My Joke has been moderated
Posted by: Shayman on 28 January 2005
Can anyone tell me why my David Beckham/Toon Army joke was removed from the Best Short Joke thread?
As it was quite clearly ribbing Beckham's intelligence and in no way making light of the recent disaster in the far east I don't see why it meritted the 'cull'.
Just wondered.
Jonathan
Posted on: 29 January 2005 by minime
what this thread needs now is a good clean pc correct joke
get a life chaps
Posted on: 29 January 2005 by matthewr
Brian said "You still haven't told everyone why you want ME to explain this, yet you want NOBODY ELSE who believes this to explain"
Erm, becuase you are the one who said the person who complained was motivated by PC-Gone-Mad-ness rather than being genuinely offended by the joke.
If there is anybody else who shares your view I'd be happy to hear their explanation as well.
Matthew
Posted on: 29 January 2005 by matthewr
Tommy C -- I wouldn't classify my responses as particularly jovial. However, neither have they been unreasonable and I beleive I have stuck to the point and argued my case fairly and straightforwardly without resorting to name calling and hysterics.
Matthew
Posted on: 29 January 2005 by Steve Toy
I stand correctedquote:
Perhaps it was someone who lives in Thailand? Or someone who lost friends or relatives?
My friend is on msn talking to me right now from Thailand. One of his jobs is to identify bodies.
He agrees that the "Toon Army" joke was in poor taste for the reason outlined above.
He said:
"sure is in poor taste, get those buggers out here and show them the pre death horror of thousands incl little babies and the state they're in now...and stick them amongst 1,000's of bodies with the stench - then tell 'em to repeat it!!"
I'm glad I haven't repeated it for I haven't actually heard the joke.
I take his point and thus I fully support Adam Meredith's act of moderation.
In fact I'm fast realising that Adam is actually a very good moderator after all - it's just a case of adjusting to the changes.
Posted on: 29 January 2005 by BrianD
wolfe-Shepmann
quote:
Although Matthew's observation implied a touch of hypocrisy on your part, it was phrased in the sort of jovial manner not uncharacteristic of everyday witty banter among friends. This is nothing like coming straight out and calling you a hypocrite, yet you have gone well out of your way to take (feign?) offense and be explicitly rude. I think you owe him an a public apology.
Wolfe
Thanks for taking an interest, but with respect I must say that I don't agree with your observation.
As Matthew has made clear by one of his posts to me, there is a history that he isn't prepared to consign to the past. This is a shame, as I don't come here to argue with Matthew, however I do find it interesting that after all these years he continues to respond directly to me in any thread I may post, questioning everything I say in what I believe is a provocative fashion.
Check his last post on this page timed at 3.30, then count how many people mentioned 'PC' in this thread BEFORE I did.
Cheers
Posted on: 29 January 2005 by BrianD
quote:
Originally posted by matthewr:
Brian said "You still haven't told everyone why you want ME to explain this, yet you want NOBODY ELSE who believes this to explain"
Erm, becuase you are the one who said the person who complained was motivated by PC-Gone-Mad-ness rather than being genuinely offended by the joke.
If there is anybody else who shares your view I'd be happy to hear their explanation as well.
Matthew
4 people mentioned PC in this thread before I did.
Posted on: 29 January 2005 by BrianD
quote:
Originally posted by matthewr:
Tommy C -- I wouldn't classify my responses as particularly jovial. However, neither have they been unreasonable and I beleive I have stuck to the point and argued my case fairly and straightforwardly without resorting to name calling and hysterics.
Matthew
The only hysterics going on at my house right now is hysterical laughter.
Posted on: 30 January 2005 by BrianD
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Toy:
_I stand corrected_
quote:
Perhaps it was someone who lives in Thailand? Or someone who lost friends or relatives?
My friend is on msn talking to me right now from Thailand. One of his jobs is to identify bodies.
He agrees that the "Toon Army" joke was in poor taste for the reason outlined above.
He said:
"sure is in poor taste, get those buggers out here and show them the pre death horror of thousands incl little babies and the state they're in now...and stick them amongst 1,000's of bodies with the stench - then tell 'em to repeat it!!"
I'm glad I haven't repeated it for I haven't actually heard the joke.
I take his point and thus I fully support Adam Meredith's act of moderation.
In fact I'm fast realising that Adam is actually a very good moderator after all - it's just a case of adjusting to the changes.
Thanks for sharing that information.
I think the majority would find the joke to be in poor taste, as I said earlier, I didn't find it funny at all. Having said that, I don't believe a joke should be removed from a hifi forum because that joke is thought to be in poor taste. Where does that end?
Second time references have been made to, "what if the person was from Thailand".
Q. Why doesn't the person who made the request let us know who they are and their specific reasons for making that request?
Posted on: 30 January 2005 by matthewr
Brian,
I replied to you becuase you said something I disagreed with strongly. As usual whenever I reply to your posts, it didn't take long for you to lose your cool, ignore the issues being dicussed and start calling me names. Note I still haven't called you anything unpleasnt and have stuck to the point. You are the one who is ranting and being abusive but still somehow insisting it's all my fault and nothing to do with you.
"count how many people mentioned 'PC' in this thread BEFORE I did"
I replied to a thread a couple of times. *After* that you posted and I replied to a specific point in your post.
"Where does that end?"
With jokes being removed from a hi-fi forum. This is a private forum which anyone is free to join or leave as they see fit and Naim can delete or ban whatever they want. We have long standing prohibitions on at least two subjects and you do not have a right of free speech here.
"Why doesn't the person who made the request let us know who they are and their specific reasons for making that request?"
1) Why should they?
2) Why did you not wait for those reasons to become obvious before starting making assumptions and accusations?
Matthew
Posted on: 30 January 2005 by JonR
BrianD,
You said:- "Having said that, I don't believe a joke should be removed from a hifi forum because that joke is thought to be in poor taste. Where does that end?"
Let's turn that around and say, if every joke that was posted here was left to be seen on this forum by all and sundry, no matter how tasteless or offensive, then where would it all end? Moderation could be handled any number of ways but Naim rightly has its reputation to think of so that's bound to inform any moderation decision that Adam makes. In any case, if the rules aren't specific enough, it's ultimately going to come down to plain old common sense. You have to remember, this forum is not being read just by you.
JR
Posted on: 30 January 2005 by Deane F
I used to think the PC thing was an "Emperor's New Clothes" kind of thing.
However, having lived and worked with disabilities (or "the differently abled" - but that's cumbersome) for a while I no longer think the same way. To be specific, I have worked with people with intellectual disabilities, flatted with a tetraplegic and my partner (5 years ago) was paraplegic as a result of spina bifida. I don't like the terms "cripple", "handicap", "mentally deficient" etc. I don't even like the term "disability" as I'm still stumped as to how to define the word - other than to say that disability is determined by the loss of ability to do things for oneself - but then everybody relies on others to a greater or lesser extent. One of the first things to change for disabled people was the language used to describe them. I think the PC movement has inspired reflection to some extent.
My wife currently works with men with fairly mild intellectual disabilities. Mild enough for them to be aware that they are disabled anyway. A lot of them have only recently (6 years ago) been deinstitutionalised from a large facility that held 400 intellectually disabled people. Last year a lot of those clients returned to the site of that institution to attend a service at the chapel, which still stands, and the clergyman referred to them as "the handicapped". The guys felt a little miffed at that. They are a lot less marginalised now than when they were institutionalised and far more aware of how they fit into the world - not necessarily a pleasant awareness, but an awareness.
I guess my point is that as thinking changes language must also change. Wittgenstein was right - the limits of our language are the limits of our world.
I haven't noticed PC police on this forum.
Isn't the type of person being referred to more "sanctimonious" than "PC" ?
Deane
Posted on: 30 January 2005 by BrianD
quote:
Originally posted by matthewr:
Brian,
I replied to you becuase you said something I disagreed with strongly.
Well there's a surprise. Of course, you don't disagree as strongly when someone else says the same thing. Very peculiar. Go back over the thread, you will see that what I did was AGREE with someone else. Don't see you attacking them.
quote:
As usual whenever I reply to your posts, it didn't take long for you to lose your cool, ignore the issues being dicussed and start calling me names.
One post. And you make such a big deal of it. Why don't we talk about your lying that provoked it? Let's face it, I don't just stick a post into any old thread calling you a self righteous hypocrite, do I? There is an order to these things and something happened first.
quote:
Note I still haven't called you anything unpleasnt and have stuck to the point.
What you have done is tell everyone new to the forum since 2001 that I ran off to a moderator and complained about something on the forum. I've told you that is false, yet you ignore it, so everyone is left with this impression you have created by lying. Do you expect me to be happy that you did that, or is calling you a prick considered to be an over the top response to such a lie? It seems a reasonable enough response to me, under the circumstances.
quote:
You are the one who is ranting and being abusive but still somehow insisting it's all my fault and nothing to do with you.
Ranting and abusive? My my, you are a sensitive soul, Matthew. You think that one post where I said you're a hypocrite means I'm ranting and abusive. So, I called you a self righteous hypocrite, seems fair enough to me given your lying that preceded it and I was quite calm as I wrote it. Quite calm now too as it happens. Some may consider me out of order to be so terribly abusive toward you, but I'd rather be that than a liar.
quote:
I replied to a thread a couple of times. *After* that you posted and I replied to a specific point in your post.
Yes, you ignored other people who mentioned PC picking up on it only when I agreed with those others. It's really very clear.
quote:
This is a private forum which anyone is free to join or leave as they see fit and Naim can delete or ban whatever they want.
Right. Why didn't you just post that in your initial reply in the thread then ask for it to be locked. Why have any debate or dialogue on the subject? Or do we all have to agree with you?
quote:
1) Why should they?
Why shouldn't they be prepared to reveal their name? Is the person ashamed or something?
quote:
2) Why did you not wait for those reasons to become obvious before starting making assumptions and accusations?
What were these assumptions and accusations I made? Do you mean the bit about PC where I agreed with an assumption made by someone else? This would be the person(s) you didn't slag off for making the assumption.
I really can't be bothered with this, no wonder I hardly read this forum. It's a shame, because there are some good threads and good posts, but all the self righeous nonsense is just so boring. I know when I'm not welcome, so I'll bugger off and leave you all alone.
Posted on: 30 January 2005 by andy c
HI,
Having just read this thread, and for my sins working for an organisation that has to be respectful of diverse groups, one of the things I used to advise when training EO/Diversity is:
"It's not what is said, or how it is said - its how it is recieved & precieved by the reciever".
The comment about asians and the terrible loss endured in this part of the world should have induced a little lateral thinking before a joke on such a subject was posted IMO.
The other thing is the written word only makes up a small amount of the way we communicate with each other, and as such its very easy to misinterpret things written on a forum such as this.
Just 'cos you might find it funny, if you're not able to assess the recipiant then perhaps pose - pause - pounce then, eh?
regards,
andy c!
Posted on: 30 January 2005 by matthewr
Brian,
Once again you reply with an abusive, sarcastic rant and repeatedly accuse me of lying (which is not true).
"Yes, you ignored other people who mentioned PC picking up on it only when I agreed with those others. It's really very clear"
This sort of thing just makes you look paranoid Brian. I just replied to your post. That's all.
"Why shouldn't they be prepared to reveal their name?"
Becuase they might not want to and are under no obligation from you or anybody else to do so.
"What were these assumptions and accusations I made?"
That the person who complained about the joke was not jsut someone who found it upsetting or inaapropriate but was "a PC type" which you clearly meant in a prejorative sense.
Matthew
Posted on: 30 January 2005 by Berlin Fritz
Classically predictable as per always, I wonder how the Homourable gentleman would react when he himself was personally liable for the material on this Forum? My own revered Website has recently closed down through suchlike bullshitters, who stand on the side-lines throwing rocks and honestly believing they're justified to do so. I wonder how Mr Parry is coping with the Iraqi elections today (being an observer of this Democracy he so staunchly upholds ?). HYPOCRASY³ Mr Robinson is the word of the month, and wasn't Rooney's second goal a beauty ? Do you remember England ? next years there's a match or two going down, so why no comments now about the lack of practice together, or is that too 'riscey' afore the animals start their printing battles, and you/we all comment on their safe bullshit opinions, so the buck is effectively passed, unlike the ball.
Fritz Von I obviously don't expect any kind of reaction from your Holiness, but maintain my own stance as per usual in that I prefer to make mistakes and laugh at myself, in conztrast to your's + 'clique's seeming glee in indulging yourself and your limp-wristed followers at everybody elses expense, thank fuck you're not in Politics, you'd last 30 seconds, innit Our Mat.
P.S. Before anybody runs off on an Fritz is anti Gay route regarding my limp-wristed squibs comment, I refer to the context of 'Wonderous Chinlessness'
and nothing more sinister (left handed?), and thanks for the ouztrage re-the Cockle Picker 'humour' nice to see where the buck stops, pompous bollocks or what `?
Posted on: 30 January 2005 by wolfe_shepmann
Fritz,
There's a psychological phenomenon called "word salad" and it refers to a particular pattern of speech that's usually symptomatic of schizophrenia.
Wolfe
Posted on: 30 January 2005 by Berlin Fritz
quote:
Originally posted by wolfe_shepmann:
Fritz,
There's a psychological phenomenon called "word salad" and it refers to a particular pattern of speech that's usually symptomatic of schizophrenia.
Wolfe
Age cannot wither them. nor custom stale.
Fritz Von I trust you make sure the cheqeue is signed on the back by an adult son ?
Posted on: 30 January 2005 by cunningplan
Wolfe
Trust me, Fritz is no Schizophrenic
Clive
Posted on: 30 January 2005 by BrianD
Matthew -
Here's another abusive, sarcastic rant.....
I said.....
"Why shouldn't they be prepared to reveal their name?"
You said.....
quote:
Becuase they might not want to and are under no obligation from you or anybody else to do so.
Where did I ever suggest anybody was under any obligation to answer anything I might ask?
You clearly don't feel under any obligation to answer my repeated question concerning whether you've ever told a joke that is in poor taste, or disgracefully laughed at such a joke told to you?
You said.....
quote:
Once again you reply with an abusive, sarcastic rant and repeatedly accuse me of lying (which is not true).
It is true actually. Our present 'discussion' started with your post on page 2, timed at 19.30. Take a look at it. The thread was going along nicely until that post of yours. There was no need for you to drag up an incident of nearly 4 years ago, especially based on your flimsy information. It was a childish snipe, but you aren't man enough to admit it. I called you a hypocrite for this judgement you made of me, (which you have now passed on to others who weren't here at that time) because it's my opinion you would be among the first (if not the first) on here to be up in arms if someone else did something similar. That is to judge someone without the facts and then spread that information on an open forum.
Just out of interest, why do you become so upset when anybody mentions PC? Is it because you believe people are talking about you?
Posted on: 30 January 2005 by matthewr
Brian,
I have told lots of sick jokes in my time and laughed at even more. I also wouldn't, FWIW, ban the deleted joke, per se.
Where we differ on this issue, AFAICT, is that:
-- I believe the person who complained had every right to do so and it's not hard to imagine why (you believe they were wrong to complain and struggle to understand why the did so).
-- I also beleive that it was perfectly reasonable for the moderator to remove the joke as he had recieved a specific and entirely understandable complaint about it having upset or offended someone. You, apparently, believe he should have left it there and told the person making the complaint that, despite his being upset, the joke was staying.
In addition you claimed the person was a "PC type" and implied this motivated their complaint rather than genuine offence.
"Where did I ever suggest anybody was under any obligation to answer anything I might ask?"
You asked why they "shouldn't they be prepared to reveal their name" and I supplied the obvious answer.
"There was no need for you to drag up an incident of nearly 4 years ago"
1. There was a widespread belief at the time that you complained to the moderator during the incident in question.
2. Given that, and since you were questioning someone else's motives for complaining to the moderators, this previous incident had obvious potnetial for relevance to this discussion.
3. Not knowing conclusively that you did complain to the moderator (who may have decided for himself that a member of the forum was in fear of his life) I posed the point as a question. Go check, it's a question with a question mark -- you could just have answered "No".
4. I am more than happy to accept your word that you did not complain to the moderator.
On the basis of this this you have repeatedly accused me of lying. Not 'being wrong' or 'being under a misaprehension' but lying. An accusation which I think is self-evidently unwarranted.
"which you have now passed on to others who weren't here at that time"
Well I have to say that far fewer people would have noticed the issue if you hadn't gone on about it quite so much. And presumably there are at least some people who thought exactly as I did until you had the chance to deny the supposition.
"why do you become so upset when anybody mentions PC?"
The "PC Gone Mad" crowd make me angry more than upset and they do so becuase their champions (Richard Littlejohn, Paul Darce, Michael Gove, Melanie Philips, etc.) do an awful lot of harm in this country in perpetuating prejudice and myth. Most of what they say is innacurate, if not plain made up, and frequently has very dubious motivations.
And so when their views get repeated on a seemingly daily basis by people in all sorts of areas not just this forum, it makes me angry.
"Is it because you believe people are talking about you?"
Brian I am 37 not 14.
Matthew
Posted on: 31 January 2005 by BrianD
quote:
Originally posted by matthewr:
Brian,
quote:
Where we differ on this issue, AFAICT, is that:
-- I believe the person who complained had every right to do so and it's not hard to imagine why (you believe they were wrong to complain and struggle to understand why the did so).
As I said in a later post, I do understand why someone complained. I also believe a person does have the right to complain if they wish, so I'm not quite sure why you think we disagree on that point. Do you believe that if I disagree with someone I take the position they should have no right to complain in the first place?
quote:
-- I also beleive that it was perfectly reasonable for the moderator to remove the joke as he had recieved a specific and entirely understandable complaint about it having upset or offended someone. You, apparently, believe he should have left it there and told the person making the complaint that, despite his being upset, the joke was staying.
Yes, my opinion. And I don't attack you for holding an opposing opinion. Your claim that the moderator removed the joke on the basis of a complaint leads down a very dodgy path imo. Anyone may complain about anything, lots of posts may therefore be removed by following that route.
quote:
In addition you claimed the person was a "PC type" and implied this motivated their complaint rather than genuine offence.
I didn't actually, I agreed with someone else who said it. It is a gut feeling that this is PC motivated, there is no proof. But then it is only a gut feeling on your part that it wasn't PC motivated, there is no proof of that either. Again, I've no idea why you become so agitated about someone having an opinion different to your own.
quote:
You asked why they "shouldn't they be prepared to reveal their name" and I supplied the obvious answer.
No, the obvious answer is that they are actually ashamed to come forward.
quote:
1. There was a widespread belief at the time that you complained to the moderator during the incident in question.
As there was undoubtedly a clique on the forum at the time, of which I was not a member, I am not surprised that this was the general thought, most likely among that clique.
quote:
2. Given that, and since you were questioning someone else's motives for complaining to the moderators, this previous incident had obvious potnetial for relevance to this discussion.
No, it did not from my point of view. It would only seem relevant if a person had already formed an opinion that I'd done this. Naturally, as I didn't do that, this wouldn't seem relevant to me, would it?
quote:
3. Not knowing conclusively that you did complain to the moderator (who may have decided for himself that a member of the forum was in fear of his life) I posed the point as a question. Go check, it's a question with a question mark -- you could just have answered "No".
Sarcasm, Matthew. Tut tut. Something you complain to me about all the time. Double standards, leads me to the hypocrite thing again as you consistently fail to practice what you preach. I'm well aware there is a question mark at the end of your post. However, it is not a question in my opinion. You already know what happened, as you've expressed above in this very thread.
quote:
On the basis of this this you have repeatedly accused me of lying. Not 'being wrong' or 'being under a misaprehension' but lying. An accusation which I think is self-evidently unwarranted.
Well if someone makes a statement about someone that they can't be certain is true, what would you call them?
quote:
Well I have to say that far fewer people would have noticed the issue if you hadn't gone on about it quite so much.
Not important. The fact is, your portrayed a view of me based on very, very sparse information. Hearsay in actual fact. That doesn't quite fit the profile you try to portray of yourself imo.
quote:
The "PC Gone Mad" crowd make me angry more than upset and they do so becuase their champions (Richard Littlejohn, Paul Darce, Michael Gove, Melanie Philips, etc.) do an awful lot of harm in this country in perpetuating prejudice and myth. Most of what they say is innacurate, if not plain made up, and frequently has very dubious motivations.
And so when their views get repeated on a seemingly daily basis by people in all sorts of areas not just this forum, it makes me angry.
I've heard of the first bloke, who is a nutcase imo. The others, haven't a clue. If I'm repeating what they're saying then it's a pure coincidence.quote:
Brian I am 37 not 14.
Auld git.
It may not be intentional on your part, but I post on here so infrequently that I notice every time I do post something you attack me for it. Just pack it in, especially when someone else has posted almost the same thing before I do and you say nowt. It's boring and I really can't be arsed with it.