Geo-politics

[CrimsonWeltall]

The same arguement can be made for gay and ethnic jokes...

 

He said 'regardless of why it is offensive'. You could make up any bulls*** reason to say something is offensive.

 

OH ANCHORMAN WAS OFFENSIVE IT'S MEAN TO ANCHORMEN

[Texsox]

When you place someone on your ignore list you do not see their avatars or sigs. You will see one line that basically states you have choosen to ignore (name) to view this post click here

 

One way to handle the situation. Not a perfect way,. and it isn't a one size fits all.

[southsider2k5]

He said 'regardless of why it is offensive'. You could make up any bulls*** reason to say something is offensive.

 

OH ANCHORMAN WAS OFFENSIVE IT'S MEAN TO ANCHORMEN

 

So what about that makes it any different than anyone else being offended by something. Some people are offended by anything, and some people are offended by nothing. Why protect one group over another?

[CrimsonWeltall]

'Offensive' is a pretty subjective concept and we're not going to be able to make a clear cut definition of what is or is not offensive, but don't you think the board can draw the line somewhere between 'anything goes' and 'never say anything negative about anything ever' so that Soxtalk maintains a good atmosphere but doesn't have to be regulated over minor complaints?

 

Most people here seem to think calling people f**gots or n*****s is inappropriate, but most don't have a problem with a Buddy Christ avatar.

[YASNY]

'Offensive' is a pretty subjective concept and we're not going to be able to make a clear cut definition of what is or is not offensive, but don't you think the board can draw the line somewhere between 'anything goes' and 'never say anything negative about anything ever' so that Soxtalk maintains a good atmosphere but doesn't have to be regulated over minor complaints?

 

Most people here seem to think calling people f**gots or n*****s is inappropriate, but most don't have a problem with a Buddy Christ avatar.

 

 

That's your agenda. It may not necessarily be mine. What if I believed that Christ was our Lord and Savior? What if I believed that homosexuality was an abimination against God? What if I believed that so many of the problems the black community faces is because they bring it upon themselves due to their attitudes and outlooks? Is it acceptable for me to say that I think Bill Cosby is right? Or does offending you and disagreeing with your views carry more weight than you offending me and disagreeing with mine?

Edited February 21, 2005 by YASNY

[FlaSoxxJim]

I'd like nothing better than to go back to a loosey-goosey hands-off SoxTalk community where people don't have to worry about what they do and don't post, re Chaos' decision not to post a joke because of how it would be perceived. But the truth is that the site has become too large for no-holds-barred to be the rule of order.

 

I do see a difference between a personal attack and a generalized, caricaturized/stereotypical joke, and I think others do as well, but I've been in exactly the same situation as Chaos (many probably have) and I thought twice about posting a joke and didn't.

 

I also think there is a difference between a personal attack and an attack on an institution or an establishment, and that is where I would be fundamentally at odds with Pas assertion that attacking, deriding, or lampooning aspects of religion is no different than singling out an individual to attack. Maybe the difference is not actually as stark as I perceive it. And yes, I can see how someone blasting an institution (religious or not) you belong to or align with can tick you off. But that is not a personal attack and I think for the most part it is good fodder for discourse and debate as long as it does not devolve into personal attack.

 

The I4E debates are a perfect example of that. I agreed with little if any of what he posted, but if he'd have been able to post his viewpoints without INVARIABLY resorting to personally attacking everybody who disagreed with him, he'd still be here. I do believe he took all dissenting views personally and figured if his political beliefs and values were being knocked then it's OK to get nasty and personal. But it is not.

 

I think hypocrisy in general is always a good thing to rail against. From that perspective, religion and various segments of organized religion are always going to find themselves in the crosshairs. Religion in no way holds monopoly on hypocrisy, but neither are they free from it and so it will continue to be a point of discussion/argument and a focus of scorn/ridicule for some.

 

But, from that perspective, if PA sees hypocrisy in how various topics are moderated here he is right to call it to light. I may be off base, but I think critical posts directed at segments of Christianity are an affront to PA's beliefs, and so we have the issue of why is it OK that something offensive to one side can stand while something offensive to another cannot.

 

Again, I'd only suggest that personal attacks and generalized criticisms against institutions or larger entities (even those that you or I may find personally offensive or disagreeable) are different and can be effectively treated as such here. I don't think it has always been done successfully, but I think people have done the best they can.

 

As for the whole gay issue, I agree there currently is an oversensitivity to the point of overkill on the part of all the peacekeepers here. As has been alluded to here, though, there is a board history that got us to where we are now, so the sensitivity is not born of nothing.

 

My, but I can prattle on. Sorry.

[AddisonStSox]

No offense to all the good people at Soxtalk, but you have to know what you're getting yourself into when you decide to spend your free time at a baseball fourm.

 

This fourm, first and foremost, is a place to discuss all things Chicago White Sox. That's what it is. That's why its called "Sox Talk," and not "Everything Talk."

 

To that end, I really don't put much stock into anything I read in the Sex, Lies and Politics forum. The truth of the matter is, if I wanted to discuss anything political or societal, I'd converse with friends, professors, or the other brillliant and respected minds here at the University.

 

This fourm isn't a mouthpiece to spew whatever pops into your head, PC or not. Hell, if it were up to me, there wouldn't be a place for these types of discussions on this board. I come to read Sox things first, and everything else second.

 

The crux of my arguement: if you're here to discuss geo-politics, you might be in the wrong place.

 

That's why I made a vow to stay out of this forum as much as possible.

 

Personally, I don't give a h00t what any of you think outside the baseball realm.

[YASNY]

No offense to all the good people at Soxtalk, but you have to know what you're getting yourself into when you decide to spend your free time at a baseball fourm.

 

This fourm, first and foremost, is a place to discuss all things Chicago White Sox.  That's what it is.  That's why its called "Sox Talk," and not "Everything Talk."

 

To that end, I really don't put much stock into anything I read in the Sex, Lies and Politics forum.  The truth of the matter is, if I wanted to discuss anything political or societal, I'd converse with friends, professors, or the other brillliant and respected minds here at the University.

 

This fourm isn't a mouthpiece to spew whatever pops into your head, PC or not.  Hell, if it were up to me, there wouldn't be a place for these types of discussions on this board.  I come to read Sox things first, and everything else second.

 

The crux of my arguement: if you're here to discuss geo-politics, you might be in the wrong place.

 

That's why I made a vow to stay out of this forum as much as possible.

 

Personally, I don't give a h00t what any of you think outside the baseball realm.

 

For some reason, I find that a very sensible approach.

[CrimsonWeltall]

What if I believed that Christ was our Lord and Savior? What if I believed that homosexuality was an abimination against God? What if I believed that so many of the problems the black community faces is because they bring it upon themselves due to their attitudes and outlooks? Is it acceptable for me to say that I think Bill Cosby is right? Or does offending you and disagreeing with your views carry more weight than you offending me and disagreeing with mine?

 

It would be acceptable to say all of those things. I'm taking 'offensive' to mainly be 'rude'. Having an opinion in a discussion isn't rude.

 

I also think there is a difference between a personal attack and an attack on an institution or an establishment, and that is where I would be fundamentally at odds with Pas assertion that attacking, deriding, or lampooning aspects of religion is no different than singling out an individual to attack.

 

++

[YASNY]

It would be acceptable to say all of those things.  I'm taking 'offensive' to mainly be 'rude'. Having an opinion in a discussion isn't rude.

++

 

 

This:

Most people here seem to think calling people f**gots or n*****s is inappropriate, but most don't have a problem with a Buddy Christ avatar.

seems to suggest otherwise. I mean, referring to Jesus as "Buddy Christ" is as offensive to some as "f**gots or n*****s" is to others. Saying "Buddy Christ" is demeaning to those of the Christian faith as much as using "f*****" is to homosexuals.

[Texsox]

Soxtalk is different things to different people and each person is looking for something slightly different when they type soxtalk.com into their browser. Some stay in palehose and rarely stray, some now have a majority of posts in SL&P or AJs Sports Pub. IMHO it has evolved beyond a baseball site for many of the netizens. With that comes some guidelines to keep people happy.

 

Recognize also that while we may all have been created equal, we all aren't equal here. Be a Cubbie troll or Indians lover and see how equal you are. Keep calling people racially charged names and see how equal you are. Some people here have the power to suggest change, some have the power to make change. Again, we all aren't equal. But then again, isn't that a microcosm of life?

 

Peace

[CrimsonWeltall]

seems to suggest otherwise.

 

That statement was more of an observation than anything. Regardless, as echoed by Fla, I think negative comments towards people are different than negative comments towards a concept, even if the latter indirectly offends people. Of course, context matters too.

[YASNY]

I think I'm going to just shut up.

[Yossarian]

And the choice to be gay CK?  Oh man, that's hilarious!  "Lets see -- I can lose rights, be harassed, beaten, attacked, hated for no rational reason..." yeah, a lot of people are making that "choice".

This is knee jerkism and poor thinking. It's also a dangerous slippery slope outlook. I mean if being gay is totally outside the bounds of any type of free will, then what other types of behavior are too? Think about it. I'm older than probably 95% of the posters here and I've not led a sheltered existence. I've known many gays and I can tell you that it is my considered opinion that the journey has many paths and yes free will is a big part of the equation. I'm posting this not to bash anybody, and hope the dialogue if there is any will be civil. We all make choices and we have to live with and take responsibility for. Many genetic and cultural forces impel us to certain actions, but nobody is 100% compelled. As far as the original post goes; some people, things, places, religions, philosophies, etc are open for the most vicious and unfair criticisms and others are immune and sacrosanct. It's a PC world we live in and it gets worse all the time.

[Controlled Chaos]

I will post what my "joke" or lack there of, was going to be just for the sake of explaining.

 

When winodj posted the pic of his car last week...some were bashing it and some weren't. I was simply gonna post. "That car is gay" Just because I thought it could be taken both ways 1) was the way we weren't suppose to use "gay" 2) winodj is the resident gay poster so in a round about way it was fitting. I mean what could be considered a gay car if not a car with a gay driver. I figured he would find it funny, and be like... hell yeah it is...thank you!!

 

I mean it isn't even that funny, but it was just something that came to mind and I just started replying without thinking...., but then it hit me...I had to think. I realized that the joke while it may get a or a it wasn't worth possibly offending anyone.

 

Honestly, I dont think it would have offended anyone...but some skin is thickier than others. It wasn't really a derogatory statement...but I guess better to be safe than sorry...I mean think about what was missed by me not posting what I wanted to....nothing...I'll live...

 

but next time I read Dago, Wop or All you Italians are in the mob...you'll be getting a visit from my Uncle Vito!!

Edited February 21, 2005 by Controlled Chaos

[LowerCaseRepublican]

This is knee jerkism and poor thinking. It's also a dangerous slippery slope outlook. I mean if being gay is totally outside the bounds of any type of free will, then what other types of behavior are too? Think about it. I'm older than probably 95% of the posters here and I've not led a sheltered existence. I've known many gays and I can tell you that it is my considered opinion that the journey has many paths and yes free will is a big part of the equation. I'm posting this not to bash anybody, and hope the dialogue if there is any will be civil. We all make choices and we have to live with and take responsibility for. Many genetic and cultural forces impel us to certain actions, but nobody is 100% compelled. As far as the original post goes; some people, things, places, religions, philosophies, etc are open for the most vicious and unfair criticisms and others are immune and sacrosanct. It's a PC world we live in and it gets worse all the time.

 

But to attribute it all to choice as if that's the only factor is absolutely insane since more and more research is finding biologic differences between heterosexual and homosexual brain physiology etc. /waits for Fla to come out with "here comes the science!" It was not saying that it was outside the bounds of speech but rather that it was a ridiculous concept and I was satirizing/lampooning it as such. He's got the freedom to speak but if he says something idiotic then I got the right to lampoon whatever it was.

 

I'd post more but I got back to back appointments with advisors regarding my last year in my minor program today that should take a few hours simply to be told that I am on schedule and am going to graduate on time. :puke

[Soxy]

I personally get offended when people use Christianity to judge everyone else and point fingers, instead of focusing on their own righteousness and being right with God themselves....

 

For me, I think about those opinions and don't put much stock in them. Do I have to listen? No. But usually when I hear/read/whatever those kinds of things, I usually just consider the source and go along on my merry way.

[Texsox]

When winodj posted the pic of his car last week...some were bashing it and some weren't.  I was simply gonna post.  "That car is gay"

To be honest, I thought the same thing and I'm trying to remember if I PM'd WDJ or not with it. Which brings up another issue. There are things I'm comfortable joking with in PMs and in person that I would never want to post on a message board. Do I not post them, if for example, I think WDJ might be offended? No because WDJ has been fairly clear on many occassions that much of this doesn't offend him. I don't post it because it just isn't that important and someone else, new to the boards may be offended. Plus I recognize that few people are as open and honest as WDJ. With the number of men we have posting here, I will eat my cap if WDJ is the only gay person posting here on a regular basis.

 

Hey look over there, pitchers and catchers reported last week, position players are in now!

[Steff]

but next time I read Dago, Wop or All you Italians are in the mob...you'll be getting a visit from my Uncle Vito!!

 

 

 

Holy crap CC.. I just about spit my water all over the place when I read this.

 

Being Italian, and having 3rd and 4th cousins of my mom's who've been in the "big house cooking gravy in a back room", seen pictures of "Big Al" playing cards in my Great Grandmother's basement, and learned how to play poker on illegal poker machines that my grandparents "ran" in the mid 40's.. I get such a kick out of this stereotype that I can't do anything other than laugh when I read stuff like that.

 

Not to mention.. I had an "Uncle Vito" also..

[Controlled Chaos]

Holy crap CC.. I just about spit my water all over the place when I read this. 

 

Being Italian, and having 3rd and 4th cousins of my mom's who've been in the "big house cooking gravy in a back room", seen pictures of "Big Al" playing cards in my Great Grandmother's basement, and learned how to play poker on illegal poker machines that my grandparents "ran" in the mid 40's..  I get such a kick out of this stereotype that I can't do anything other than laugh when I read stuff like that.

 

Not to mention.. I had an "Uncle Vito" also.. 

 

Both Uncle Vito's, Both call sauce gravy...I'm convinced we're related.

 

or at least we played together at armor square...

 

Maybe you even came in Jimbos as a little s*** when my pops owned it. It was called M&M tap back then. My grandpa owned the building and we lived in one apartment, my aunt in the other and my grandparents in the other.

Edited February 21, 2005 by Controlled Chaos

[Steff]

Both Uncle Vito's, Both call sauce gravy...I'm convinced we're related.  

 

or at least we played together at armor square...

 

Maybe you even came in Jimbos as a little s*** when my pops owned it.  It was called M&M tap back then.  My grandpa owned the building and we lived in one apartment, my aunt in the other and my grandparents in the other.

 

 

I definitely would not doubt it. The "DeLardo's" were my "uncles".. 3 of them.. all cops.. fine upstanding ones, too..

 

My real "Uncle Vito" was a Mazzulo, and the cousins I grew up with were Caputo's.

 

My Great Gramps on my Dad's side (the Irish side of the family) owned a cab business and drove them all around.. Seemed to never had a fare but them.. and sat around for hours and hours according to my grama.. but yet he afforded a new Caddie every other year.

[sox4lifeinPA]

I'm trying to figure out the hiarchy of offending people, bear with me.

 

black people can call each other "n*****s"

homosexuals can call each other "queens and queers"

The Rock can call us all "nancies"

Anyone can use the word "Christian" and actually mean foolish, hypocritic bigot, instead follower of Christ

 

 

on a serious note, however, I like the discussion so far. It's very intriguing. I intended this to be a serious look at why we make the decisions we do and what bias there might be towards a "popular" cause such as homosexuality.

 

I originially felt like I was being Martha Stewart'ed when I received the banning. I do think that analogy fits, but stumbled upon this truth....she DID break the law. I can admit to that much, but as this thread has been stating, what then entails offensive material or slander? I can understand why "Someone Devastate My Backside" could be offensive to some, however, like the "Buddy Jesus" it's hilarious to others. It wasn't meant to be any more or less satiristic. Did I pick the wrong audience for my joke? yes. Do I have a right to say that if directed in general and not at a single person? definitely. Should I be making those remarks freely without thought of who might be reading? definitely not

 

And I think that's the key. I think we can synthesize the points being made in this thread. We need to have an equal respect for every opinion. We don't have to like that opinion, in fact, that's encouraged I think that religious backgrounds should be equally protected as say sexual preferences. There's a world history of killing christians and that doesn't keep us from maligning that faith, yet a "board history" created a select group of yokels that were removed from this site, somehow justifies one group's opinions over another's? It just doesn't compute.

 

sexism, racism, faithism... they're all bad for this site.

 

The mods need to do what they need to do to keep this place appealing. I need to maintain a voice, like Flasoxxjim needs to, like Crimson needs to, etc. The dialogue regarding this issue and any issue needs to be kept open and protected. That's free speech.

[FlaSoxxJim]

I don't know that the community here has ever been in the business of 'protecting anyone's sexual preference.' It's more being in the business of protecting ANYONE who is being singled out and made the target for personal attack. If there have been times where that hasn't been done equitable and universally then it is the failing of the Mods and Admins who - well intentioned - get it wrong sometimes too.

 

As for the world history of killing Christians, let's also not forget that there is likewise a world history of Christians killing. As for suggesting Christians are in any way a minority... try being an atheist here in this one nation under Gawd and see how lonely it can be.

 

PA, your suggestion that we all can disagree with other's opinions but need to respect the opinions equally is only slightly removed from the thin line I've been trying to discern and work with. I would say we can disagree with one another's opinions, yet always need to respect the INDIVIDUAL that is the source of the opinions (i.e., don't devolve into taking pot shots at the other side because they don't agree with us). Clearly, respecting all opinions equally is a tall order, but it doesn't mean civility and respect for the participants in the discussion shouldn't always be maintained.

 

So, I still fall somewhat short of feeling a need to universally tread softly around the subject of religion or Christianity, simply because it is an institution people here affiliate with. I similarly don't see that we tread lightly around subjects like politics, homosexuality, etc., other than asking that discussions not devolve into hateful posts, and maybe to bring some facts in to back up opinions (often that seems to be strictly optional ).

 

You perceive hypocrisy in the way some things have been handled here, and you bring light to it, as you should. When others here see hypocrisy in the actions of certain segments of society (including religious segments) they are equally entitled to bring their observations to this forum.

[jackie hayes]

Not if the traits are of a different type.  Gender, race, ethnicity, and sexual preference are all inborn traits (though some people might argue the last one). It's stupid to make fun of them because people can't do s*** about it.  People on Soxtalk who insult those traits usually get into some trouble.  On the other hand, actions and opinions are different because people choose to do/have them, so comments against Cubs Fans or Liberals or Conservatives or people of religion X usually get by.

It's fair to ask whether or not someone of faith has a 'choice' in the matter -- at least many believers think that way. Especially if you believe that God calls/chooses people. Fwiw -- I'm an atheist.

 

It's usually more important to protect minorities, majorities aren't really 'threatened'. I think that's a lot of it.

 

Anyway, religious humor is some of the best. "...we can do the next best thing...Let's kill people."

[sox4lifeinPA]

It's fair to ask whether or not someone of faith has a 'choice' in the matter -- at least many believers think that way.  Especially if you believe that God calls/chooses people.  Fwiw -- I'm an atheist.

 

It's usually more important to protect minorities, majorities aren't really 'threatened'.  I think that's a lot of it.

 

Anyway, religious humor is some of the best.  "...we can do the next best thing...Let's kill people."

 

 

I just don't get that. Aren't there more women on this planet than men? So we don't fight sexism because population totals?

 

do you see why this is unsettling? it should be a universal thing. That's what I don't get from the left. why is that ok?