Acceptable insults

[splifingate]

I've always been amazed at the double standards applied in this forum towards public figures and the forum members. If a public figure makes a mistake or an error of judgement, they can be insulted for doing so and no action taken against the forum member BUT when a forum member does the same thing, makes a mistake or an error of judgement, no one is allowed to say anything negative against them or the wrath of hell is brought down on them by the mods. There should no insulting of ANYONE regardless of who they are. Allowing some people to be insulted and not others just goes to show how things are wrong with moderation in here.

I've had many-a-my-post removed, here, because they (the comments I consciously-hand-coded) did not {specifically} adhere to the pre-specified agreements we assumed were agreed-upon.

Moderation is not a "they" (they are a collective "We").

Conscious--or unconsciously agreed-upon--personal statements are (however unfortunate) expressions, the the extent of which are (inevitably observed, and) and mitigated.

Yeah; it hurts.

But, this allows for Understanding, and Wisdom.

I have always spoken from my heart (I know this).

The fact that these heart-felt statements of mine have been squelched is no reflection of who I am

 

[Analog Kid]

First, I suppose, one would need to define obscene. Personally, I am not afraid of words, I do not believe in "curse" words. As an example: other terms for excrement... we have poop, a four letter word which some teach children to use. Then of course we have the other 4 letter word that begins with s and ends in t, this word some punish children for using, exactly why would we do that?

Second, can one really insult policy? That seems a stretch. I am simply expressing a strong disagreement while maintaining some civility... I didn't spell it out did I?

Your point is taken but in the end I'll defend my avatar with the reasoning above. Yes, I could have used something like a thumbs down emoji with DMA under it but that wouldn't be as playful which is how I view it. I have been using it for a while now and you are the first to suggest it is obscene.

Question...

View attachment 2384024
Do you consider this common car graphic obscene? Or how about the abbreviation "AF"?

Here's the thing, I'm not easily offended. I personally found your avatar quite clever and I agree whole heartedly with the sentiment, I just found the proximity to the word "civility" in your post a bit amusing.

Can someone insult policy? Can someone insult a person who isn't listening? There's no real reason to argue against insulting world leaders or CEOs of trillion dollar companies, for example-- they clearly aren't going to read it in here. The only reason I can think of to discourage it is because someone other than the person being insulted is offended-- presumably because they identify with that person or their values and thus see an attack on that person as an attack on them and take offense indirectly.

In that way, I think an insult on policy could trigger the same mechanism. Policies are put in place by people. If someone is offended by insulting the policy maker because they happen to like the policy, then insulting the policy itself is just one less level of indirection. So yes, I think people can find insulting a policy to be offensive. Personally, I don't think that's a problem though.


To be clear, I think public figures and policies should be fair game. I think insulting someone as a proxy for insulting certain group identities (the not so veiled homophobic attacks on Tim Cook for example) are out of bounds. I don't have an issue with someone calling Tim Cook an idiot-- I don't agree, but I don't consider idiots to be a protected class so have at it.

 

[Weaselboy]

Can you please point me to the rule that allows this...

It is not something explained in the rules, it is just a policy recently adopted due to an issue that came up related to a news thread.

 

[laptech]

Here's the thing, I'm not easily offended. I personally found your avatar quite clever and I agree whole heartedly with the sentiment, I just found the proximity to the word "civility" in your post a bit amusing.

Can someone insult policy? Can someone insult a person who isn't listening? There's no real reason to argue against insulting world leaders or CEOs of trillion dollar companies, for example-- they clearly aren't going to read it in here. The only reason I can think of to discourage it is because someone other than the person being insulted is offended-- presumably because they identify with that person or their values and thus see an attack on that person as an attack on them and take offense indirectly.

In that way, I think an insult on policy could trigger the same mechanism. Policies are put in place by people. If someone is offended by insulting the policy maker because they happen to like the policy, then insulting the policy itself is just one less level of indirection. So yes, I think people can find insulting a policy to be offensive. Personally, I don't think that's a problem though.


To be clear, I think public figures and policies should be fair game. I think insulting someone as a proxy for insulting certain group identities (the not so veiled homophobic attacks on Tim Cook for example) are out of bounds. I don't have an issue with someone calling Tim Cook an idiot-- I don't agree, but I don't consider idiots to be a protected class so have at it.

As long as you do not mind being insulted back from the person you insult then that is fine.

The problem I have with insults of public figures being acceptable is that if that public figure was to then fire back at the person with insults, that person will shout from the roof tops that have been insulted and thus want the public figure arrested. Insults should not be allowed towards ANYONE and anyone that thinks differently has a very poor attitude in my opinion.

 

[tonmischa]

We would all do well to manage ourselves and hope that betters our forum.

Yes, I could have used something like a thumbs down emoji with DMA under it but that wouldn't be as playful which is how I view it.

I have been using it for a while now and you are the first to suggest it is obscene.

My 2 cents:
I find your profile picture provocative and insulting. (You are specifically mentioning the "brainless bureaucrats" in your signature, which suggests that you are not only disagreeing with policy, but are also insulting human beings like you and me who happen to work for the EU.)

I am absolutely fine with the fact that you are entitled to your own opinion. You are also very welcome to voice that opinion publicly.

But when that same someone talks about "managing ourselves and hopes to better our forum", it made me laugh out loud.

(Not trying to insult you, just trying to point out the big discrepancy between your two statements. At least that is how I perceive your statements.)

 

[icanhazmac]

My 2 cents:
I find your profile picture provocative and insulting. (You are specifically mentioning the "brainless bureaucrats" in your signature, which suggests that you are not only disagreeing with policy, but are also insulting human beings like you and me who happen to work for the EU.)

I am absolutely fine with the fact that you are entitled to your own opinion. You are also very welcome to voice that opinion publicly.

But when that same someone talks about "managing ourselves and hopes to better our forum", it made me laugh out loud.

(Not trying to insult you, just trying to point out the big discrepancy between your two statements. At least that is how I perceive your statements.)

Fair enough, you are also entitled to your opinion. The topic again is insults towards members here at MR and public figures, I assume by name. My avatar is registering my dislike of policy enacted by an entity and contains nothing obscene or vulgar by general standards, YMMV.

 

[tonmischa]

contains nothing obscene or vulgar by general standards

Then what does "FU" mean?

 

[icanhazmac]

Then what does "FU" mean?

I think you know exactly what "FU" means and I stand by its intended meaning but chose to present my disdain in a way that would be generally acceptable. I acknowledge there will always be someone who is overly sensitive and might find even this insulting but most would not and have not.

Please reference post #49, do you also find that fairly common graphic obscene or insulting? I can't drive any appreciable amount of time without seeing a couple of them on cars. How about the abbreviation "AF"? Again, very common daily usage, I see it here all the time. If my avatar were that stick figure "humping" the letters DMA would that also be insulting or would that be acceptable? Same exact meaning with different presentation.

I think you need to ask yourself if you find the "FU" part of my avatar insulting or is it only insulting when combined with the EU or DMA? If my avatar said "FU Hunger" displaying my dislike for food shortages would you still be here claiming it is insulting?

 

[Apple_Robert]

It has already been ruled that insults to public figures is acceptable. It seems some here are trying to show hypocrisy on incanhaz and get his point silenced or worse, some new rule made for those looking to be offended. There is no hypocrisy here, just some looking to cry foul because it seems different isn’t accepted if one disagrees.

 

[Flowstates]

Please reference post #49, do you also find that fairly common graphic obscene or insulting? I can't drive any appreciable amount of time without seeing a couple of them on cars. How about the abbreviation "AF"? Again, very common daily usage, I see it here all the time. If my avatar were that stick figure "humping" the letters DMA would that also be insulting or would that be acceptable? Same exact meaning with different presentation.

Are you even located in Europe ? That is even remotely impacted by the policy ? Or is it a simplistic extension of REGULATION = Bad ?

Having a bit of context is helpful to understand whether vulgarity is a heuristic or simply ad homniem.

 

[tonmischa]

It has already been ruled that insults to public figures is acceptable. It seems some here are trying to show hypocrisy on incanhaz and get his point silenced or worse, some new rule made for those looking to be offended. There is no hypocrisy here, just some looking to cry foul because it seems different isn’t accepted if one disagrees.

I am not even sure how to respond to that.
Someone asks for the betterment of forum members and asks for a more civilized forum (#47) while having an avatar that says "**** you" and calls human people "brainless" in his signature.
Do you REALLY not see the discrepancy here?

*Edited for clarity*

 

[icanhazmac]

Do you REALLY not see the discrepancy here?

IMHO there is no discrepancy. My reply, and thought on being better in the forums, was specifically in reference to insulting both forum members and public figures, by name as individuals.

I think some of you are more interested catching me in a "gotcha" moment versus actually contributing to this conversation. Just to show I am not above a little constructive criticism I have adjusted my sig. As stated in post #47, I can't guarantee I haven't insulted someone here but we could all try to do better so I have done my part.

 

[eltoslightfoot]

I feel so bad for the mods on this site. I honestly don't know how they do it.

 

[I7guy]

As long as you do not mind being insulted back from the person you insult then that is fine.

The problem I have with insults of public figures being acceptable is that if that public figure was to then fire back at the person with insults, that person will shout from the roof tops that have been insulted and thus want the public figure arrested. Insults should not be allowed towards ANYONE and anyone that thinks differently has a very poor attitude in my opinion.

In which hypothetical world is the actually happening?

 

[tonmischa]

I have adjusted my sig

I admire your ability to self-reflect and I congratulate you, Sir!
Your future conversations in this forum will very likely benefit from this decision!

Conincidentally, you are making my point.
You are assuming that I did nothing to contribute? You are correct. Why? Because you gave me a big opening to attack your avatar instead of arguing the facts. How did this happen? Because the forum rules allow it.

Fostering an environment, where human beings are treated differently by separating them into classes (public figure, forum member, public figure who becomes a forum member) is a very bad idea. IMHO.
Fostering an environment, where obvious insults ("whiny bitch", "**** You", not sure if Mods will allow me to add all the others to this list) are not even considered as an insult anymore, is another very bad idea. IMHO.
Allowing an environment, where calling Tim Cook a "stupid idiot" is allowed, but poking fun at a editorial decision of MacRumors is punished with a 2-day suspension, only further fuels the feeling of arbitrary moderation and unfairness and makes the jobs of Mods so much harder. IMHO.

- The concept of an "acceptable insult" is a contradiction in itself.
- People are equal and should always be treated as such.

I appeal to the rule makers of MR to please reconsider their policy.

 

[icanhazmac]

I admire your ability to self-reflect and I congratulate you, Sir!
Your future conversations in this forum will very likely benefit from this decision!

Conincidentally, you are making my point.
You are assuming that I did nothing to contribute? You are correct. Why? Because you gave me a big opening to attack your avatar instead of arguing the facts. How did this happen? Because the forum rules allow it.

Fostering an environment, where human beings are treated differently by separating them into classes (public figure, forum member, public figure who becomes a forum member) is a very bad idea. IMHO.
Fostering an environment, where obvious insults ("whiny bitch", "**** You", not sure if Mods will allow me to add all the others to this list) are not even considered as an insult anymore, is another very bad idea. IMHO.
Allowing an environment, where calling Tim Cook a "stupid idiot" is allowed, but poking fun at a editorial decision of MacRumors is punished with a 2-day suspension, only further fuels the feeling of arbitrary moderation and unfairness and makes the jobs of Mods so much harder. IMHO.

- The concept of an "acceptable insult" is a contradiction in itself.
- People are equal and should always be treated as such.

I appeal to the rule makers of MR to please reconsider their policy.

I'm not sure who you are addressing with this? And specifically what point of yours do you think I am making?

I never argued for "acceptable insults" directed at members here at MR or public figures, in fact in post #47 I lamented that we cannot have a civil conversation about X or Tesla for all the vile insults thrown at a certain public figure. I still have no issue with my original signature, or avatar, as neither insulted individual members here at MR or any individual public figure. Some here took issue with "brainless bureaucrats", clearly a group, not an individual, but I chose to amend, lets consider that settling out of court without any admission of guilt. I still feel some were after a "gotcha" moment versus any genuine offense or contribution to the discussion.

Calling a member or public figure a "whiny bitch" = Apples
Saying "FU" to an entity and/or policy = Oranges

As with any topic, folks will have differing opinions. As I have stated before I do not think twice about "vulgar" words, they are just words and only carry the weight we allow them. I have no problem using s**t interchangeably with poop, to me they literally are the same and I find it silly that one is taboo or vulgar while the other is regarded as an everyday word. YMMV.

May I ask... why do you consider some words "vulgar"? Using my example above of poop vs s**t. They both literally have the same meaning, at least in that context.

If you didn't know english and visited this link:

Thesaurus.com - The world's favorite online thesaurus!

Thesaurus.com is the world’s largest and most trusted online thesaurus for 25+ years. Join millions of people and grow your mastery of the English language.

www.thesaurus.com

You would not know that s**t is considered "vulgar". Why is it "vulgar"? Because some random person or entity, somewhere at some time decided it was not a proper thing to say, that is just silly.

If you wish to further converse about insulting members or public individuals that is fine but I am done discussing avatars or sigs that address policy or non-specific entities, that is off-topic. Feel free to start a thread on that topic if you wish.

 

[tonmischa]

And specifically what point of yours do you think I am making?

That the forum rules need an overhaul. IMHO.
That the forum should set a stricter code of conduct and stricter rules for appropriate language. Because - by your own admission - you do not seem to see the difference (or care about the difference) anymore. IMHO.

Yes, **** is more vulgar than poop. Yes, a random entity made that rule. An entity called society.
You might not like that rule, you can also choose to ignore that rule.
But it doesn't change the fact that a lot of people will agree with that assessment.

If you don't want to discuss anymore, that's fine. But please don't give me twenty lines of text with question marks in it and then expect me not to answer

Have a nice life, Sir, and Good Luck!

EDIT:
Even the forum's censoring software agrees with that assessment

 

[Analog Kid]

The problem I have with insults of public figures being acceptable is that if that public figure was to then fire back at the person with insults

You see the asymmetry there, right? I'm ok if people of extraordinary power and influence have fewer protections from ad hominem attacks than people without such power or influence. I don't think ad hominem attacks are a terribly effective form of argument, but that's not the question here-- it's what should be modded out and what shouldn't be.

Insults should not be allowed towards ANYONE and anyone that thinks differently has a very poor attitude in my opinion.

This shows what a very thin line is being discussed. You are responding to my post where I am saying that I have no problem with insults directed at public figures. You said you think they shouldn't be allowed, and that anyone who thinks differently has a very poor attitude. You are in effect saying I have a very poor attitude. I believe if you had literally said "you have a poor attitude", that might trigger moderation, but by adding a few ambiguities you manage to get the insult off without consequence.

I think we need to moderate direct attacks on individuals engaged in the forum discussions, mostly because things tend to spin out of control if we don't. Trying to moderate hidden intent is much, much harder to do reliably and without over moderating a discussion. What you said in this case, I think is fine. Trying to moderate it as an insult starts getting into trying to infer intent and people demanding moderation because "I think he might have been talking about me".

 

[I7guy]

You see the asymmetry there, right? I'm ok if people of extraordinary power and influence have fewer protections from ad hominem attacks than people without such power or influence. I don't think ad hominem attacks are a terribly effective form of argument, but that's not the question here-- it's what should be modded out and what shouldn't be.




This shows what a very thin line is being discussed. You are responding to my post where I am saying that I have no problem with insults directed at public figures. You said you think they shouldn't be allowed, and that anyone who thinks differently has a very poor attitude. You are in effect saying I have a very poor attitude. I believe if you had literally said "you have a poor attitude", that might trigger moderation, but by adding a few ambiguities you manage to get the insult off without consequence.

I think we need to moderate direct attacks on individuals engaged in the forum discussions, mostly because things tend to spin out of control if we don't. Trying to moderate hidden intent is much, much harder to do reliably and without over moderating a discussion. What you said in this case, I think is fine. Trying to moderate it as an insult starts getting into trying to infer intent and people demanding moderation because "I think he might have been talking about me".

You touched upon another internet arguing point that uses generalizations combined with a negative statement to cast a wide net.

"X,y,z is terrible and anyone who believes otherwise doesn't know what they are talking about" As long as one is discussing the vague or made up and hypothetical universe of a group of people, an insult is acceptable because it is not directed at someone specifically. Although I think there may be limits:
- "doesn't know what they are talking about" is probably acceptable
- "Full of ****" and other phraseology along this lines would/should be moderated.

 

[Madhatter32]

You touched upon another internet arguing point that uses generalizations combined with a negative statement to cast a wide net.

"X,y,z is terrible and anyone who believes otherwise doesn't know what they are talking about" As long as one is discussing the vague or made up and hypothetical universe of a group of people, an insult is acceptable because it is not directed at someone specifically. Although I think there may be limits:
- "doesn't know what they are talking about" is probably acceptable
- "Full of ****" and other phraseology along this lines would/should be moderated.

Indeed. There are a litany of logical fallacies that people use here, and elsewhere, as a form of argument. Literally every day and almost every thread. It would be amusing if it were not so common.

 

[VisceralRealist]

"Insults are bad and if you disagree, you're [insert insult]" is some grade-A irony.

"You're saying I'm ironic?! Insult! 😫"

 

[fatTribble]

This shows what a very thin line is being discussed. You are responding to my post where I am saying that I have no problem with insults directed at public figures. You said you think they shouldn't be allowed, and that anyone who thinks differently has a very poor attitude. You are in effect saying I have a very poor attitude. I believe if you had literally said "you have a poor attitude", that might trigger moderation, but by adding a few ambiguities you manage to get the insult off without consequence.

I can’t help but think of a large number of posts in the Vision Pro threads.

They contain many posts from people saying they bought a Vision Pro.

Interspersed between those are posts like:
Anone who buys one of these has more money than brains.
People just buy these to make themselves feel like ballers (which I guess is a wealthy soccer player)
Only the elites are buying these.

So those aren’t directly talking about me but sometimes it sure feels like it.

 

[icanhazmac]

Yes, **** is more vulgar than poop. Yes, a random entity made that rule. An entity called society.
You might not like that rule, you can also choose to ignore that rule.
But it doesn't change the fact that a lot of people will agree with that assessment.

Well, it is not so long ago that "society" and "a lot of people" found some other things "vulgar", I don't know your age but if you were alive at that time did you blindly follow "society" or did you challenge ridiculous views?

Yes, **** is more vulgar than poop.

"Society's" view on some really large issues has shifted dramatically recently but "society" wants to hold on to considering s**t as "vulgar" and not appropriate in polite company? LOL. Allowing Mr. Carlin's 7 Words into common speech seems a very tiny and inconsequential step compared to others but please "society", continue to clutch your pearls over "curse" words.

Even the forum's censoring software agrees with that assessment

It sure does, and I find that annoying, but I choose to operate inside the rules MR sets (at least most of the time, sorry to the mods) because I enjoy this site and the vast majority of the community. I do this for the same reasons I would remove my shoes, if requested, when visiting someones home. Their home, their rules. If those rules are beyond what I am willing to accept I will simply leave. Using certain words is not a hill I am willing to die on, it doesn't mean that much to me, but the conversation began about my use of the abbreviation "FU" and here we are.

 

[laptech]

Well, it is not so long ago that "society" and "a lot of people" found some other things "vulgar", I don't know your age but if you were alive at that time did you blindly follow "society" or did you challenge ridiculous views?



"Society's" view on some really large issues has shifted dramatically recently but "society" wants to hold on to considering s**t as "vulgar" and not appropriate in polite company? LOL. Allowing Mr. Carlin's 7 Words into common speech seems a very tiny and inconsequential step compared to others but please "society", continue to clutch your pearls over "curse" words.



It sure does, and I find that annoying, but I choose to operate inside the rules MR sets (at least most of the time, sorry to the mods) because I enjoy this site and the vast majority of the community. I do this for the same reasons I would remove my shoes, if requested, when visiting someones home. Their home, their rules. If those rules are beyond what I am willing to accept I will simply leave. Using certain words is not a hill I am willing to die on, it doesn't mean that much to me, but the conversation began about my use of the abbreviation "FU" and here we are.

Just because you do not find certain words vulgar or take offense does not mean it is acceptable to everybody else. Your trying to make out that because you do not find the word s**t vulgar that everybody should not either and because you do not take offence at things that everybody else should not take offence at things either. This is a very selfish view to take and if you do not think you have said this to people in here then you need to re-read a lot of your posts because that is certainly the impression your giving out in your posts.

Speech has many facets, it can be soothing, it can be soft, it can be harsh, it can be sad, it can be funny, it can be happy. Which facets get's used all depends on the wording used and the context it is used in. Whilst poop and s**t may refer to the same thing, their meaning is totally different because poop would be considered a 'soft' word (pardon the pun) and s**t a harsh/strong/attention grabbing word. When a person wants to grab attention or cause attention they will use words that are generally considered vulgar. Because it has been brought up a number of times, the avatar icanhazmac uses is to draw attention to himself. He wants to show everyone in the forum his distaste towards the EU over it's handling of DMA.

I will still stick to my point, vulgarity and insults should not be allowed in this forum regardless of who the person is. The fact that the owners of this forum allow it's members to insult public figures is deplorable.

 

[Rainbow Apple]

View attachment 2383522

Pictured above is a homophobic post for example, and here is the link: https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...oop-band-and-watch-face.2425521/post-33109826

How is this post not insinuating homophobia?

If "homophobia" is being mean to someone, over what he does with a consenting adult in the privacy of his own bedroom: I'm not seeing it! My sex life and sexuality are my business, and do not require celebration form Apple or anyone on this forum. Really, the best way to not be homophobic is to simply not care about someone's private bedroom activities!