NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, the obscenity charge I can understand, despite the fact that in the referenced film, the things I described were portrayed to a graphic degree at least as egregious as the terms I used.

But I honestly don't see the malice, either in the post itself or in its context.


Just a quiet protest, I don't expect any kind of reversal.

Thanks.

Not having seen the film in question, it was my understanding of your post that you were encouraging the use of those actions against that actress, which would certainly be malicious.

Having finally figured out what this refers to, I doubt very much whether the object of your suggestion would regard it as benevolent.

Having finally figured out what this refers to, I doubt very much whether the object of your suggestion would regard it as benevolent.

Its a quibble, I admit, but the absence of demonstrable benevolence isn't really the same thing as malice.


I was describing what was portrayed in the film, as grotesque as it was, as a parallel to something I consider equally disquieting in real life. The imagery in question was part of the film, and its vileness was in fact the very quality I was trying to summon as illustrative to the topic in question.

And it's still inappropriate for the forums.

Not having seen the film in question, it was my understanding of your post that you were encouraging the use of those actions against that actress, which would certainly be malicious.

I'm sorry, but this was not the case. The actions were taken against the character, who was alluded to by name of the actress, as if one were to say "like Pacino in Scarface" if one wanted to conjure a tenor of intense, strained violence.

As a previous poster had used a film reference to make their point, I did the same.

I realize the film was not broadly received outside the admittedly narrow audience of human rights abuse activists, but I believe my use of reference, albeit vile, was not malicious, in usage or intent.

And it's still inappropriate for the forums.

Again, I realize there is no chance of reversal here, but in a sincere (if implausible) act of conscience, I must defend my reference to the film.


Reference to urine, even in the guttural sense, have gone undeleted in other contexts, I would speculate. I realize I cannot defend myself by claiming selective enforcement, but I feel the accusation of "malice" is unsubstantiated.

As for appropriateness, the female genitalia, again in the vulgar vernacular, and the abuse thereof, is part of what yields the depth of cruelty (on the part of the character on the film, not myself) that I was trying to bring to bear.

Its a quibble, I admit, but the absence of demonstrable benevolence isn't really the same thing as malice.

Kee-rect. I'm out, LBW. So much for trying to slip one past the keeper.

As for the other point in dispute, noted that you insist you didn't intend your reference to be malicious.

But we can't read intent.

So please note, in your turn, that three mods, widely varying in age, country and background, read what you'd written and all responded with various levels of "uh-oh".

Which would suggest that, whatever adjective you or we choose to apply to it, it wasn't a good idea.

Kee-rect. I'm out, LBW. So much for trying to slip one past the keeper.

As for the other point in dispute, noted that you insist you didn't intend your reference to be malicious.

But we can't read intent.

So please note, in your turn, that three mods, widely varying in age, country and background, read what you'd written and all responded with various levels of "uh-oh".

Which would suggest that, whatever adjective you or we choose to apply to it, it wasn't a good idea.

There is always risk when addressing matters of idealogy, and that I felt strongly enough on the matter to apply potent (yet still essentially applicable) terminology exposed me further to that risk.

I don't dispute the credibility or contextual validity of the mods.

However, in this case, my cinematic reference is easily verifiable and the obvious severity of the scene in question is commeasurate with what I was trying to evoke.

In the end, I know the mods have better things to do, and I can't expect everyone, or even a measurable minority, to have seen the film in question.
But there was no malice, and I believe the "obscenity" and "inappropriateness" was not in excess of other posts that have been allowed to stand.

However, I am clearly outvoted 3 to 0. I have no hope to prevail, but I stand by my objection.

Impotent as it is.

I'm getting old.

I'm getting old

*concerned and understanding*

Would you like to argue about something else, then? I mean, we don't have to do the whole contextual validity thing every time. A gentle discussion of the subjunctive can be just as meaningful.

Maybe if I just read a few extracts from Fowler's English Usage?

*concerned and understanding*

Would you like to argue about something else, then? I mean, we don't have to do the whole contextual validity thing every time. A gentle discussion of the subjunctive can be just as meaningful.

Maybe if I just read a few extracts from Fowler's English Usage?

No, but thank you. Without pee and genitalia, it just isn't the same.

I'll try to recover from being modstomped by making on-topic posts until the swelling subsides.

As for appropriateness, the female genitalia, again in the vulgar vernacular, and the abuse thereof, is part of what yields the depth of cruelty (on the part of the character on the film, not myself) that I was trying to bring to bear.And vulgar vernacular for Jews and Blacks is perfectly appropriate for a site like Stormfront, but are not welcome here. Content doesn't exist in a vacuum, the audience and location of the comments need to be considered. That's why I specified "the forums" to describe "appropriate."

And vulgar vernacular for Jews and Blacks is perfectly appropriate for a site like Stormfront, but are not welcome here.

The implication here seems to be that the word in question is, in addition to being vulgar, also somehow discriminatory against the subject. I think that's unfair. Saying "cl&t" doesn't have the misogynistic tone against women that "ni**er" might have as a racist term against a black. Its a part of the body, and while it is vernacular and vulgar, I can't agree that its the same as saying "k*ke" against a jew.

If I had said "c*ck", would that be discriminatory against men?

I could accept the judgement of "obscene", but you've now implied that using the abbreviation for the world "clitoris" is somehow comparable to using a racist epithet.


Content doesn't exist in a vacuum, the audience and location of the comments need to be considered. That's why I specified "the forums" to describe "appropriate."

I honestly believe the forums can and have survived exposure to the idea of a woman's naturally occuring body, even when juxtaposed with the human rights violations I was referencing.

I will refrain in the future, but I wonder whether the context of the forum as a whole would agree that the abbreviation for the word clitoris should belong in the same conceptual domain as a stormfront poster using a racial slur.

I could accept the judgement of "obscene", but you've now implied that using the abbreviation for the world "clitoris" is somehow comparable to using a racist epithet.It was an example of context, not a direct parallel.

the human rights violations I was referencing.Oh, get over yourself. If you think having a post deleted is a human rights violation, you are in serious need of perspective.

It was an example of context, not a direct parallel.

It still had an implication that was unfair.


Oh, get over yourself. If you think having a post deleted is a human rights violation, you are in serious need of perspective.

You clearly don't understand what I'm saying.

The human rights violation I was referencing, here and in the deleted post, was when the government agent (played by Ruckman) tortures and humiliates the author suspected of being an insurgent, played by Stowe.

I reread my post, and it clearly indicates that the human rights violations I was discussing were a reference from my original post. Anyone taking the time to look at the context of what I was saying would know that, rather than jumping to the absurd conclusion that I'm claiming my post delete is a human rights violation.

So, while I may deeted for pointing this out, it is your statement that lacks context and perspective.

With respect to my esteemed fellow moderator, I believe that by "human rights violations" Jhahannam was referring to the, ahem, particularly grotesque method of torture apparently depicted in the film.

With respect to my esteemed fellow moderator, I believe that by "human rights violations" Jhahannam was referring to the, ahem, particularly grotesque method of torture apparently depicted in the film.

While I understand that you are not taking my side or supporting my position, yes, that's what I was referring to.

LBWErm, quo?

LBW = Leg Before Wicket.

Cricketing term.

Ma-a-ate.

Look, here, this explains it:

Vitae Lampada
There's a breathless hush in the Close tonight -
Ten to make and the match to win -
A bumping pitch and a blinding light,
An hour to play and the last man in.
And it's not for the sake of the ribboned coat,
Or the selfish hope of a season's fame,
But his Captain's hand on his shoulder smote -
'Play up ! play up ! and play the game !'

The sand of the Desert is sodden red -
Red with the wreck of a square that broke; -
The Gatling's jammed and the Colonel's dead,
And the regiment's blind with dust and smoke.
The river of death has brimmed his banks,
And England's far, and Honour a name,
But the voice of a schoolboy rallies the ranks:
'Play up ! play up ! and play the game !'

This is the world that year by year,
While in her place the school is set,
Every one of her sons must hear,
And none that hears it dare forget.
This they all with joyful mind
Bear through life like a torch in flame,
And falling fling to the host behind -
'Play up ! play up ! and play the game !'
Sir Henry Newbolt

See? I can't put it clearer than that, can I?

So, while I may deeted for pointing this outYup. We have such a track record here for randomly deleting people who disagree with us.

Enough of this nonsense.