailing right over the Shipmates' heads!
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
no prophet: BWA HA HA HA HA HA!
Good luck trying choke down that wildly-reaching inflammatory interpretation.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
So it is okay to advocate killing Jews in the Hell forum and putting their bodies on sticks like popiscles?
If you actually think that was what Rook was referring to, then clearly this is NOT a Christian website because obvious references to weekly Christian practices are sailing right over the Shipmates' heads!
What orfeo said, and where were you and ! the last 473 times RooK made this joke?
Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on
:
One person's joke is another's Commandment 1 violation.
Unfortunately- actually fortunately, I am in no position to throw stones.
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
Anyway, he wasn't advocating murder as such, just cannibalism. Or, rather, NOT advocating it. Duh.
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
.... made me look like a lolcat in a bonnet by comparison.
That's how I shall always think of you from now on.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Formal complaint about you and your language arriving in the styx now. Racist and bigoted.
Given that I may have goaded RooK into typing what he did, I would like to answer your plaint.
Darn.
Did you know that a sense of humor can be a valuable thing?
Yes it is - but it can also be wasted. I do not see any humour in the kind of comment I refer to.
There's no requirement for humour in this circumstance when the original comment is a 1st commandment violation. The fact that Rook has "Admin" by his name seemingly means he can do what he likes when others get called: that's a sense of humour failure in itself let alone the fact that he now admits to plagiarising filth and racism - why, the guy can't even do it for himself!
[ 30. November 2012, 07:24: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posted by comet (# 10353) on
:
I wouldn't have called a regular shipmate on that one either. Do you get what he was saying?
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
The fact that Rook has "Admin" by his name seemingly means he can do what he likes when others get called
Please provide some evidence for this and I assure you we will investigate it.
Spike
SoF Admin
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
Rook is engaged in trolling, as far as I can see.
quote:
Don't mind me; just rambling and laughing at the impressive display of religious "morals".
quote:
I'm amused by people bumbling around justifications primarily based on "just cause". Because it's revealing about how they probably came to many of their other beliefs.
Although I suppose that Marv's cobra dance of philosophy has caused much of the morality parade to blunder off a cliff. Still, it would be nice to hear even one hand-wringer to summon something like, "I believe that how we treat defenseless entities says something about us".
quote:
How others think they meet their own moral standards is what's funny. "The instruction manual is ambiguous!" is pure hilarity. Thinking that symbolically eating your dead-jew-on-a-stick cult leader somehow makes it OK to cause suffering is also pretty funny, I admit.
He is playing with us because he thinks it is funny. He likes to make deliberately offensive remarks and then stand back and laugh at the reaction.
He might be a wonderful site admin, I've no idea. But his posts tend towards trolling.
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
Would it be OK if he made fun of Buddhists?
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
Well it is a toughie, but it strikes me that there is an issue about engagement. Having a row in Hell and calling someone names is one thing. But making silly comments with no intention of engaging and only for the purpose of having a laugh is trolling, surely.
The former involves some kind of engagement with individuals and what they're saying. The latter is just a form of stirring for your own amusement.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Would it be OK if he made fun of Buddhists?
Moreover, would it be OK if he made fun of Buddha? Buddhists might be offended, but it was a Hell post, and it wouldn't have been a slight on Buddhism just as RooK's post wasn't a slight on Judaism or Jews; just a remark in bad taste about one guy, who was a Jew.
If bad taste was 10C violation that Zoophilia thread wouldn't have got beyond three posts.
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If bad taste was 10C violation that Zoophilia thread wouldn't have got beyond three posts.
Yes, but everyone else was attempting to engage, albeit on a subject we all found uncomfortable. RooK seems only interested in stirring.
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
If RooK wasn't engaging give him shit for it on the thread. Call him to Hell. Send him a pm expressing your dissatisfaction.
He was not posting as an admin. He simply cannot post without the admin thing showing up. RooK is always clear when he is posting in an official capacity. You know this to be true.
If not engaging is a 10C offense most of us should be banned.
Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Rook:
symbolically eating your dead-jew-on-a-stick cult leader
Umm, in what way, exactly, is this not a perfectly adequate interpretation of the Eucharist?
Jesus was a Jew, he died on a stick, and the Eucharist represents symbolically his body.
Rook's language might offend you, if you're the kind of person momma still tucks in at night, but then since when did you have a right to not be offended by stuff?
You don't like it? Scroll past.
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
quote:
Originally posted by Rook:
symbolically eating your dead-jew-on-a-stick cult leader
Umm, in what way, exactly, is this not a perfectly adequate interpretation of the Eucharist?
If that's all there is to it, why do many of us bother to repeat it week after week?
I find the phrase offensive, as offensive as I would find "shoving your prong up her pisshole" to be a description of the sex act.
Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
I find the phrase offensive, as offensive as I would find "shoving your prong up her pisshole" to be a description of the sex act.
But it is a reasonably accurate description, no? I probably wouldn't use it myself, particularly if I were attempting to engage in the activity it is attempting to describe, but still...
Do you believe you have a right not to be offended?
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
It's been a while since we had a ITTWACW
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
Humour or intent is both within the mind of the person posting and the person reading. It took two trials to find David Ahenakew not guilty of hate speech in Canada for hate speech about Jews. I suggest more care in what is posted that might attract such legal attention. We've seen care taken to limit possible exposure of the ship to legal action. I think you're damn close here, at least within Canadian law, and I would like to be certain before we simply laugh it all off. It appear anti-semitic to me. Regardless of the spin or sense of humour anyone suggests it intended. And no, I had never hear of this expression referring to crucifixion of Jesus before as a middle aged, well educated western Canadian.
There's more than just scrolling past. I think we should care what the wider community of casual readers might think and what they might want to do about it.
Judge finds Ahenakew not guilty in 2nd hate trial.
[ 30. November 2012, 12:22: Message edited by: no prophet ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Look, would people STOP reading this as some kind of attack on Jews?
I thought it was so obvious that it didn't need saying, but apparently it DOES need saying.
The Jew in question is Jesus. Okay? It is a reference to one, specific Jew, and it isn't actually Jews who have a particular attachment to the Jew in question. Seeing as how he founded an entire new religion that they don't agree with.
So call it offensive if you want, or vulgar. But accusations of anti-Semitism over a dig at Christianity are missing the point so spectacularly that it's breathtaking.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It is a reference to one, specific Jew, and it isn't actually Jews who have a particular attachment to the Jew in question. Seeing as how he founded an entire new religion that they don't agree with.
<theological pedant tangent. Because I can't help myself>
Those that formed the earliest attachment to Jesus were Jews. Gentile Christianity came later with Paul.
And he didn't found an entirely new religion. He had a specific take on his religion and a new-er religion was founded around that.
As for Rook's comments. He's was just being an insensitive dick. On purpose. Like wot Amanda B. Reckondwyth said.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
<theological pedant tangent. Because I can't help myself>
The pedantry and the inability are both duly noted.
My basic point still stands. A reference to a Jew is not automatically an indication that Jews are being targeted, and it says a great deal about the kind of mindset that has developed in the post-Holocaust era which makes the merest reference to anything of Jewish origin into a cause for some people to hit the panic button.
Never mind the debate about whether people have a right not to be offended. They certainly do not, in my book, have the right to not be offended by things that weren't even about the alleged ground of offence.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
My basic point still stands. A reference to a Jew is not automatically an indication that Jews are being targeted, and it says a great deal about the kind of mindset that has developed in the post-Holocaust era which makes the merest reference to anything of Jewish origin into a cause for some people to hit the panic button.
I personally saw the racism and bigotry as directed towards Christians, not Jews.
He was having a fun time taking the piss of the religious before that in the women bishops thread. That line was just the icing on the religious cake.
Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I thought it was so obvious that it didn't need saying, but apparently it DOES need saying.
You're assuming a minimum level of reading comprehension.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
[QUOTE] They certainly do not, in my book, have the right to not be offended by things that weren't even about the alleged ground of offence.
That's your book - others read from a different library like the good post moderns we are.
What, for Rook is truth dressed up as a so called tongue in cheek dig at Christianity, is, for others, offensive, racist and bigoted and they reserve the right to believe and/or respond in that manner.
Who knows? IRL Rook is probably kind to animals, actually likes his parents and goes to church every week? On line he comes across on occasion as someone who is a pseudo troll, delighting in the wind up not the debate. His responses are classically symptomatic of the bully.
[ 30. November 2012, 13:38: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
Are you suggesting RooK should not dig at Christianity because you can't take the heat or because Christianity can't take the heat?
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I thought it was so obvious that it didn't need saying, but apparently it DOES need saying.
You're assuming a minimum level of reading comprehension.
Exactly.
IMO, as a former believer, RooK's pokes at Christianity are refreshing. I lurked for some time before joining SoF, including while devotedly attending to assorted church duties and swallowing the Party Line whole.
Even then, I found RooK's pokes not only funny, but also educational and thought-provoking. It's useful to be reminded occasionally of just how ludicrous Christian mythology -- oh, excuse me, the Truth -- can appear to those outside the Fold.
If you're within that Fold, it's very valuable to know what you're up again when attempting to evangelize those from beyond the pale, where RooK has staked his personal tent.
Think of "jew-on-a-stick" as a teachable moment for yourself, and unravel that knot in your knickers.
[ 30. November 2012, 14:03: Message edited by: Porridge ]
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
Porridge is correct.
Just now and again I am maddened into actually saying how daft/arrogant/weird/intolerant etc a Christian viewpoint appears to me, from my preferred philosophy. I don't have Rook's turn for picturesque derision, so it probably escapes notice.
But really, you should see yourselves sometimes.
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
For fuck's sake, get over your selves. Do you want the return and enforcement of the old blasphemy laws? I realize that our precious new hate speech laws are just the blasphemy laws suited up for the secular humanist religion, but do you really want to go down the words-hurt road on the ship?
Besides, when RooK is in his best, bullying, dead-jew-on-a-stick form, that's when he's at his cuddliest.
Just learn to feel the love, dammit.
Posted by Jonah the Whale (# 1244) on
:
Personally I can't think of many other situations where taking the piss out of somebody for being tortured to death is considered funny. I don't see how the fact that it is Jesus being referenced makes it OK. I am really at a loss.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
I hear Hell exists for the purpose of expressing these feelings and then hugging it out with people who share them.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
'Slugging it out', shurely?
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
ExclamationMark: quote:
Who knows? IRL Rook is probably kind to animals...
I have a vague recollection that RooK once rushed a mouse to an emergency vet. The Denizens treasured that one. ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
I'm less interested in opinions of Rook than I am in the contents of the phrase and its interpretation. I happened to go to a university meeting this morning, with a particularly dim-witted group, much like me, all PhDs. The phrase had not occurred to any of them, and one of the group saw the possible humourous intent, no-one thought it amusing, and all thought that if would be the matter of a hearing if it came up in a university context. In some parts of the world, by particularly stupidly educated people it is immediately seem as anti-semitic. It is understood that the ship's choir doesn't care.
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
I find the phrase offensive.
But it is a reasonably accurate description, no?
Actually, no, it isn't.
1. He wasn't dead when he instituted the Eucharist.
2. He isn't dead now.
3. The phrase "dead Jew on a stick" is, in the most charitable interpretation possible, an oversimplification of the redemptive act.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Humour or intent is both within the mind of the person posting and the person reading.
Yes, we realise that some readers are going to be utterly stupid and unable to discern the meaning of anything more complex than "the cat sat on the mat". That's hardly our fault though.
quote:
It took two trials to find David Ahenakew not guilty of hate speech in Canada for hate speech about Jews.
If you can't tell the difference between someone calling Jews a "disease" and someone describing in a humorously precise way what the Eucharistic Feast is then that's hardly our fault either.
quote:
I suggest more care in what is posted that might attract such legal attention. We've seen care taken to limit possible exposure of the ship to legal action. I think you're damn close here, at least within Canadian law, and I would like to be certain before we simply laugh it all off.
FYI, we take threats of legal action against the Ship very seriously. Even when they're couched in terms of "I'd never dream of doing this, oh no, but wouldn't it be terrible if someone did..."
What was said is not against any Ship guideline, and it is not antisemitic by any reasonable definition of that term.
quote:
It appear anti-semitic to me.
Then you're wrong. Others have already explained very clearly why, and if you haven't got it yet I don't see why I should bother trying to explain again.
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
Styx Host Tiara On
The Styx is for the discussion of Ship’s business. Discussing whether or not such a remark is appropriate for a Crew Member posting on a board where pretty much anything goes along as it’s not illegal in a private capacity is within scope if you stretch a point. But such a discussion would work better as a Hell call.
As this is the Styx, please stick to discussing the behaviour, not the person. The 10 Commandments apply in the Styx and personal attacks are not permitted. If you want to make accusations of trolling or describe another poster as an “insensitive dick”, then Hell is a few boards down.
Styx Host Tiara Off
Tubbs
Styx Host
[ 30. November 2012, 15:32: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
In some parts of the world, by particularly stupidly educated people it is immediately seem as anti-semitic.
Your initial reaction was that RooK was "advocat[ing] killing Jews in the Hell forum and putting their bodies on sticks like popiscles". If that utterly inaccurate bastardisation of what was actually said is how you presented it to your university colleagues I'm sure they would find it antisemitic.
If, on the other hand, you gave them the actual comment in its actual context, then I'd have to agree that they're pretty damn stupid.
Posted by roybart (# 17357) on
:
The phrase reeks of surly adolescent sarcasm. It was jarring on a number of levels but mostly for that.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I personally saw the racism and bigotry as directed towards Christians, not Jews.
Yeah, but that would require Christians to be a race.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jonah the Whale:
Personally I can't think of many other situations where taking the piss out of somebody for being tortured to death is considered funny.
Again, it's not the person who was tortured that he's taking the piss out of.
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jonah the Whale:
Personally I can't think of many other situations where taking the piss out of somebody for being tortured to death is considered funny.
This thread?
Fly Safe Pyx_e
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on
:
And let it not be forgotten that the Ship has a history of making blasphemous, offensive, not-for-everyone's taste religious jokes, especially when legal action is threatened against those who make them.
Seriously, if the Mounties want to shut down the Ship for making offensive religious comments, they could skip that little bit of drollery and go straight to the whole chunk of the Ship—both forum and static pages—that explicitly exists to encourage the kind of speech that might be banned by po-faced pearl clutchers.
So, really, if you're looking for legal issues in that comment, it's just not your day, is it?
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by roybart:
The phrase reeks of surly adolescent sarcasm. It was jarring on a number of levels but mostly for that.
If "No crude undergraduate humo(u)r" was a guideline in Hell, we would lose half the content (to be left wiuth rants, pure and simple).
quote:
Originally posted by Jonah the Whale:
Personally I can't think of many other situations where taking the piss out of somebody for being tortured to death is considered funny.
Next time you are in Britain, look out for Frankie Boyle, a Scottish stand-up comedian. You'll love him. The Daily Mirror accused him of racism, he sued them for libel and took them for £50,000+.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
In some parts of the world, by particularly stupidly educated people it is immediately seem as anti-semitic.
Your initial reaction was that RooK was "advocat[ing] killing Jews in the Hell forum and putting their bodies on sticks like popiscles". If that utterly inaccurate bastardisation of what was actually said is how you presented it to your university colleagues I'm sure they would find it antisemitic.
If, on the other hand, you gave them the actual comment in its actual context, then I'd have to agree that they're pretty damn stupid.
There's not much further I can say. But I will correct your interpretation. It is not correct, the specific interpretation you note was my first thought. To this group, I presented the phrase without any manipulation of context, unlike what I'm reading here where the context and intended interpretation are all provided. I said, "what do you think of the phrase "dead jew on a stick" on an internet forum" to the group and let them have a look at it on my portable computer. Whatever.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
I find the phrase offensive.
But it is a reasonably accurate description, no?
Actually, no, it isn't.
1. He wasn't dead when he instituted the Eucharist.
2. He isn't dead now.
3. The phrase "dead Jew on a stick" is, in the most charitable interpretation possible, an oversimplification of the redemptive act.
I'm gonna admit, when I first saw RooK throw down this phrase, 305 potshots ago, I was stung. I thought it a cruel piss-taking of a sacred image I hold dear. Really.
The thing is, this is a satire site. I really do believe in the power of satire. Satire very often takes bloody aim at the dominant culture.(and Christians are still very much dominant in Western society.) It stings when I see Jesus talked about that way, but then, Christian spokespeople with a much wider platform have been calling people of other religions-- even subtle varieties of their own religion-- followers of Satan for centuries.
And then I realize Jesus has been called every name in the book for 2000 years, and I settle down.
And I remember the freedom-waving things I said about censorship of cartoonists during the whole Mohammed cartoon debate. If I am going to preach freedom of expression, I have to suck it up when it's my turn to be expressed on.
The times I have seen RooK throw the phrase down are when there seems to be a moral consensus that needs examining. In other words, "Give me a more involved response than 'I am a Christian, therefore such-and such is wrong' "
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
It's a weird outworking of Cresswell's Law - that a Bible verse isn't the end of a discussion, it's the start of one. If you're arguing with both Christians and non-Christian's - which you will be on this site - you need something more than Biblical teaching, authority and because "I'm a Christian" to support your point. Because if the other person doesn't buy into those ideas, your argument collapses as there's nothing to support it. Be able to offer a reason for the hope we have.
Tubbs
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
The thing is, this is a satire site. I really do believe in the power of satire. Satire very often takes bloody aim at the dominant culture.(and Christians are still very much dominant in Western society.) It stings when I see Jesus talked about that way, but then, Christian spokespeople with a much wider platform have been calling people of other religions-- even subtle varieties of their own religion-- followers of Satan for centuries.
Yes, but it was a particularly crude satire, even for the Ship. And nothing can excuse the name-calling (and worse) that has ensued through the centuries by those who claim to believe in God against others who also claim that belief.
Which I suppose was Rook's point to begin with.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
The purpose of the phrase wasn't to accurately portray the Eucharist or to invite discussion, it was to mock and shock. As such, it was trolling.
Does the ship have a ban on trolling? Not officially, I don't think.
As offensiveness levels go, big effing deal. Christ is made of stern enough stuff that He's not going to crumple because some atheist web admin makes a crude reference to his crucifixion.
Unless the trolling aspect is going to be acted on, this whole thing seems a cyclone in a coffee mug.
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
Seriously, if the Mounties want to shut down the Ship for making offensive religious comments, they could skip that little bit of drollery and go straight to the whole chunk of the Ship—both forum and static pages—that explicitly exists to encourage the kind of speech that might be banned by po-faced pearl clutchers.
You're not seriously referring to just that one thread, are you?
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
Seriously, if the Mounties want to shut down the Ship for making offensive religious comments, they could skip that little bit of drollery and go straight to the whole chunk of the Ship—both forum and static pages—that explicitly exists to encourage the kind of speech that might be banned by po-faced pearl clutchers.
You're not seriously referring to just that one thread, are you?
No, I'm referring to the rest of the Laugh Judgment project that was a part of.
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on
:
So if I follow your link, how am I supposed to know that?
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
So if I follow your link, how am I supposed to know that?
Let your eye drift up ever so slightly, see the parent link? You know, the way one skips about when using Windows file manager (as it used to be in My Day).
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on
:
Er... no. I was referred to a specific thread. Which was essentially irrelevant.
Yes, I can go to the higher forum, but that isn't what I was referred to...
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
Er... no. I was referred to a specific thread. Which was essentially irrelevant.
Yes, I can go to the higher forum, but that isn't what I was referred to...
The thread referred to is a discussion of religious hatred, which IS in fact relevant to those who object to RooK's satirization of Christian symbology.
ISTM what we've got here is exactly the same sort of kerfluffle people get into when somebody somewhere takes a national flag, cuts it up, and turns it into a pair of surfer shorts.
Of the folks whose national flag it is, some will think that's satire, some will ascribe some revolutionary message to the act, some will find it deeply offensive, some will call for punishment (of the cutter, seamstress, or wearer, or all three), and some will merely shrug.
At the end of the day, though, a flag is just a piece of cloth. Until or unless somebody starts over-reacting, no real harm is done. Chill.
All we're doing here is revealing our various reactions to what RooK has (NOT for the first time by any means) run up a flagpole.
In aid of what, for pity's sake? RooK is Rook. He doesn't claim to be Christian. He's as entitled to his views as anyone else on board. What on earth do the Offendarati want of him? Conversion?
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
What on earth do the Offendarati want of him? Conversion?
Respect.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
In some parts of the world, by particularly stupidly educated people it is immediately seem as anti-semitic.
Your initial reaction was that RooK was "advocat[ing] killing Jews in the Hell forum and putting their bodies on sticks like popiscles". If that utterly inaccurate bastardisation of what was actually said is how you presented it to your university colleagues I'm sure they would find it antisemitic.
If, on the other hand, you gave them the actual comment in its actual context, then I'd have to agree that they're pretty damn stupid.
There's not much further I can say. But I will correct your interpretation. It is not correct, the specific interpretation you note was my first thought. To this group, I presented the phrase without any manipulation of context, unlike what I'm reading here where the context and intended interpretation are all provided. I said, "what do you think of the phrase "dead jew on a stick" on an internet forum" to the group and let them have a look at it on my portable computer. Whatever.
MANIPULATION of context, eh?
As in, let people read it IN THE CONTEXT IN WHICH IT WAS SAID?
Yes. It's not anyone here who was manipulating the context. It was you, by completely removing the context that made it utterly clear we weren't talking about dead Jews in general, but a very specific one.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
So if I follow your link, how am I supposed to know that?
Context.
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
What on earth do the Offendarati want of him? Conversion?
Respect.
Now that's a perfectly reasonable request. Precisely how did RooK fail to respect you (as you appear to be claiming Offerandati status here)?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
What on earth do the Offendarati want of him? Conversion?
Respect.
In the Hell board?
In all seriousness, speaking personally I can't see a lot of room for requiring respect in Hell. Half of the point of it is to provide room for people to say, either to the world in a rant or to each other in a Hell call, that there's no respect.
The very reason for it is to let fly and say things that couldn't be said in polite conversation.
Are there limits? Yes. But they're pretty much restricted to a small number of accusations that are beyond the pale. And the only accusations made by Rook consist of suggesting that there are some very weird or foolish elements to Christian ritual.
Which frankly, there are. Almost two thousands years ago, non-Christians were puzzled by Christian references to the body and the blood. Many of them thought, from the little they'd heard, that Christians were actually eating someone's body and blood. So there's not even anything particularly new about Rook's angle on this.
I certainly didn't, in my role of Hellhost, do Rook any special favours when reading that post. I didn't wave it through because of who he is. I took no action against it because there was no reason to take action against it. I didn't pull him up for disrespecting anyone, because there's no requirement in Hell to be respectful. I didn't pull him up for offending anyone because one of the things you do when someone offends them is call them to Hell.
So he was already in the right place if someone wanted to have a go at him or express their outrage. He wasn't posting in an official capacity, so there wasn't a Styx topic in that respect. The only possible Styx topic is the non-decision of the Hellhosts to take action against Rook, and for my part I am confident in my non-decision.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
... The only possible Styx topic is the non-decision of the Hellhosts to take action against Rook, and for my part I am confident in my non-decision.
I was probably (thanks to time zones) the first Hellhost to see the post and the last to think there was any reason to pull Rook up for it. I did think "RooK's gonna upset a few people with that" but also that Hell is here for contain material that upsets and offends. Jesus can see what our Hell is for and if He was disrespected by it then I believe He is big enough and strong enough to look after it for Himself, His father and the Holy Spirit.
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
[chorus]We are offended.[/chorus]
We see, but here are some good reasons why what RooK typed should be allowed.
[chorus]But, we are offended because what RooK said was offensive and an insult to our beliefs.[/chorus]
It was offensive. And it is still not a violation of the rules.
[chorus]It must be racist.[/chorus]
Racist? Really? How, exactly?
[chorus] silence [/chorus]
[chorus]Well, and you only let him get away with it because he is an admin on this site.[/chorus]
Here we are back to demonstrate how it is a violation of the 10C's.
[chorus]Well, you just not ought to be able to say things like that.[/chorus]
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I personally saw the racism and bigotry as directed towards Christians, not Jews.
Yeah, but that would require Christians to be a race.
Groupism then, not racism. It's a negative ism.
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
[chorus]We are offended.[/chorus]
We see, but here are some good reasons why what RooK typed should be allowed.
[chorus]But, we are offended because what RooK said was offensive and an insult to our beliefs.[/chorus]
It was offensive. And it is still not a violation of the rules.
[chorus]It must be racist.[/chorus]
Racist? Really? How, exactly?
[chorus] silence [/chorus]
[chorus]Well, and you only let him get away with it because he is an admin on this site.[/chorus]
Here we are back to demonstrate how it is a violation of the 10C's.
[chorus]Well, you just not ought to be able to say things like that.[/chorus]
Nice try Tortuf. But it falls easily under a commandment 1 violation.
quote:
1. Don't be a jerk
Lively, intelligent discussion is what we're about. Jerkish behavior includes (but is not limited to): racism, sexism and all the other negative -isms, trolling and flame-baiting.
But jerkishness is often in the eye of the beholder.
[ 01. December 2012, 01:28: Message edited by: Evensong ]
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
Evensong,
We will have to agree to disagree. The threshold for jerkish behavior that violates 1C is, by the nature of the board, higher in Hell than anywhere else.
As much as anything, RooK was riffing on the theme I raised of the incongruity of claiming Christian values forbid cruelty to animals while allowing us to eat animals. As you know, animals generally have to be dead to be eaten. At least they end up that way.
I raised it as we Christians cannot be vegetarians because we eat Jesus on Sundays. RooK took several steps beyond that.
The point remains that the practice of eating the body of Jesus sounds more than a bit odd unless you are raised to it as a norm. I say this as a practicing Christian who has special moments every time I take communion.
If Christianity cannot take critical examination delivered with a heavy dose of dark humor Christianity is not much of a religion now is it.
In Hell, I could direct terribly personal insults towards you. This you should well know as you have been the target of a lot of those insults. And yet, you keep coming back time after time to participate and give us the benefit of your thoughts.
Do you think Jesus is less capable of surviving jabs?
Do you think your faith is rocked by Rook's questioning?
In a Sunday School class I taught someone in the class made fun of another faith. I asked them to imagine a faith that said God Almighty, creator of everything that ever was or ever will be, decided to send his child as a message to all the world of how people were to believe. I then asked them to ponder the wisdom of that god sending a kid with that message to the ass end of the earth at a time when written communication was almost non existent and radio and TV were not going to be around for over a thousand years, but requiring everyone to believe in the kid or go to hell.
I made the class think with that attack at the logic of our core beliefs.
Did RooK make you think, even a little, about your core beliefs with his comment? If not, why not? Have you, for instance, spent all your time being offended and mad at Rook instead of asking yourself any questions?
Is Rook's question so hard to answer that you would rather not answer the question, but divert yourself by criticizing RooK instead?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I personally saw the racism and bigotry as directed towards Christians, not Jews.
Yeah, but that would require Christians to be a race.
Groupism then, not racism. It's a negative ism.
Congratulations. You've just succeeded in turning ANYTHING negative that is ever said about ANYONE into an ism.
Don't like politicians? Politicianism. Something to say about the way the media behaves? Pressism (as 'journalism' is already taken). Professional cyclists? Cyclism, or something.
Whacking 'ism' onto the end of words means pretty well nothing unless you've got some kind of agreed recogniition that there's a problem with ascribing a characteristic to the whole group, because the group membership is irrelevant. That's what sexism and racism are about. They're about not judging all members of a sex or a race at once with some characteristic that isn't actually universal to that sex or that race.
Now, let's see. Communion on Sundays. Which group is that ACTUALLY a characteristic of?
In other words, even if 'groupism' was a thing, and Christians were a 'group', is it actually 'groupism' to comment on a specifically Christian behaviour in negative terms? No. It isn't.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
Evensong,
The 10C's, like scripture, have to be taken as a whole. Please take note of C5, which states "Don't easily offend, don't be easily offended".
It is the first clause that is relaxed in Hell, not the second. If one is easily offended, then staying out of the kitchen that is Hell may be a good idea, because on my watch, Hell May Offend.
[ 01. December 2012, 02:13: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Question: why is nobody seriously considering the idea of calling RooK to Hell?
Question sub-heading: Since when did he start shitting pure gold? Call the [Hellish language removed] to Hell!
I have half a mind to do it myself, if only to set a good example, but I literally only have half a mind tonight due to upper respiratory struggles, and therefore am too weak and infirm to put up with his nonsense. Also, I'm not all that offended.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Question: why is nobody seriously considering the idea of calling RooK to Hell?
Because
Posted by roybart (# 17357) on
:
quote:
If "No crude undergraduate humo(u)r" was a guideline in Hell, we would lose half the content (to be left with rants, pure and simple).
As a fascinated (mesmerized?) Apprentice, trying to keep up with the rants about rants about rants, I have come to a very similar conclusion. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by comet (# 10353) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
[QUOTE]
If "No crude undergraduate humo(u)r" was a guideline in Hell, we would lose half the content (to be left wiuth rants...
half? You pretty little optimist, you.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I personally saw the racism and bigotry as directed towards Christians, not Jews.
Yeah, but that would require Christians to be a race.
Groupism then, not racism. It's a negative ism.
Congratulations. You've just succeeded in turning ANYTHING negative that is ever said about ANYONE into an ism.
...
Now, let's see. Communion on Sundays. Which group is that ACTUALLY a characteristic of?
In other words, even if 'groupism' was a thing, and Christians were a 'group', is it actually 'groupism' to comment on a specifically Christian behaviour in negative terms? No. It isn't.
I would suggest that the "dead-jew-on-a-stick" comment only works as potentially offensive to those Christians who believe Communion is in some real sense eating flesh and drinking blood. Many of us eat bread and drink wine (or juice) without any sense of ritualised cannibalism, simply following the instruction of our Lord to "do this in remembrance of me". So, if there is any 'ism' to be applied it might be sectarianism.
Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on
:
I was thinking communism but I guess that's taken.
I think the offensiveness or shock value of the statement is the dismissive way in which Christ is referred. For many, a personal relationship with Christ is as, if not more important than any other friend or family relationship. It would be like trivialising the death if a loved one to cancer or other illness. And I think that is where the question of respect comes in as well. You pick and choose when you joke about the death of a loved one. Faith for many is more than an academic exercise- there is a profound emotional attachment and there is a significant disconnect when that is not recognised.
And living in a household currently obsessed with making cake pops..., well Ken Writez would be proud.
[ 01. December 2012, 08:02: Message edited by: Patdys ]
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on
:
I had to look up cake pops. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
After 7 years of hearing Rook drag out his "dead Jew on a stick" and cannibalism, I just shrug. There's more things in the world for Christians to get upset about.
Yet the Eucharist is central to my devotion. I just recognise that not every one agrees with me.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
I had to look up cake pops.
1. After 7 years of hearing Rook drag out his "dead Jew on a stick" and cannibalism, I just shrug. There's more things in the world for Christians to get upset about.
2. Yet the Eucharist is central to my devotion. I just recognise that not every one agrees with me.
1. After 7 years of the same old stuff, no one bats an eyelid? ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
It's a bit along the lines of "if you repeat a lie long enough, everyone will believe you."
2. Of course they don't all agree with you or me. But, by virtue of that statement, you recognise that some will find Rook's statements satirical, some will find them funny and soem will be very offended by them.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Whacking 'ism' onto the end of words means pretty well nothing unless you've got some kind of agreed recogniition that there's a problem with ascribing a characteristic to the whole group, because the group membership is irrelevant. That's what sexism and racism are about. They're about not judging all members of a sex or a race at once with some characteristic that isn't actually universal to that sex or that race.
Anti-religionism then. New term. I'm thinking the Oxford Dictionary should adopt it.
Militant atheists and antagonistic agnostics abound on this when attacking us religionists. They paint us all with the same brush.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
In other words, even if 'groupism' was a thing, and Christians were a 'group', is it actually 'groupism' to comment on a specifically Christian behaviour in negative terms? No. It isn't.
It is if you do it often enough.
In terms of Anti-religionism, see here from the Flipping Synod thread:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Heavens! It's almost as if organized religion is a backwards-clinging bastion of stupidity and blithe offensiveness.
Of course, it's not quite as much of a joke as thinking you need a parasitic organization in order to figure out how to be good people that support each other.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Don't forget sniping about how organized religion is intrinsically shitty! I like that part.
or the Zoophilia thread:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Don't mind me; just rambling and laughing at the impressive display of religious "morals".
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
< I'm inwardly cringing that I'm writing this , while not having the guts to call Rook to hell......weak coward that I am.....but hey....I've been banned before....and it was like being cast into outer darkness..... ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I really do love this Ship.....I can usually easily put up with The Holy One of Israel™. These last few jibes just hit rather hard... >
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
I'm rather annoyed that the boss-man gets away with being offensive to many people here simply because he's very acerbic and good with words.
I'm not offended by the remark personally, but can easily see why others would be. It's pretty jerkish to deliberately wind folk up imo.
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
But, by virtue of that statement, you recognise that some will find Rook's statements satirical, some will find them funny and soem will be very offended by them.
Yes. You have made your point. And made your point. And made your point.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
So being made to think by satire is unacceptable?
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
In a Sunday School class I taught someone in the class made fun of another faith. I asked them to imagine a faith that said God Almighty, creator of everything that ever was or ever will be, decided to send his child as a message to all the world of how people were to believe. I then asked them to ponder the wisdom of that god sending a kid with that message to the ass end of the earth at a time when written communication was almost non existent and radio and TV were not going to be around for over a thousand years, but requiring everyone to believe in the kid or go to hell.
I made the class think with that attack at the logic of our core beliefs.
Did RooK make you think, even a little, about your core beliefs with his comment? If not, why not? Have you, for instance, spent all your time being offended and mad at Rook instead of asking yourself any questions?
Is Rook's question so hard to answer that you would rather not answer the question, but divert yourself by criticizing RooK instead?
This.
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
I had to look up cake pops.
1. After 7 years of hearing Rook drag out his "dead Jew on a stick" and cannibalism, I just shrug. There's more things in the world for Christians to get upset about.
2. Yet the Eucharist is central to my devotion. I just recognise that not every one agrees with me.
1. After 7 years of the same old stuff, no one bats an eyelid? It's a bit along the lines of "if you repeat a lie long enough, everyone will believe you."
*Sigh:* Italics mine.
1. Please note: several people have, in fact, batted eyelids – you among them. Hence this thread. Hence also the perfectly valid grounds (so far rejected) to call RooK to Hell. Or is your real beef here the fact that you’d like PeteC and the rest of us to join you in being offended, but we’re sitting that dance out?
One of the Ship’s great strengths is this: No Shibboleths.
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
2. Of course they don't all agree with you or me. But, by virtue of that statement, you recognise that some will find Rook's statements satirical, some will find them funny and soem will be very offended by them. [/QB]
Take a look around the Boards. There are causes, legitimate or not, for offense scattered hither and yon everywhere. Posters are free to take offense (but not easily); posters are free to give offense (but not easily).
Yes, some people will at times be extremely offended by something someone else has posted.
So?
Has RooK burned down a string of churches? Tied a Christian to a stake and set hungry lions loose upon him? Advocated for passing a law that will disestablish whatever branch of the church you belong to? Secretly kidnapped and tortured little kids with the gall to take their First Communion?
Has he harmed you? Get a grip. This is an Internet forum in cyberspace. You’re offended; I think we all get that. I think we all also get that the right not to be offended does not exist.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Posters are free to take offense (but not easily); posters are free to give offense (but not easily).
This - RooK has given offense very easily with this comment, and for no good reason.
If he were not top-Admin man he would have been taken to Hell immediately. He would have given and been given as much as he got. All would have been well.
It's his ship position which is the problem here. Not one which can be resolved imo. Best just to suck it up.
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
Take his ass to Hell.
Go ahead.
Erin got called to Hell on a semi regular basis. The idea that an admin cannot be called to Hell is utter bullshit.
You just don't want to call RooK to Hell because you know he would eviscerate you. Not because he is an admin.
Posted by The Rhythm Methodist (# 17064) on
:
I'm just wondering if there isn't a little inconsistency here. Ender's Shadow was (rightly) hauled over the coals, having repeatedly compared homosexuals to paedos (perhaps more an illustration of the strength of his disgust, than an attempt to demonstrate a meaningful connection).
Brackenrigg was given an early bath because the words "female priests/bishops" stuck in his craw, and couldn't make it to his keyboard. Both of these guys were deemed to be offensive, although (in mitigation) there may be some doubt that either of them were deliberately so - in view of their strongly held beliefs.
RooK used that tired "God on a stick" imagery, which - as far as I'm aware - is only ever employed by those who wish to cause offence to Christians. And no - not just those who believe in transubstantiation. Nor does it represent an encouragement to reconsider "Christian
mythology" - as someone who frequently challenges pseudo-scientific mythology, I never start by insulting the other person's beliefs.
It may, of course, have been an ill-judged attempt at humour (I certainly don't think that RooK is a full-time troll, which I would roughly define as a sociopath who lacks the skills to invent a computer virus). But a very unfortunate comment nonetheless. As for it being said in Hell, one may ponder the relative offensiveness of that remark, and of Brackenrigg's "bishopesses", which appeared on the same board. I know which I find more distasteful.
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
Rhythm Methodist's remarks give pause for thought.
It occurs to me to wonder about offendedness. TBH, I can’t recall a specific instance of being offended (though I have certainly been offended on occasion). I have clients who frequently say things to me (and to others) which are clearly intended to be offensive, but which roll off my back. Here’s why:
I simply don’t recognize any truth in the “offensive” comment: “You stupid dummy!” doesn’t affect me; I’m confident that stupidity is not one of my many failings. “You don’t care what happens to me!” is similarly ineffective in offending me because I do care (although I am also reasonably careful to care within the boundaries of my legally-constituted responsibilities, which can certainly read as “not caring” to someone on the receiving end of same). Clients have needs I neither want nor am allowed to meet.
In other cases, while there may be at least some truth in the “offensive” comment (e.g., “You’re fat and ugly!”), the relationship is such that I feel no need to take such remarks personally. The anorectic client’s standards for “fat” are different from mine, and what she has to say of me on the topic simply doesn’t penetrate, whether or not I have put on an extra few pounds recently. The male “ladies’ man” client who deems me “ugly” is someone whose attraction is something I don’t want anyway.
Of the poorly-remembered instances in which I’ve truly been offended, what I recall most powerfully is the zinging, accurate-to-a-hair’s-breadth accuracy of the “offensive” observation. In the moment of hearing the accusation(s), whatever they were, I understood them as fundamentally truthful in the context of the relationship between myself and the accuser.
The offense, in other words, confronted me with a powerfully uncomfortable-yet-accurate perception – one I’d prefer to reject, yet in all honesty am not quite abe to.
[ 01. December 2012, 14:06: Message edited by: Porridge ]
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
posted by Methodist:
quote:
I'm just wondering if there isn't a little inconsistency here. Ender's Shadow was (rightly) hauled over the coals, having repeatedly compared homosexuals to paedos
Yes, that happened in hell, where there is now a hell thread for you all to feign offence on if you wish on this particular topic.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Take his ass to Hell.
Go ahead.
Erin got called to Hell on a semi regular basis. The idea that an admin cannot be called to Hell is utter bullshit.
You just don't want to call RooK to Hell because you know he would eviscerate you. Not because he is an admin.
Not 'cannot' but 'will not' be called to Hell.
And of course he would eviscerate me - I am useless with words.
But I won't call him to Hell because I am not personally offended by his words. That doesn't mean his words were no jerkish.
But I suspect others are not doing so because he's top-Admin and wouldn't be warned in public anyway. I may be wrong, but I doubt it.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Not sure the Ender's Shadow comparison is valid. ES' comments were more offensive as he seemed all the more serious. And very much anti. Context is important in evaluating comments. RooK is an Admin on a (mostly) Christian website and seems to take his duties seriously. Can't really see any anti there.
Fear of taking RooK to Hell? Funny, he is one of the few I would have no trepidation or regret taking there as he is one of the very few who wouldn't have his knickers in a twist just from being called.
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
Note that the Hell thread consists, at this writing, of nothing but an OP.
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
...I remember the freedom-waving things I said about censorship of cartoonists during the whole Mohammed cartoon debate. If I am going to preach freedom of expression, I have to suck it up when it's my turn to be expressed on. ...
Exactly.
I also consider the source. RooK, trolling sophomorically? I'm shocked, shocked. RooK, repeating a line he's been tossing around for a full Great Year? I suppose it's easier than coming up with a new catchphrase, but this one isn't exactly "the wine-dark sea".
I did like his LOLCat-in-a-bonnet avatar. Now, that was well done.
Ross
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
RooK has given offense very easily with this comment, and for no good reason.
I disagree. Unless RooK has a more detailed understanding of the Offendability Quotient of each individual regular poster aboard the Ship than I'm prepared to give him credit for, how can he know who will take offense and to what extent? I grant you that he can probably be reasonably assured that someone may take some offense at the imagery (despite its antiquity and possible overuse), but why exactly is this RooK's problem? Is it part of RooK's job description to never, ever give offense to any Shipmate? That's not in the realm of the possible, and you know it.
As to "no good reason," I personally feel that the mock-shock imagery was very apt to the point RooK was making at the time. Were there gentler ways to make the same point? Sure. Is it in RooK's job description to treat the denizens of Hell with kid gloves at all times?
I didn't think so.
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
If he were not top-Admin man he would have been taken to Hell immediately. He would have given and been given as much as he got. All would have been well.
It's his ship position which is the problem here. Not one which can be resolved imo. Best just to suck it up.
While I respect the fact that this may be your perception, I am not sure there's evidence to support it. !-mark and others may be unwilling to take RooK to Hell, but I for one am not willing to place any bets on this being due to RooK's Adminly status. This not being Hell, I'll keep other thoughts on that topic to myself.
Nor do I think it has anything to do with cleverness with words (which admittedly RooK possesses; I can't speak to your own, but you seem well-able to make yourself clear). I think a sincere poster with a sincerely-thought-out gripe will, once past the "dire ire" stage of most Hell calls, get a reasonable hearing and reasonable treatment from both Shipmates and from RooK. The fact that he has a way with words and sometimes exploits that ability to shock doesn't mean he's unreasonable or unfeeling. He just has (and is entitled to) a different point-of-view. Get over it.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
I think a sincere poster with a sincerely-thought-out gripe will, once past the "dire ire" stage of most Hell calls, get a reasonable hearing and reasonable treatment from both Shipmates and from RooK. The fact that he has a way with words and sometimes exploits that ability to shock doesn't mean he's unreasonable or unfeeling. He just has (and is entitled to) a different point-of-view. Get over it.
Yes - I can see your points here. But the question remains, why is one poster warned then banned for using 'Bishopesses' when RooK gets away with a use of words which is just as much a wind up.
I am serious when I say RooK didn't offend me - but my problem here is that it still looks like 'one rule for some' when it comes to deliberate wind ups.
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
But the question remains, why is one poster warned then banned for using 'Bishopesses' when RooK gets away with a use of words which is just as much a wind up.
He was warned because 'priestess' (etc) has a very, very long history on the Ship. And there's the matter of posting record. It's one thing to let rip in Hell occasionally and another to persist in using a word or phrase that one's been warned about. It's not the word, or the behaviour itself that's the issue, it's the flouting of a ruling.
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
The ship has had in the past endless shit over the word “priestess” (and Hence I guess by extension Bishopess). Those of us around to remember know not to go near the word. It is sexist. There is ship history and I suspect any of the Admins would have pulled the same pin. The poster was warned.
RooK was just being RooK, he was not putting down half the world he was poking fun at Jesus, just like most of the other people round the cross that day at Golgotha.
Oh what is this? That still when they cry “Come down of your popsicle” He still loves them.
Fly Safe, Pyx_e
p.s. and in case you had not figured it out. Life is not fair.
x-post Ql
[ 01. December 2012, 16:05: Message edited by: Pyx_e ]
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
But I suspect others are not doing so because he's top-Admin and wouldn't be warned in public anyway. I may be wrong, but I doubt it.
I am fairly sure that is not true - as in it has actually happened in the past re another issue. Possibly before your time on the ship though.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
Am I understanding this latest bit of discussion correctly? The word "priestess" is considered offensive and one would be banned if used? I presume it is just fine to use "priestess" in Hell, just not elsewhere. Correct?
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on
:
You might presume wrongly if you had a posting history of using such terms at nearly every opportunity, all over the boards. The first time you might just get a warning,
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Am I understanding this latest bit of discussion correctly? The word "priestess" is considered offensive and one would be banned if used? I presume it is just fine to use "priestess" in Hell, just not elsewhere. Correct?
That word has a very long and consistent record of not being permitted anywhere on the Ship, except in The Styx where you can ask questions about it. The poster in question had been specifically told not to use it. He used it. He was banned. QED.
It's more like a ban for contempt than for the offensiveness of the words themselves.
x-p with PeteC
[ 01. December 2012, 16:59: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
You might presume wrongly if you had a posting history of using such terms at nearly every opportunity, all over the boards. The first time you might just get a warning,
So.. someone who has no knowledge of the screamishness of the management of this bulletin board of the word 'priestess' would get a warning, but someone who has been here for years can use the kind of blasphemy which is inevitably going to offend members of something which self-defines as a Christian website.
Riight, yeah that makes sense.
Join me in Hell where I shall piss all over your dislike of the word 'priestess'.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
If you check the posting history of the guy in question, you might find out why he got banned. I can remember many many posts that got hostly warnings over the years. This wasn't new.
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
If you check the posting history of the guy in question, you might find out why he got banned. I can remember many many posts that got hostly warnings over the years. This wasn't new.
I refer you to the answer given some moments ago. I don't need to know the history, apparently. If I use the word priestess, I'll get a warning.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
At times the ship seems like a gnostic cult, where there is considerable hidden information. To have to search for a poster to understand a specific rule, that's ridiculous. Spell it out please. I want to know how it is that some offensiveness is good offensiveness and how other is bad offensiveness.
And are there other words in addition? First I've heard of it. May we have a list? The seven words not to be heard on the ship or something? I'm certainly not getting the offense with "priestess", or is it all words with possible female ending? Or is it context specific? I would have absolutely no understanding of this specific banned word, unless it means something different than what dictionaries indicate.
(edit, re several cross posts)
[ 01. December 2012, 17:11: Message edited by: no prophet ]
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
You'll have to check with the admins, but if you look at the guy's posting history, he had a long history of being very sexist. It wasn't just a word, it was a whole history of posting.
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
You'll have to check with the admins, but if you look at the guy's posting history, he had a long history of being very sexist. It wasn't just a word, it was a whole history of posting.
Oh, what like RooK's recent history of trolling?
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
The problem with 'priestess' is it effectively acts as a dogwhistle for the ordination of women Dead Horse. Which means whenever its used people get annoyed and then divert into that debate very quickly - so usage disrupts debate threads repeatedly.
Brackenrigg had been warned repeatedly in the context of generally sexist posting - and then he did it again.
[crossposted + edit for right name !]
[ 01. December 2012, 17:18: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
Okay, thanks. That would rather clearly argue that the word "priestess" and similar, are just fine, it's rather how the words might be used and where. That would be sensible. The idea that a word if used might caused either the explosion of a warning or the larger explosion of a banning is incomprehensible. Like a landmine. It is one thing to step inadvertently on an explosive while walking in a park and another to be shot while holding a rifle and wearing a uniform.
Can you please revisit this hosts and admins and advise?
{cross post again). Appreciate knowing the name of the person. I would not agree that in all contexts the word priestess is negative nor sexist. By happenstance, I was looking up the etymology of the word bigot and came upon the following.
quote:
From http://www.etymonline.com/abbr.php
This work is dedicated to all those who seek the old paths,
the well-worn, unpaved hill-ways;
and especially to those who honor the elder teachers;
and in particular to one priestess.
Beannachtaí Dé Brighid oraibh agus orainn
Does this offend the ship management?
[ 01. December 2012, 17:19: Message edited by: no prophet ]
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
I find the idea of "the explosion of a warning" rather odd. It is just someone (outside hell) saying please don't do that.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
Am I misunderstanding? I understand from the above discussion that even in Hell, "priestess" is banned.
The explosion of warning would be the inadvertent and unknowing poster using a word on some mystery list and getting a warning, with no idea there was an offence. Some of you are rude and caustic in your warnings, hence explosion. Even if this is a list of only a very few words it needs to be plain what they are.
[ 01. December 2012, 17:26: Message edited by: no prophet ]
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
So, help me understand this:
Beyond the pail: someone who disagrees with the notion of women priests on the basis of a theology against priestesses.
Totally acceptable: someone posting something which is obviously offensive to the vast majority of this website (not just the few who take exception to this use of the word priestess) which he self defines as being for his own amusement.
And the best bit is that the person who did the latter is going to be the one who decides whether my crime of knowingly doing the former is reason to be disciplined.
Does nobody else see this as Orwellian doublespeak?
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
As I understand it, it was unacceptable in the context of the use of the word priestess to refer to a priest who happens to be a woman. Several reasons for that, there are connotations of pagan religions in the word priestess, it also has an implication that women should not be priests, which is a dead horse, and it's sexist.
Coupled with a history of sexist posting and a number of warnings for this, it can become a banning offence.
Cross posted with the long ranger, addressing no prophet
[ 01. December 2012, 17:30: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
As I understand it, it was unacceptable in the context of the use of the word priestess to refer to a priest who happens to be a woman. Several reasons for that, there are connotations of pagan religions in the word priestess, it also has an implication that women should not be priests, which is a dead horse, and it's sexist.
So? You can't post things which are sexist in hell, even if it is an honestly held opinion - or even for a bit of a laugh to wind up everyone else?
I don't understand why you are defending this nonsense.
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
The explosion of warning would be the inadvertent and unknowing poster using a word on some mystery list and getting a warning, with no idea there was an offence.
But he wasn't an unknowing poster. He was a persistently disruptive poster who had been warned on several occasions. It wasn't a "mystery list" to him because it had been pointed out explicitly that the word wasn't to be used and told that if he did, he would be banned. This isn't something that suddenly came out of the blue. The same goes for any banning or suspension.
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Beyond the pail: someone who disagrees with the notion of women priests on the basis of a theology against priestesses.
What evidence to you have for this ridiculous assertion?
quote:
Totally acceptable: someone posting something which is obviously offensive to the vast majority of this website (not just the few who take exception to this use of the word priestess) which he self defines as being for his own amusement.
Posting offensive stuff has always been acceptable to a certain extent. Each case has to be looked at individually. If RooK (or any other poster for that matter) had used every opportunity to make offensive remarks about the Eucharist, reagardless of the board or the context, he would have been pulled up on it. If he persistently refused and/or thought he could get away with it by disppearing for a few months before coming back to do the same thing all over again, he would likely have been banned.
quote:
And the best bit is that the person who did the latter is going to be the one who decides whether my crime of knowingly doing the former is reason to be disciplined.
No, because we work as a team. As I said above, banning and/or suspensions are never taken lightly.
quote:
Does nobody else see this as Orwellian doublespeak?
No.
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
Wow, multiple X-posts!
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:
You can't post things which are sexist in hell, even if it is an honestly held opinion - or even for a bit of a laugh to wind up everyone else?
That's pretty much it. The difference is that in Hell we'll normally let the regular posters rip you apart first. If you keep doing it though, the 10 Commandments still apply.
All my 3 posts above were in my capacity as an Admin.
[ 01. December 2012, 17:46: Message edited by: Spike ]
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
So, help me understand this:
Beyond the pail: someone who disagrees with the notion of women priests on the basis of a theology against priestesses.
Totally acceptable: someone posting something which is obviously offensive to the vast majority of this website (not just the few who take exception to this use of the word priestess) which he self defines as being for his own amusement.
And the best bit is that the person who did the latter is going to be the one who decides whether my crime of knowingly doing the former is reason to be disciplined.
Does nobody else see this as Orwellian doublespeak?
If you look at the Ship's rules as an attempt to impose some morally consistent standard of behaviour, you'll never understand them. That's not what they are for.
Look at them instead as a set of guidelines which have been found to work as a way of allowing discussion to happen between people who strongly disagree on subjects which they often care deeply about. You might still disagree with them, but they'll make a lot more sense.
On this example, this is how it seems to me:
You won't find a clear distinction of ethical principle between calling Jesus 'a dead Jew on a stick' and calling one of his priests 'a priestess'. Both are gratuitously offfensive. The reason that one is allowed here, and the other isn't, is practical. The licence to abuse people's beliefs in Hell facilitates discussion elsewhere on these boards by keeping all the snark in one place. So offensive comments, even gratuitous ones for which there is no justification at all, are allowed there.
'Priestess' is not allowed because it is the sort of word that kills discussion. Using it (if one knows it to be offensive) is a refusal to discuss. It is all but impossible to have a meaningful discussion about female ordination with someone who insists on using the word 'priestess', just as it would be all but impossible to discuss homosexuality or race with someone who insisted on saying 'faggot' or 'nigger'. The word is so inflammatory that it becomes the issue, to the detriment of any other exchange of ideas. So it's not allowed, not because it is nastier to say 'priestess' than 'motherfuckingcunt', but because saying it has no place on a discussion board.
[ 01. December 2012, 18:55: Message edited by: Eliab ]
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
But I suspect others are not doing so because he's top-Admin and wouldn't be warned in public anyway. I may be wrong, but I doubt it.
I am fairly sure that is not true - as in it has actually happened in the past re another issue. Possibly before your time on the ship though.
Do you mean the Amber situation?
If so, you would be wronger than a wrong thing. Shipmates not only took to the Styx to defend Rook's right to say what he did but to defend the appropriateness of it. Simon closed the thread in Hell because he was worried about the possibility of getting sued in the UK. Erin was upset that Ship of Fools was no longer a place where the "r-word" could be safely used. Rook was never publicly reprimanded for it. On the contrary...
Many Shipmates lost credibility with me after that. I now tend to roll my eyes when Ism claims are made on Ship of Fools. Words from Scripture and the movie Tombstone come readily to my mind.
Oh...and Rook doesn't always post as an Admin when he expect his posts to be taken as authoritative. Evensong can testify to that. Little wonder she finds the idea of calling him to Hell so unthinkable.
For the record, I don't find Rook's comment any more offensive than when a 4 year old boy says "poop" and then giggles. Both comments reflect the same level of maturity. But, hey, immaturity isn't illegal and you getting all bent out of shape over the 4 year old's potty talk is exactly what the 4 year old wants.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
IRRC The site owner and other admins made statements about the issue and he was required to make a formal apology.
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
RE: Beeswax Altar
Ohhhh.
Just go ahead and post like an adult and see if we care.
[Damn, I never reply to a post soon enough.]
[ 01. December 2012, 19:03: Message edited by: Tortuf ]
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Rook eventually apologized but he was never publicly reprimanded.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
Completely opaque to those who hadn't joined the ship until later it would seem. R word, Ism? Neither of these seem comprehensible, nor does a search assist. The r word is usually "retard" says an internet search, and Ism could be any number of things: http://www.abbreviations.com/ISM
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Rook eventually apologized but he was never publicly reprimanded.
And the apology was accepted.
Tubbs
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
Yeah, I'm lost too, because my memory of the infamous auger episode is that RooK drew a public reprimand from Erin and was required to apologize. But maybe that's not what's being referenced here.
The thing is, you don't need to know about all of that to understand that only a long-standing pattern of jerkish behavior drawing a series of warnings will eventually result in a banning.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
The r word is retard. Rook called a Shipmate with Asperger's Syndrome a retard (technically he called her a weetard). Ism is any kind of -ism like racism or sexism. I take all -ism claims on Ship of Fools with a grain of salt after that incident.
Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Am I misunderstanding? I understand from the above discussion that even in Hell, "priestess" is banned.
The explosion of warning would be the inadvertent and unknowing poster using a word on some mystery list and getting a warning, with no idea there was an offence. Some of you are rude and caustic in your warnings, hence explosion. Even if this is a list of only a very few words it needs to be plain what they are.
What the fuck is that last paragraph in English?
Maybe it's because I do a lot of my ship-hanging-out in Eccles, but I know that "priestesses" referring to Christian clergy is a No-Go.
"Priestesses" would probably be ship-legal if one was referring to pagan leaders, but as others have noted, it's a dog-whistle for a Very Dead Horse when referring to female Christian clergy. Dead Horses are in Dead Horses because they tend to color/take over all other discussion if they're elsewhere.
Brackenrigg got banned because he had been warned several times for "priestesses" (among other rude/jerkish behaviors) and decided to ignore it and escalate. Someone who hadn't done it before would have been warned. It's not a case of "say the secret word, get banned." It's a pattern over time of multiple 10C violations. Bans don't come out of the blue.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
originally posted by RuthW:
Yeah, I'm lost too, because my memory of the infamous auger episode is that RooK drew a public reprimand from Erin and was required to apologize. But maybe that's not what's being referenced here.
There was no public reprimand! Erin was one of Rook's biggest defenders. Simon closed the Hell thread in question because of concerns over a lawsuit. Erin then went ballistic over the fact there were limits to what could be said in Hell. Neither of them publicly reprimanded Rook. I have no clue what was said on the Hosts board or by PM. Nor do I care because that's not public.
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The r word is retard. Rook called a Shipmate with Asperger's Syndrome a retard (technically he called her a weetard). Ism is any kind of -ism like racism or sexism. I take all -ism claims on Ship of Fools with a grain of salt after that incident.
And he apologised to the person he said it too and they accepted it. The incident resulted in some changes to the Hell guidelines as well. There was a ton of behind the scenes stuff too. I'm sorry that none of that was enough for you, but we're not reopening discussions into the rights and wrongs of something that happened two years ago and was dealt with then.
Tubbs
Styx Host
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Doublethink brought the two year old incident up. I was just correcting her memory of it. I noticed you haven't made the claim that he was given a public reprimand.
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Doublethink brought the two year old incident up. I was just correcting her memory of it. I noticed you haven't made the claim that he was given a public reprimand.
And I notice that you're attempting to continue a conversation that you've been asked to stop ... It happened. It was dealt with at the time. It's done. We're not doing it again because you weren't happy the first time.
Tubbs
Styx Host
[ 01. December 2012, 21:38: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
If people know from experience that RooK's posts may offend them, I suggest that they scroll past all his posts.
Moo
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
If people know from experience that RooK's posts may offend them, I suggest that they scroll past all his posts.
Can't afford to. Contrary to popular belief, RooK does sometimes make official pronouncements in posts not marked as such.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
But he wasn't an unknowing poster. He was a persistently disruptive poster who had been warned on several occasions. It wasn't a "mystery list" to him because it had been pointed out explicitly that the word wasn't to be used and told that if he did, he would be banned. This isn't something that suddenly came out of the blue. The same goes for any banning or suspension.
Fine. Except that you chose to enforce a ruling that was a sensational two years old. I don't know Brackenrigg from a hole in the ground, but banning him was an obvious injustice. "I bet you thought we'd forgotten about this," you asked. Well, you should have, after two years. Defamation and malicious falsehood have a statute of limitation under UK law of one year. The proper way of dealing with this would of course have been to remind Brackenrigg of "been there, done that", and reinstate the ban on him or her using the word - not to plank instantly. But I guess you felt that it was a good riddance...
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
But he wasn't an unknowing poster. He was a persistently disruptive poster who had been warned on several occasions. It wasn't a "mystery list" to him because it had been pointed out explicitly that the word wasn't to be used and told that if he did, he would be banned. This isn't something that suddenly came out of the blue. The same goes for any banning or suspension.
Fine. Except that you chose to enforce a ruling that was a sensational two years old. I don't know Brackenrigg from a hole in the ground, but banning him was an obvious injustice. "I bet you thought we'd forgotten about this," you asked. Well, you should have, after two years. Defamation and malicious falsehood have a statute of limitation under UK law of one year. The proper way of dealing with this would of course have been to remind Brackenrigg of "been there, done that", and reinstate the ban on him or her using the word - not to plank instantly. But I guess you felt that it was a good riddance...
It's hard for me to tell if brackenrigg has been posting for the last two years, but I don't recall seeing him/her on the boards. Unfortunately being banned seems to get you deleted from the directory, so I couldn't check the last fifty posts. But the phrase "My my, look what the cat sicked up" makes me tend to think brackenrigg hadn't been seen about for a while. And if brackenrigg had showed up after a long hiatus specifically to snipe with that phrase, IMO I think the ban was justified.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
And if brackenrigg had showed up after a long hiatus specifically to snipe with that phrase, IMO I think the ban was justified.
(admin hat off)
That guy was pretty much completely off my radar, so I was only dimly aware of the backstory, but that was the conclusion I reached as well.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
link to post
posting history
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
And if brackenrigg had showed up after a long hiatus specifically to snipe with that phrase, IMO I think the ban was justified.
Nope, not at all. Immediately reinstating the prohibition of that word for that poster, if he was a major "problem user" before, I can see that. But an instant ban over just this is plain ridiculous. Particularly so, if he or she came back after a long hiatus.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
Given Curiosity killed...'s link to the posting history and the fact that brackenrigg didn't pop in suddenly just to make that remark, you might have a point, IngoB.
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
It's a common dodge with people who get a last warning to go away, wait till they think we've forgotten about it and then come back and as soon as they work up the courage, do the same thing they were given a final warning about. All that happens if you let them off with it, is rinse and repeat. I'm totally in favour of those chancers getting planked the minute they are spotted up to their old tricks.
And of course when the chancer belongs to a different school of churchmanship, the people who complain vehemently when 'one of theirs' gets shown the door are quiet little birdies. When it was one of the ultra liberal posters who got caught sneaking back and planked, none of the people making a fuss about Brackenrigg had anything to say. And of course the people who did their nut about that are nowhere to be seen about Brackenrigg. In both cases the 'sneak back and do it again' tactic got exactly what it deserved.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I'm going to mention a word I already mentioned a couple of times upthread. Context.
Context context context.
The Ship doesn't operate on a set of mind-numbingly detailed rules such that someone can sit there and go "ah yes, 'priestess' is allowed on Kerygmania, Ecclesisastics and Circus between the hours of 9:30pm and 6:30am GMT (no adjustment for summer time)". It operates on a set of general principles.
And YES those principles are open to interpretation. It's inevitable. And there's simply no other way to make the Ship sail than to have a group of people whose task it is to do the interpreting.
And that interpretation is always going to be a contextual thing. Not only the context of which board, but also which topic, which thread, where the thread has been going, how long it's been going, which poster, the experience of the poster, whether the poster's been given warnings there or elsewhere, whether other posters have been given warnings recently on that thread...
Context. Lots and lots of it.
(We haven't even got to the part where it could depend on which Host is reading this pap at the time, and whether there's enough Vitamin K in their diet. Because we're human beings, and as much as we TRY to be consistent, we have different personalities, and hosting is not double-entry bookkeeping.)
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Lyda*Rose - when I linked the posting history I had hoped you'd have looked at the posts. Of the three made recently there was the one I linked to in Hell and this gem in Purgatory. If you look back through that hosting history you'll see a lot more like that.
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
And if brackenrigg had showed up after a long hiatus specifically to snipe with that phrase, IMO I think the ban was justified.
Nope, not at all. Immediately reinstating the prohibition of that word for that poster, if he was a major "problem user" before, I can see that. But an instant ban over just this is plain ridiculous. Particularly so, if he or she came back after a long hiatus.
So when is a final warning not a final warning?
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
So when is a final warning not a final warning?
When you have to drag up a hostly post that nobody but you still remembers? When you have to remind people of past problems in order to justify your actions?
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
So simply the passage of time? Could you not see how that might be abused by an ill-disposed person?
Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
So when is a final warning not a final warning?
When you have to drag up a hostly post that nobody but you still remembers? When you have to remind people of past problems in order to justify your actions?
The shipmate who matters is the one who got the final warning and I'd say they remember well as it was an oft done offense. The rest of us get the reminder or explanation in the admin post of the banning.
Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on
:
I have to add, that while I don't like the "Jew on a stick" comment, I fail to see what the fuss is about. As others have stated, Rook isn't a Christian and he was responding in a thread about things we humans do to animals and what is or isn't moral. Eating animals was brought up and so was eating humans. Christianity was brought up as the arbiter of whatever morality position many posters made and Rook's offensive comment was on point for the discussion and is pretty much what I've heard many non Christians point out as what they consider offensive about Christianity: our references to eating the body and blood of Christ.
I've seen many posters on this site make insulting comments about other religions or mock those of other religions who get bent out of shape (not just riot or kill) about blasphemy of their religion, yet I'm seeing real hysteria here due to perceived blasphemy. Frankly, as a Christian I've seen worse on other sites and heard worse IRL. We've been told to expect it so I really don't see the why the hysteria. I personally don't get upset about it as I've been in countries where they kill you for your faith, not insult you.
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
So when is a final warning not a final warning?
When you have to drag up a hostly post that nobody but you still remembers?
I can assure you that I wasn't the only person who remembered.
quote:
When you have to remind people of past problems in order to justify your actions?
That's normal practice. We always post a "you've been warned about this before" type statement. Of course, we could just ban/suspend people without giving any reason if you prefer.
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
Erin, was perfectly capable of playing the harsh, capricious and unforgiving Admin, RooK is naught but her successor, re-imagining the role. I t has always been the culture of the Ship, it has some draw back and detractors but it has some benefits too.
Some people prefer their piranhas neutered, me I like a wholesome set of teeth and a lack of knowledge on when the last meal was consumed. Makes me think a bit more carefully before I dip a toe in.
Fly Safe, Pyx_e
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
So simply the passage of time? Could you not see how that might be abused by an ill-disposed person?
Obviously. And? Since when do we design justice systems so that all abuse is perfectly avoided? The abuse can happen precisely because good justice must have "give" designed into it. What is being abused is the humaneness of the system, and that is a cost well worth paying.
And yes, the passage of time is considered important in all reasonable justice systems. There are statutes of limitation, a life sentence will get reviewed after a decade or two, etc.
Anyhow, all we are talking about here is one extra post, namely one additional warning that the prohibition remains in effect and will be enforced, in the space of two years.
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
I can assure you that I wasn't the only person who remembered.
How depressing. Do you people keep grudge lists, or something? Anyway, given that you did in fact remember (and looked up the relevant post on the grudge list, or spent time googling it anew), the question remains what was the right thing to do with such ancient matters.
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
That's normal practice. We always post a "you've been warned about this before" type statement. Of course, we could just ban/suspend people without giving any reason if you prefer.
I'm pretty sure that you are missing the point on purpose. Announcing the reasoning behind your decision is one thing, having to remind the community of what all this is even about is quite another. If you had banned Brackenrigg in 2010 without explaining your reasoning, then plenty of Shipmates could have filled in the detail of what was happening and why. In 2012, that's hardly the case any longer.
Seriously, who and what would have been hurt by doing exactly that same post, but simply reminding Brackenrigg of what was said back in 2010 rather than immediately executing it?
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Obviously invisible. Being ignored makes for such warm and cuddly feelings.
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Lyda*Rose - when I linked the posting history I had hoped you'd have looked at the posts. Of the three made recently there was the one I linked to in Hell and this gem in Purgatory. If you look back through that hosting history you'll see a lot more like that.
Two out of three recent posts were sexist.
(and I did add you to the Offenderati thread in Hell)
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Do you people keep grudge lists, or something?
Yes. Got a problem with that?
quote:
Anyway, given that you did in fact remember (and looked up the relevant post on the grudge list, or spent time googling it anew),
It wasn't difficult to find - he had such a low post count I simply had to click on the recent posts link to find it. All this poster ever did was to wander in every few months or so, make some childish one-liner about "women dressed a priests pretending to celebrate the Mass" and disappear again.
quote:
the question remains what was the right thing to do with such ancient matters.
As he had been warned on more than one occasion, I believe the correct course of action was taken.
quote:
I'm pretty sure that you are missing the point on purpose. Announcing the reasoning behind your decision is one thing, having to remind the community of what all this is even about is quite another.
I really don't understand your point. Announcing the reasoning and "reminding the community" as you put it are the same thing. This is a public bulletin board which means that posts are public and can be seen by everyone.
quote:
If you had banned Brackenrigg in 2010 without explaining your reasoning, then plenty of Shipmates could have filled in the detail of what was happening and why.
But we don't do things that way and never have.
quote:
Seriously, who and what would have been hurt by doing exactly that same post, but simply reminding Brackenrigg of what was said back in 2010 rather than immediately executing it?
Seriously, why are you getting so worked up about the banning of someone who made no useful contribution to these boards whatsoever?
Spike
SoF Admin
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
Ingo,
It seems rather clear to me that the guy just came sailing back in with his usual schtick and assumed people would have forgotten.
You seek to have transgressors reminded of why their behavior is bad when it has been a while since they misbehaved.
I see your point if it is a poster who has transgressed Rule X, been warned, behaved and then stepped over the line again. I would be all for another warning at that point. Somehow, I suspect most admins would take the same attitude.
To me, the case of the poster who is warned, hides (virtually) out and then comes back to try the same thing all over again justifies whatever sanction without further warning.
Where you may have a point is the community. Should there have been a warning for the sake of the community. It is a point, but the reasoning behind the point seems to have been more than satisfied by the lengthy discussion on the subject here in the Styx. Everybody and their cousin knows about the issue now.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Since when do we design justice systems so that all abuse is perfectly avoided? The abuse can happen precisely because good justice must have "give" designed into it. What is being abused is the humaneness of the system, and that is a cost well worth paying.
Insofar as the running of a bulletin board by a diverse, shifting (and fairly motley) population of random volunteers can be dignified as a 'justice system', I think the one we have is fit for purpose. 'Designed' also strikes me as an over-description of the consensual-ish striving to be reasonably fair, consistent, attentive and patient that is the everyday joy of H&Aing.
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
I think Ingob is hoping for something a little more Inquisitorial.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl:
I've seen many posters on this site make insulting comments about other religions or mock those of other religions who get bent out of shape (not just riot or kill) about blasphemy of their religion, yet I'm seeing real hysteria here due to perceived blasphemy.
If you honestly believe this, I submit you have never seen real hysteria. There is not a single person posting about this who is acting hysterically.
Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl:
I've seen many posters on this site make insulting comments about other religions or mock those of other religions who get bent out of shape (not just riot or kill) about blasphemy of their religion, yet I'm seeing real hysteria here due to perceived blasphemy.
If you honestly believe this, I submit you have never seen real hysteria. There is not a single person posting about this who is acting hysterically.
I'd say 3 threads going where many people are calling for the head of Rook on the proverbial platter of this site qualifies as hysteria. Rook made a comment in line with the discussion using language offensive to Christians and instead of answering the point he was trying to make the response was rage and demanding he be punished. We've even had comments claiming Rook hates everyone here, isn't really a part of the community and exhibits psychopathic behavior. If all of that isn't hysteria I don't know what is. I haven't seen the same rage level for comments about the Prophet Muhammad being a demon or a pedophile - no matter who makes it - or derogatory comments I've seen made towards atheists or those with other religions.
Posted by Inger (# 15285) on
:
I'm surprised people don't see the difference between using 'priestess' and 'bishopess'. The former is an existing word, that can surely be used with perfect propriety in the right context (pagan/heathen). When used in connection with the ordination of women in a Christian context, it's most likely used as a sexist put-down, and merits a warning.
To come back after even two years and deliberately use an invented word like 'bishopess' seems to me to be going out of one's way to be sexist and to be flouting a previous warning.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl:
I'd say 3 threads going where many people are calling for the head of Rook on the proverbial platter of this site qualifies as hysteria.
Then it is as sure as tomorrow's sunrise that you have never seen true hysteria.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Inger:
I'm surprised people don't see the difference between using 'priestess' and 'bishopess'. The former is an existing word, that can surely be used with perfect propriety in the right context (pagan/heathen). When used in connection with the ordination of women in a Christian context, it's most likely used as a sexist put-down, and merits a warning.
To come back after even two years and deliberately use an invented word like 'bishopess' seems to me to be going out of one's way to be sexist and to be flouting a previous warning.
Exactly. If he had two years of pristine posting history, engaging on a variety of subjects in a thoughtful, invested way, he might have gotten one more warning. He just sailed in out of nowhere to make a crack.
And I have nowhere built up anywhere near the radar Louise has, but if she says this is a typical tactic, I tend to believe her.
Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl:
I'd say 3 threads going where many people are calling for the head of Rook on the proverbial platter of this site qualifies as hysteria.
Then it is as sure as tomorrow's sunrise that you have never seen true hysteria.
Considering the countries I've been in, this doesn't measure up as anything except typical American outburst making a giant mountain out of a molehill, but by most standards around here it doesn't usually get as hysterical with character assassination, definitions of mental illness and a statement that Rook doesn't belong in the community because of how he put one statement, even though he has spent years working towards making this a safe community where people can come and have intelligent discussions, and demands that he be disciplined or even banned. Hell is a site specific board where offensive is done regularly to groups of one kind or another and to drive home points the poster wants to make. Had people left it at "that was offensive to me" or even asked the other admins to look into it or had the guts to do a hell call without the hysteria attached to it I wouldn't have bothered commenting.
[ 02. December 2012, 17:30: Message edited by: Niteowl ]
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
Yes. Got a problem with that?
If it is to keep things straight in busy times and to communicate with other H&As, no. If it is to keep grudges alive long after memories have faded, yes. Or to put it differently, entries on grudge lists should be wiped after a certain time. That's for example how the UK and German point system for driving offences works, see here. And yes, I'm sure both governments are well aware that some asshole drivers will "game the system" then. Yet they still think it is a good idea to wipe points off after a time, and so do I.
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
All this poster ever did was to wander in every few months or so, make some childish one-liner about "women dressed a priests pretending to celebrate the Mass" and disappear again.
That is not the case, at least not since he or she was warned off. But I don't actually care much about Brackenrigg. I think there's a line between maintaining standards, asserting one's authority, following through, giving everybody their due etc. and being vindictive. And if planking is on that line, then one should err on the side of being slack.
Two years of no problems should have been enough for you to say "remember, we warned you, we still mean it" and then put that finger back on the eject trigger. Instead of you having had your finger on the eject trigger all the time and then immediately pressing it. In my opinion.
That's not about what Brackenrigg is like, that's about what you are like.
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
I really don't understand your point.
My point was about context. Say you had banned Brackenrigg back then. The community's reaction to that would have come from what was present to people's minds. Say you would have made a post reminding Brackenrigg of the prohibition now. Then again what was going on would have been present to people's mind. And if he or she then had reoffended in the near future, you certainly wouldn't have heard a peep about banning Brackenrigg from me. (In spite of the fact that I find tabooing "p...ess" rather questionable.) But as it was, this was straight "WTF" territory...
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
Seriously, why are you getting so worked up about the banning of someone who made no useful contribution to these boards whatsoever?
Oh, I tend to get upset about lots of things. Like admins calling all contributions of a Shipmate useless. But maybe it would help if you could explain how for example Brackenrigg's second to last post was useless. Or for that matter even his last post, if we assume for a moment that he had adopted the nautically correct "female bishop" instead of the unspeakable "b...ess".
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
Thank you for your expert and informed opinion. We will take it on board.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
He just sailed in out of nowhere to make a crack.
That is not true.
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
Thank you for your expert and informed opinion. We will take it on board.
You are welcome. I trust that you will keep us informed about your reconsideration of the case and the ramifications for general policy.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I trust that you will keep us informed about your reconsideration of the case and the ramifications for general policy.
Like I say, I think you confuse this place with the European Court of Human Rights.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I trust that you will keep us informed about your reconsideration of the case and the ramifications for general policy.
I realize that this is mostly just you being snarky within the remit of the letter of the Commandments. But, I wonder, do you see how this is emblematic of your fundamental inability to grok this discussion board?
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
But, I wonder, do you see how this is emblematic of your fundamental inability to grok this discussion board?
I don't intend to "grok" this discussion board, in either the original Heinlein or the derived hacker sense.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I don't intend to "grok" this discussion board
Doesn't that make your contributions on every single Styx thread kind of pointless?
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Doesn't that make your contributions on every single Styx thread kind of pointless?
Was it the same pill that made you hallucinate that I am on every single Styx thread which also made you think that one has to live in quasi-religious intuitive unity with Styx-ness in order to post in Styx? Honestly, I think you are being a bit of a Philip-K-Dick-head at the moment... Can't really think of why you are bending the Matrix this way, unless you are in desperate need of a whipping boy.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
Forgive the hyperbole. Nevertheless, you are one of the most common participants in Styx threads regarding policy. Given your stated intention to never have a particularly clear understanding of the boards, is it not worthwhile to question your efforts in this realm?
Not to imply that you can't participate in any thread you like. I am perhaps one of the few that look forward to your perspective. I imagine that you're kind of like one of those parishioners who know that they can't hold a tune and sing all the more lustily because of it. I'm just curious about the underlying motivations.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Boys, could you go make sweet, sweet love on the Hell thread you are both playing around on anyway and leave this thread for policy issues?
Kelly Alves
Admin
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
And yes, the passage of time is considered important in all reasonable justice systems. There are statutes of limitation, a life sentence will get reviewed after a decade or two, etc.
Anyhow, all we are talking about here is one extra post, namely one additional warning that the prohibition remains in effect and will be enforced, in the space of two years.
Ingo, are you familiar with the concept of a suspended sentence?
One infraction during the period of suspension is all it takes. So 'real world' justice recognises the very concept you seem upset about.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
<cross-post with Kelly, will do...>
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Given your stated intention to never have a particularly clear understanding of the boards, is it not worthwhile to question your efforts in this realm?
First, look up what "to grok" actually means. And not in the OED. Second, I work with what is there. Which is this.
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
I am perhaps one of the few that look forward to your perspective.
I know. And I have not forgotten either that you've put that into practice. Which makes it all the more mysterious why the hell you are trying so hard to pick a fight with me now. Seriously, what gives? I didn't bitch about your jew-on-a-stick remark. I don't tear up about your latest community-affirming post in Hell either. Different ballgame, OK?
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
I'm just curious about the underlying motivations.
World domination, Pinky.
[ 03. December 2012, 01:42: Message edited by: IngoB ]
Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Boys, could you go make sweet, sweet love on the Hell thread you are both playing around on anyway and leave this thread for policy issues?
Kelly Alves
Admin
I'll accept two weeks for the tangent just to say I bet you still giggle every time you re-read your post. The power and the poke. C'mon Kelly, admit it. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
...
It has to be against board policy to plant a hidden webcam in an Admin's room.
(Now knock it off --K.A)
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
Beeswax Altar: Thanks for the correction to my obviously faulty memory. It's all coming back to me now ...
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
Sorry to come late to the party but to bring the focus back to the OP.
The 'dead-jew-on-a stick' thing doesn't bother me on the grounds of blasphemy, or bad taste. The jarring nature of it is the use of ethnicity in an insult. 'Stupid man' is okay but 'stupid black' is not. 'Dead-'god'/man-on-a-stick' is merely rude, 'dead-jew....' provides the image with most of its shock factor. Yet the fact that Jesus is a Jew is entirely immaterial to the insult. The word 'Jew' brings a jarring nature to the insult and undertones of anti-semitism to the image.
For what it's worth, that's my take on the matter. I don't think Rook was intending to be anti-semitic but best now to stop using the image.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
The jarring nature of it is the use of ethnicity in an insult.
I've always seen it as an additional poke at the more precious "Christianity is the only true religion" folk by pointing out that Jesus Himself was actually a member of a different religion.
"Man on a stick" wouldn't work as well for that reason.
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
[I've always seen it as an additional poke at the more precious "Christianity is the only true religion" folk by pointing out that Jesus Himself was actually a member of a different religion.
"Man on a stick" wouldn't work as well for that reason.
Well, that's a subtle way of seeing it. But it's worth pointing out that the phrase 'dead jew' is itself loaded with undertones. In a recent French twitter campaign with the hashtag 'a good Jew', holocaust images were posted alongside the 'good Jew'. The phrase 'a good Jew is a dead Jew' frequently comes up in anti-semitic incidents.
Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
[I've always seen it as an additional poke at the more precious "Christianity is the only true religion" folk by pointing out that Jesus Himself was actually a member of a different religion.
"Man on a stick" wouldn't work as well for that reason.
Well, that's a subtle way of seeing it. But it's worth pointing out that the phrase 'dead jew' is itself loaded with undertones. In a recent French twitter campaign with the hashtag 'a good Jew', holocaust images were posted alongside the 'good Jew'. The phrase 'a good Jew is a dead Jew' frequently comes up in anti-semitic incidents.
It may bring up anti-Semitic issues for some, but as an insult to Christianity it's pretty much lessened without the "dead Jew" reference. It's pretty obvious it's aim is to offend Christians, not be anti-Semitic. Consulted friends who are Jewish and they got the point. One of them will be using it himself a he loves to insult Christians.
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl:
It's pretty obvious it's aim is to offend Christians, not be anti-Semitic. Consulted friends who are Jewish and they got the point. One of them will be using it himself a he loves to insult Christians.
If the phrase has any merit at all it's probably best used by people who are Jewish.
A google search on the phrase turns up some pretty unsavoury websites including the Vanguard News Network. Whatever the origins and intentions behind it, it's safe to say it is also employed by anti-semites.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
Purely incidental, but watching an episode on 'Challenge' last night of '8 out of 10 Cats', one of the comedians made exactly the same crack referring to Jesus as 'dead Jew on a stick'.
Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl:
It's pretty obvious it's aim is to offend Christians, not be anti-Semitic. Consulted friends who are Jewish and they got the point. One of them will be using it himself a he loves to insult Christians.
If the phrase has any merit at all it's probably best used by people who are Jewish.
A google search on the phrase turns up some pretty unsavoury websites including the Vanguard News Network. Whatever the origins and intentions behind it, it's safe to say it is also employed by anti-semites.
Vanguard News Network hates Christians as well. They view us about as favorably as they view Jews. They get two-fer insult.
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl:
It's pretty obvious it's aim is to offend Christians, not be anti-Semitic. Consulted friends who are Jewish and they got the point. One of them will be using it himself a he loves to insult Christians.
If the phrase has any merit at all it's probably best used by people who are Jewish.
A google search on the phrase turns up some pretty unsavoury websites including the Vanguard News Network. Whatever the origins and intentions behind it, it's safe to say it is also employed by anti-semites.
Vanguard News Network hates Christians as well. They view us about as favorably as they view Jews. They get two-fer insult.
That kind of makes my point for me. A certain squeamishness about using 'dead Jew' in an insult against another target is probably a good thing.
Am I allowed to ask Rook to let us know whether he has done any thinking about the matter?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
The phrase 'a good Jew is a dead Jew' frequently comes up in anti-semitic incidents.
I fail to see the relevance, to be honest. I mean, the word "Jew" features in an awful lot of antisemitic crap, but nobody suggests banning it in all circumstances. It's quite a large leap to say that because one phrase is demonstrably antisemitic, another phrase which happens to share two adjacent words with it must also be antisemitic.
.
I can't help but feel that a lot of these attempts to paint the phrase "dead jew on a stick" as antisemitic, trolling or even illegal are at heart down to posters who know we have no prohibition against being personally offensive in Hell trying to find a vaguely plausible reason to get something they found personally offensive in Hell banned.
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I can't help but feel that a lot of these attempts to paint the phrase "dead jew on a stick" as antisemitic, trolling or even illegal are at heart down to posters who know we have no prohibition against being personally offensive in Hell trying to find a vaguely plausible reason to get something they found personally offensive in Hell banned.
If that's aimed at me it's unjustified. I haven't asked for any action to be taken. I've never, ever sought to have anything banned. I'm just interested in discussion of whether the use of the phrase is wise given its undertones, especially when it comes from someone who usually acts in good faith.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
If that's aimed at me it's unjustified.
It wasn't particularly, more at the whole thread. Perhaps I should have made that more clear by starting a new post rather than using the period to separate the two things I was saying.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Am I allowed to ask Rook to let us know whether he has done any thinking about the matter?
I have indeed. My thoughts, in no particular order, are as follows:- I still find it terribly funny, which in itself is reason to question its casual use.
- It is interesting to note the shift in reaction to the term over the years. Originally, the people who reacted were antisemitic christians who were appalled at the suggestion that Jesus was Jewish. Our demographic seems to now be more liberal, even in its conservativeness.
- I do not recall anyone asking me with any degree of directness to not post the phrase again. It's probably just me being all Canadian-ish, with the "please stop that" being preferred over the "WHY THE HELL DID THAT HAPPEN!?!?!".
- No promises about its future usage at this time, other than that it is unlikely to ever be employed offhandedly.
- When other people walk into a church with a looming crucifix, how do they describe what they see?
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
quote:
When other people walk into a church with a looming crucifix, how do they describe what they see?
Look what he did for RooK.
Posted by Bean Sidhe (# 11823) on
:
I've only just found this thread, so I'm commenting on the start.
Which has more impact?
'Symbolically eating your dead-man-on-a-stick cult leader'
'Symbolically eating your dead-Jew-on-a-stick cult leader'
I'd vote for the second, by a long way. Because 'Jew' carries powerful, historic and emotive connotations that don't need spelling out.
I'm not suggesting at all that Rook had any racist intentions. I guess he was drawn to the impact of what his predecessor had posted, which I presume was before my time here. I do think it was, in fact, a naff way to make an entirely hell-appropriate point.
Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Purely incidental, but watching an episode on 'Challenge' last night of '8 out of 10 Cats', one of the comedians made exactly the same crack referring to Jesus as 'dead Jew on a stick'.
S A D
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
When other people walk into a church with a looming crucifix, how do they describe what they see?
"A large crucifix" or perhaps "a representation of Jesus being crucified."
Certainly not "dead Jew on a stick" not least because a cross isn't a stick, at least not if you are describing a visual image.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
rood
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
A sculpture of a torture.
(There's no way to tell the guy's ethnicity, especially if you're in one of those Jesus-as-a-blonde-blue-eyed-gentile, er, gentle-shepherd churches).
Posted by Qoheleth. (# 9265) on
:
Jesus on a stick 1
Jesus on a stick 2
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
it's safe to say it is also employed by anti-semites.
I don't see why I can't use a perfectly good bit of the English language, just because someone else is misusing it.
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on
:
I'm sometimes occasionally (unfairly I believe, though I would say that) accused of jumping to accusations of anti-semitism. I'm someone who occasionally does workshops about anti-semitism in which we look at what is and what is not anti-semitic. That's not to say that I cannot be wrong in what I believe to be or not to be anti-semitic, but just to say that it didn't even occur to me that Rook just anti-semitic phraseology.
The word "Jew" is often used to denote something negative. Saying that the crucifix denotes a dead Jew is purely stating a fact. This fact was used in a negative way, but not in reference to Jesus' Jewishness, rather against what Rook saw as Christian hypocrisy.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0