Inappropriate Jokes and blonde

[The Camel]

I have perhaps, stumbled upon the main point of what I'm trying to say.

It is casual homophobia, as well as casual discrimination of any sort which is the most offensive in my opinion.

Making a joke out of something offensive just serves to make it worse, not better.

I am not in the least homophobic, and yet I would call soneone a big poof in a jokey fashion, where does that leave me?

Would it offend you if I called someone a big girl, or a crackpot, if not, why not?

By saying you would call someone a big poof you are admiting you are latently homophobic. Why would you call someone a poof if you didn't subconciously think it a weakness to be a poof?

[ACE2M]

I never picked up on the jokes about Flushy until yesterday. To be honest, I always had him down as a tough nut.  .   I am not sure why, it's just the image I had in my mind  .  I guess I was completely wrong again 

 

the term 'tough nut' used in all seriousness, brilliant.

[The Baron]

I never picked up on the jokes about Flushy until yesterday. To be honest, I always had him down as a tough nut.  .   I am not sure why, it's just the image I had in my mind  .  I guess I was completely wrong again 

 

the term 'tough nut' used in all seriousness, brilliant.

LMAO!

[RED-DOG]

I have perhaps, stumbled upon the main point of what I'm trying to say.

It is casual homophobia, as well as casual discrimination of any sort which is the most offensive in my opinion.

Making a joke out of something offensive just serves to make it worse, not better.

I am not in the least homophobic, and yet I would call soneone a big poof in a jokey fashion, where does that leave me?

Would it offend you if I called someone a big girl, or a crackpot, if not, why not?

By saying you would call someone a big poof you are admiting you are latently homophobic. Why would you call someone a poof if you didn't subconciously think it a weakness to be a poof?

Would you mind answering the rest of my question before I reply?

[tikay]

For the record. I agree entirely with ifm, Bongo, and Ariston (God help me).

Political correctness gone mad if you ask me.

Ok I admit that someone, somewhere, COULD be offended if he saw a post in which Kev refers to flushy as a big poof, but ffs, lets get real here.

What if anorexics get upset when we say Snoop is too thin, or scientists are offended by the phrase 'clever clogs’?

We will be scared of calling someone a fish soon, in case we alienate a haddock.

 

All I can say is I am extremely offended every time anyone calls someone else a poof.

And have been for as long as I've been a member of blondepoker.

If that makes me PC so be it.

Would you be offended if someone called a black poker player a "lucky nigger"?

Well, there you have your case, in a nutshell.

A blonde says he is grossly offended every time someone, even in jest, is called "gay".

So, do you think we should take his concerns on board, or continue to allow him to be offended almost daily?

The rights & wrongs are almost irrelevant, in a way. Do you want that a blonde - maybe many, as Baron alludes to another - should continue to be offended, so that we can continue to make homophobic jibes? Or should we, perhaps, try & be more inventive or creative with our well-intended pee-taking?

[The Camel]

Ultimatly it's up to the mods, yes?

They discern which posts are deemed to be fit for general veiwing and which ones have to be edited/deleted.

Of course it's correct for people to articulate their concerns over posts if they find them offensive but this should'nt precipitate prospective changes in blonde rules.

when action man raised his concerns over the increasing spam content on blonde the posts by snoopy and other mods at the top of the main page were moved for a time.

The sites run very well and i think that on a public forum all you can do, in keeping with spirit of blonde, is make the place as receptive as possible to the diverese array of users that you have, so by doing allowing the majority of members to continue posting in the spirit in which blonde was intended.

My point being is that its healthy to review issues of political correctness, but if your going to impliment restrictions and regulations as a result of the extremely persuasive and credulous arguments of a single member then you aleinate the majority.

I think that what the camel says is correct in that he should be able to take offence at particular posts, but i feel that the emotion that different threads provoke is part of the blonde forum ethos, varied and abundent in its panapleee of content.

Congratulations. The first ridiculous post of the thread.

So, if the majority think something is ok, then it is ok?

That's why racism, homophobia, sexism and all other forms of discrimination are so rife throughout the world.

The strong majority picking upon a weak minority.

That's really fair, isn't it?

[tikay]

I never picked up on the jokes about Flushy until yesterday. To be honest, I always had him down as a tough nut.  .   I am not sure why, it's just the image I had in my mind  .  I guess I was completely wrong again 

Yes, you were DEFINITELY wrong there Sark!

[RED-DOG]

Ultimatly it's up to the mods, yes?

They discern which posts are deemed to be fit for general veiwing and which ones have to be edited/deleted.

Of course it's correct for people to articulate their concerns over posts if they find them offensive but this should'nt precipitate prospective changes in blonde rules.

when action man raised his concerns over the increasing spam content on blonde the posts by snoopy and other mods at the top of the main page were moved for a time.

The sites run very well and i think that on a public forum all you can do, in keeping with spirit of blonde, is make the place as receptive as possible to the diverese array of users that you have, so by doing allowing the majority of members to continue posting in the spirit in which blonde was intended.

My point being is that its healthy to review issues of political correctness, but if your going to impliment restrictions and regulations as a result of the extremely persuasive and credulous arguments of a single member then you aleinate the majority.

I think that what the camel says is correct in that he should be able to take offence at particular posts, but i feel that the emotion that different threads provoke is part of the blonde forum ethos, varied and abundent in its panapleee of content.

Congratulations. The first ridiculous post of the thread.

So, if the majority think something is ok, then it is ok?

That's why racism, homophobia, sexism and all other forms of discrimination are so rife throughout the world.

The strong majority picking upon a weak minority.

That's really fair, isn't it?

Congratulations to you, the first hint of flaming in an otherwise friendly debate

[Sheriff Fatman]

For some reason I'd avoided this thread until now but it kept bouncing to the top until I could ignore it no more!

My view:

This forum pretty much thrives as it is.  Every now and again something appears which causes a minor problem but they are generally sorted pretty quickly by the mods/Tikay and we all move on again without too much fuss.

Many people on here speak frankly and that is part of the reason why debates are generally argued well and politely on the whole.  I dread to think what would happen if we started to over-police everything.  For a start the Mods jobs would become much harder - they'd have to delete/edit more often and would no doubt get more stick for doing that.  I also think the content of the forum would deteriorate if people were being policed too much.  Some might not bother posting at all and it would be a shame to lose any of the people who contribute so much to this site.

At the bottom of every post there is a 'Report To Moderator' button where people can report a problem to a mod privately.  I'm not sure how many people are aware of this but its something that everyone on the site should feel comfortable using.  Personally, I think we should deal with problem posts as and when they are identified as such (i.e. when someone sees something they don't like and complains about it) rather than trying to pre-empt what might be a problem.  This also allows the mods to take appropriate action, including contacting the poster if something problematic has been said and asking them not to repeat it.  If problems persist from that user then they may have to take stronger action but, hopefully, it would not reach that stage.

The problem with trying to over-censor a site is that, beyond the obvious comments which are generally offensive to all, there are a whole host of words/phrases/sentiments that are a grey area.  Some people don't mind them, others see the same thing and are offended.  Ultimately, if you extend the arm of censorship to a particular area then a whole host of others will get dragged in and ultimately someone has to decide where to draw the line.  Personally, I'd hate to have to rename myself Sheriff Somewhat-more-rotund-than-most-Man in the name of political correctness (a trivialisation maybe, but I hope you see the point).

Please don't change what isn't broken.  99% of the time this place works great.  Surely we can deal with the other 1% without making drastic changes.

Sheriff

[The Camel]

I have perhaps, stumbled upon the main point of what I'm trying to say.

It is casual homophobia, as well as casual discrimination of any sort which is the most offensive in my opinion.

Making a joke out of something offensive just serves to make it worse, not better.

I am not in the least homophobic, and yet I would call soneone a big poof in a jokey fashion, where does that leave me?

Would it offend you if I called someone a big girl, or a crackpot, if not, why not?

By saying you would call someone a big poof you are admiting you are latently homophobic. Why would you call someone a poof if you didn't subconciously think it a weakness to be a poof?

Would you mind answering the rest of my question before I reply?

I have no idea what a "crackpot" is.

Am I offended by you calling someone a big girl? I'm not sure. Is being a "big girl" a term of degradation? If it is, then I guess I'm offended by it. But, I don't exactly think being a girl is a something anyone could consider an insult.

[RED-DOG]

I have perhaps, stumbled upon the main point of what I'm trying to say.

It is casual homophobia, as well as casual discrimination of any sort which is the most offensive in my opinion.

Making a joke out of something offensive just serves to make it worse, not better.

I am not in the least homophobic, and yet I would call soneone a big poof in a jokey fashion, where does that leave me?

Would it offend you if I called someone a big girl, or a crackpot, if not, why not?

By saying you would call someone a big poof you are admiting you are latently homophobic. Why would you call someone a poof if you didn't subconciously think it a weakness to be a poof?

Would you mind answering the rest of my question before I reply?

I have no idea what a "crackpot" is.

Am I offended by you calling someone a big girl? I'm not sure. Is being a "big girl" a term of degradation? If it is, then I guess I'm offended by it. But, I don't exactly think being a girl is a something anyone could consider an insult.

But by your definition, the very fact that said it makes it an insult "or why woud I use it?"


"Why would you call someone a poof if you didn't subconciously think it a weakness to be a poof?"

[Rod Paradise]

I think you're over-reacting to a well worded post from Bolt Camel.

He's said you have a right to be offended, but that a blanket ban might not be the right thing to do. I think he has a point and am a bit disappointed that the good intentions and meanings from some very up-front & decent posters are not being taken into account by you.

I'm ducking out of this - if there's a ban then fair enough - I don't want to see another blondeite offended.

My vote - ask for some sensitivity and some attempt to see the other peoples point of view - from all sides, and lets see how we get on.

[AndrewT]

The Camel's post was revelatory, and bringing in childhood experiences helps to put things in perspective.

When I was at primary school, a common insult to hurl at each other was being 'a jew'. Being 'a jew' or 'jewish' was used as a comparative with any display of cheapness or stinginess, playing on the stereotype of Jews and money ("Aw, c'mon, lend me 20p - don't be a Jew" etc) . Now neither I, nor anyone else at school was Jewish, or even knew a Jew. It was just a word which was bandied about as a synonym for tightness. As we viewed it, not only were we not doing ay harm, but it wouldn't have ever crossed our minds that we were doing anything wrong.

However, imagine if a Jewish kid then joined our class, and was on the receiving end of the 'banter'. It would not be harmless to him. We may have no malice, and not mean any harm, but our words would have a negative effect on him. It might make him feel an outcast, different from others and ultimately hurt him. This would obviously be wrong.

Why were we calling each other Jews anyway? Because the term had passed into common parlance. We'd picked it up from adults and used it, without being aware of the effect it had on some people. But an effect it would have.

It's easy to substitute 'gay' for 'Jew' in the above example and draw parallels. We may use the term with no malice. Our children may use it with no malice. But the confused teenager struggling to find their place in the world discovers they're gay, a word they hear being used with negative connotations in society. How are they supposed to feel anything other than an outcast?

It is a very difficult issue in knowing where to draw the line. Draw it in one place and you have kids crying themselves to sleep at night. Draw it somewhere else and you have councils banning the nursery rhyme Ba Ba Black Sheep. It's not a problem I have a solution to.

[The Camel]

Ultimatly it's up to the mods, yes?

They discern which posts are deemed to be fit for general veiwing and which ones have to be edited/deleted.

Of course it's correct for people to articulate their concerns over posts if they find them offensive but this should'nt precipitate prospective changes in blonde rules.

when action man raised his concerns over the increasing spam content on blonde the posts by snoopy and other mods at the top of the main page were moved for a time.

The sites run very well and i think that on a public forum all you can do, in keeping with spirit of blonde, is make the place as receptive as possible to the diverese array of users that you have, so by doing allowing the majority of members to continue posting in the spirit in which blonde was intended.

My point being is that its healthy to review issues of political correctness, but if your going to impliment restrictions and regulations as a result of the extremely persuasive and credulous arguments of a single member then you aleinate the majority.

I think that what the camel says is correct in that he should be able to take offence at particular posts, but i feel that the emotion that different threads provoke is part of the blonde forum ethos, varied and abundent in its panapleee of content.

Congratulations. The first ridiculous post of the thread.

So, if the majority think something is ok, then it is ok?

That's why racism, homophobia, sexism and all other forms of discrimination are so rife throughout the world.

The strong majority picking upon a weak minority.

That's really fair, isn't it?

Congratulations to you, the first hint of flaming in an otherwise friendly debate

I know you have a problem with me personally Tom. And I have no idea why.

Anything I post or say seems to upset you.

Bolt's post was beyond ridiculous. My response was considerably tamer than it could have been to keep the debate civilised.

[bolt pp]

Ultimatly it's up to the mods, yes?

They discern which posts are deemed to be fit for general veiwing and which ones have to be edited/deleted.

Of course it's correct for people to articulate their concerns over posts if they find them offensive but this should'nt precipitate prospective changes in blonde rules.

when action man raised his concerns over the increasing spam content on blonde the posts by snoopy and other mods at the top of the main page were moved for a time.

The sites run very well and i think that on a public forum all you can do, in keeping with spirit of blonde, is make the place as receptive as possible to the diverese array of users that you have, so by doing allowing the majority of members to continue posting in the spirit in which blonde was intended.

My point being is that its healthy to review issues of political correctness, but if your going to impliment restrictions and regulations as a result of the extremely persuasive and credulous arguments of a single member then you aleinate the majority.

I think that what the camel says is correct in that he should be able to take offence at particular posts, but i feel that the emotion that different threads provoke is part of the blonde forum ethos, varied and abundent in its panapleee of content.

Congratulations. The first ridiculous post of the thread.

So, if the majority think something is ok, then it is ok?

That's why racism, homophobia, sexism and all other forms of discrimination are so rife throughout the world.

The strong majority picking upon a weak minority.

That's really fair, isn't it?

Its a public forum and if the majority of the people think they are engaging in  friendly banter then what should the mods do?

delete every post? you see how many of the posts consist of some sort of racist, ageist, sexist, remark, that are all intened in the corrct spirit and then delete them, they'll be hardly any left.

How can you not cator to the vast majority on a public forum?

Its not just about homophobia, restricting people thus would set a precedent for every type of peice of banter that is prevelent amongst the members of blonde.

I think that if these kind of jokes are taken in the spirit in which the majority of blondes intend them to be then offence is wrongly infered.


Your talking about the world and racism, i'm talking about banter on a forum, everyones on here to have a laugh.

I'm not talking about resurecting the ideology of nazi germany or world wide opression but having a laugh on a public forum where a lot of the peopel know eachother.