The DERP! thread
- Thread starter Redux
- Start date
kchusker_chris
New member
Did you get one of these too? (I didn't report u no worries - and I must have missed where you used whatever it was - been edited since i was last on) Someone's gunning for my 3rd strike!
Last edited by a moderator:
JJ Husker
Donor
WOODSHED
view potentially vulgar content. Come on in, but bring your hard-hat & leave your thin skin @ home,
Looks like somebody forgot the purpose of the shed. Now we have to be "inclusive" in the shed and can't crack jokes hinting at someone's possible orientation...........f#*k that.
view potentially vulgar content. Come on in, but bring your hard-hat & leave your thin skin @ home,
Looks like somebody forgot the purpose of the shed. Now we have to be "inclusive" in the shed and can't crack jokes hinting at someone's possible orientation...........f#*k that.
kchusker_chris
New member
Well, to be inclusive I think we should create a "safe space" for Moiraine somewhere in the shed. That will help solve some of the issues. We should also get together a list of rules that will help us be "inclusive" when calling each other d-bags and such. I'll start with some off the top of my head.
1) ****-sucker is out. borderline insult anyway, and is offending to some.
2) when using b!^@h - be sure to include something like a-hole as well so as to avoid being gender specific in your insult.
3) no more pink ponies without including a blue pony. rainbow ponies are out, as that's a missuse of the rainbow which is now reserved strictly for political statements.
4) speaking of politics, stay of the political forum - too many opinions in there, you might get offended.
...i'm sure we can come up more, as this "inclusive" dirty fighting is a developing standard.
1) ****-sucker is out. borderline insult anyway, and is offending to some.
2) when using b!^@h - be sure to include something like a-hole as well so as to avoid being gender specific in your insult.
3) no more pink ponies without including a blue pony. rainbow ponies are out, as that's a missuse of the rainbow which is now reserved strictly for political statements.
4) speaking of politics, stay of the political forum - too many opinions in there, you might get offended.
...i'm sure we can come up more, as this "inclusive" dirty fighting is a developing standard.
Last edited by a moderator:
NUance
New member
You know, I felt sort of bad when I saw this post and my name appeared most frequently. But then I went back and looked at each one. And maybe I just have an 8th grade-locker-room mentality for humor[SIZE=12pt]—[/SIZE]but most of these instances of NTTAWWT still seem sort of funny to me. Sorry if I offended anyone. (But I really don't think I did, did I?)
In reviewing my own marginally appropriate use of Seinfeld potty humor, I noticed that a couple of them are used for proclivities other than homosexuality. Like this one: LINK (drag). And this one: LINK (Bronies/Furries). If I've offended any bronies, furries or drag queens, I apologize.
Also, one NTTAWWT was actually used in context, not in jest[SIZE=12pt]—[/SIZE]about my high school girlfriend who now bats for the other team: LINK So that shouldn't be offensive, should it? (If anyone should be offended wouldn't it be me? Since I'm poking fun of myself?)
========================================
I guess it's possible that NTTAWWT could offend someone. But I don't think this term rises to the level of inappropriateness that we need a decision rule on it. Do we? Just use common sense. And don't be derpy.
knapplc
Active member
I don't think any of them are rude or offensive, and I think "NTTAWWT" is a funny line. Which is why I was so surprised to see it removed from my post. Why would someone think it was offensive in the context I used it, and not in any of the other 20-ish times it's been used?
Unless that wasn't the offensive thing, and it was something else I wrote, or something kchusker_chris wrote.
I remain confused why anything was removed from this thread. I didn't think anything was offensive.
Unless that wasn't the offensive thing, and it was something else I wrote, or something kchusker_chris wrote.
I remain confused why anything was removed from this thread. I didn't think anything was offensive.
Last edited by a moderator:
kchusker_chris
New member
how do we know what is and isn't offensive to someone anymore? i'm one of the biggest seinfeld fans out there so "not that there is anything wrong w/ that" is always going to make me laugh. they fact we're in the woodshed talking about context around a completely harmless statement goes to show you what a damn shitshow things are becoming.
RedDenver
New member
knapplc
Active member
This is the difficulty you have with a large message board, multiple opinions, and a volunteer group attempting to keep things smooth. It's tough on the Mods. The guidelines are intentionally vague with the intention of being as inclusive as possible, so every situation becomes a gray area. I get it.
kchusker_chris
New member
Last edited by a moderator:
JJ Husker
Donor
One of the purposes of the Shed IS to possibly offend someone. If a person can't handle that simple fact they don't belong in the shed to start with. And when did being "inclusive" become a requirement? And how is using a double entendre in a funny manner considered not inclusive? Wouldn't it be less inclusive to not ever hint that some people's sexual orientation might be other than hetero. That would be discounting gay peoples choices and completely ignoring them. Personally, I think it is more inclusive to acknowledge that some people do swing that way. If NTTAWWT is offensive, doesn't that imply there is something wrong with it? This whole deal is just f'd up. Somebody has a bad case of a weird brand of homophobia.
The biggest travesty of this is that whichever mod acted on the supposed complaint hung out kchusker to dry. It appeared that the only person that would've possibly complained about that would've been someone involved in the heated exchange. But we now know that wasn't the case. Whoever was responsible for flexing their mod muscle on this explain it further so that somebody other than them can understand what the problem is. It wouldn't surprise me in the least to learn that the only person it offended was the person that felt this was somehow not inclusive. Please point us in the direction of where being inclusive is now a requirement on HB and then explain how this was not inclusive. Good luck.
Of all the sh#t that gets a pass in the shed, these are 3 of the things that apparently draw the line in the sand;
1- Butthurt. A common phrase, widely used for somebody who gets their jimmies rustled over very little. In my mind, that phrase has absolutely nothing to do with gay sex, but apparently somebody hereabouts thinks it does.
2- Mod Muscle. A brilliantly funny way to reference someone may be abusing their mod power with the double-entendre of the "muscle" between their legs.
3- NTTAWWT. Really, that is offensive? A funny line from one of the most popular sitcoms ever?
Might be time for somebody to step away from message board use and WAY away from thinking they are acting in anyone's interest other than their own.
The biggest travesty of this is that whichever mod acted on the supposed complaint hung out kchusker to dry. It appeared that the only person that would've possibly complained about that would've been someone involved in the heated exchange. But we now know that wasn't the case. Whoever was responsible for flexing their mod muscle on this explain it further so that somebody other than them can understand what the problem is. It wouldn't surprise me in the least to learn that the only person it offended was the person that felt this was somehow not inclusive. Please point us in the direction of where being inclusive is now a requirement on HB and then explain how this was not inclusive. Good luck.
Of all the sh#t that gets a pass in the shed, these are 3 of the things that apparently draw the line in the sand;
1- Butthurt. A common phrase, widely used for somebody who gets their jimmies rustled over very little. In my mind, that phrase has absolutely nothing to do with gay sex, but apparently somebody hereabouts thinks it does.
2- Mod Muscle. A brilliantly funny way to reference someone may be abusing their mod power with the double-entendre of the "muscle" between their legs.
3- NTTAWWT. Really, that is offensive? A funny line from one of the most popular sitcoms ever?
Might be time for somebody to step away from message board use and WAY away from thinking they are acting in anyone's interest other than their own.
knapplc
Active member
I will just about guarantee you this wasn't one mod acting on their own. Most likely a member reported it, a discussion happened in the Mod forum, they may not have thought it was a big deal so they thought "Well, let's just remove it and send them a PM with a heads-up," and figured that would be the end of it.
I'd bet $100 we've already typed more words talking about this than they did making the decision to remove it.
The last thing I want to do is get worked up over some words removed from one of my posts. I don't understand why it was offensive to someone, but I'm not going to complain about it.
I'd bet $100 we've already typed more words talking about this than they did making the decision to remove it.
The last thing I want to do is get worked up over some words removed from one of my posts. I don't understand why it was offensive to someone, but I'm not going to complain about it.
JJ Husker
Donor
See, you have a much healthier attitude about it than me. All I can see is a senseless act based on nothing and, when you apply the slippery slope to this line of reasoning, you can easily see the possible disappearance of something many of us enjoy and love. I could let it go but I think it is worthy of discussion. I've never been a mod. I'm sure it is a tough, thankless job, But, I also imagine numerous complaints are placed with nothing ever being done. And that is how it should be when the complaint is as groundless as this appears to be. I can see the rationale of "hey, let's just play it safe and remove it". It requires less effort and seemingly the problem goes away. But this one would of just as easily gone away by telling the complainer "it's in the shed, it really isn't offensive, maybe you should avoid the shed." Rather than lending validity to some hair-brained claim of being non-inclusive, especially when being inclusive is not a requirement hereabouts.