Let me explain

15:08 / 31.03.06

Hi,

I appear to have caused some distress by starting a thread entitled St*mp Fuc*in'.

This was a reference to The Mighty Boosh's live show, which I know some other posters have seen.

It was not meant to be derogatory to women and certainly not to amputees (?), it is part of a ridiculous sketch about the Cockney Hitcher.

To my mind, this is a prime example of over sensitivity- no one who posted to the thread appeared to be offended- and most people got the Boosh reference.

However, I appreciate that this is a very particular space and I will not reference anything potentially inflammatory again. I apologise for the offence it has caused.

paranoidwriter waves hello

15:30 / 31.03.06

Yeah, thought so.

15:39 / 31.03.06

Fair enough. But,

To my mind, this is a prime example of political correctness gone mad ...

Careful now...

Aertho

15:49 / 31.03.06

I was mostly offended by the careless use of profanity. I had guessed it was something of British comedy. Fuckin' is often fine if situated in copy, and used for emphasis. But to put it in the headline, and such a short headline, ...is kind of "stabby". Unavoidable faceknives and all that.

Thanks for the apology. Please don't swear in your headlines anymore.

15:53 / 31.03.06

I think you'll find it's spelt "political correctness gone maaaaaaad". Some !!1!!1!s wouldn't go amiss either.

15:59 / 31.03.06

I don't like !!!! otherwise I would have just cut and pasted something from the Daily Mail ...

I suppose I like 'stabby' as in pithy, but I promise not swear in my titles ever again.

Shrug

16:06 / 31.03.06

Wait is there even a question that profanity was even circuitously the issue here?

16:07 / 31.03.06

... otherwise I would have just cut and pasted something from the Daily Mail ...

That's kinda the point I'm making. It's a right-wing cliche that tends to be derided on Barbelith, and perhaps mars the rest of your initial post.

16:13 / 31.03.06

That's kinda the point I'm making. It's a right-wing cliche that tends to be derided on Barbelith, and perhaps mars the rest of your initial post.

which it shouldn't, as he's right, this has been a level of arguement not needed about a thread that people have been analysing to death for no reason.

16:14 / 31.03.06

I know that's the point you're making Ganesh, I was using the cliche as shorthand, I'll amend it if clouds the point.

16:20 / 31.03.06

Wait is there even a question that profanity was even circuitously the issue here?

I didn't think so - I thought it was because it was distasteful for the disabled? No?

16:21 / 31.03.06

which it shouldn't, as he's right, this has been a level of arguement not needed about a thread that people have been analysing to death for no reason.

In. Your. Opinion.

I strongly disagreed with the moves to lock and delete Sauron's thread, but I'd also disagree with you that discussion didn't need to take place. If some felt strongly enough to want the thread gone, then clearly it did need to be talked about. I was pissed off that there seemed to be, among some moderators, an assumption that discussion of the lock/delete was unnecessary. I'm also pissed off with your apparent assumption, from the other end of the table, that the discussion which did ensue was unnecessary.

What's wrong with discussion/argument/analysis? If there's a difference of opinion, don't we need to discuss/argue/analyse? I'd say we risk more by underanalysis of disagreement.

16:23 / 31.03.06

I didn't think so - I thought it was because it was distasteful for the disabled? No?

No clear reason was given, just a series of rather muddled, belated ones - hence the need for discussion/argument/analysis.

16:26 / 31.03.06

a level of arguement

Think the arguement, as I have said before, needed. The depth of the arguement, with people calling for deletions etc., not needed.

16:26 / 31.03.06

I'd agree with that Ganesh- censoring argument is just as bad as censoring titles.

16:27 / 31.03.06

Totally agree with both Sauron and ganesh. Sorry for the muddle.

All Acting Regiment

16:38 / 31.03.06

To be honest, even though I'd seen the Boosh show and almost pissed myself over the Hitcher's "stump fuckin'" antics, I didn't actually make the link between that and your post.

Now, that might be a poor reflection on my ability to connect stuff mentally. On the other hand, it might show us that "stump fuckin'" is not unique to the Boosh.

Also, why not start a thread about the Boosh live show, saying what was good about it and sharing your experiences (as I tried and failed to do here) instead of just swearing and in-joking?

And running up to the bar with political correctness is stupid and lazy in any context. You may feel we over-reacted, but it certainly wasn't at the behest of Stalin11 and his femininazi crew.

All Acting Regiment

16:40 / 31.03.06

Apologies if any of the above seems snarky, btw, I've just read it back.

Our Lady Has Left the Building

16:47 / 31.03.06

Look, I've taken out the PC gone mad comment, as I explained I was playing to the cliche. I think you're jumping on Ganesh's point without thinking it through.

In my opinion, to accuse me of making light of the plight of amputies is frankly ridiculous. I also do not know why S-Fing is any more offensive to women as to men.

I am surprised you didn't make the link back to The Boosh. I have never heard anyone talking about S-Fing before Noel Fielding. Maybe I have lived a sheltered life.

The reason I gave it that title was to give it a bit of edge.

It probably could be construed as an in joke, so I do apologise for that.

Shrug

16:57 / 31.03.06

The phrase itself immediately made me think of a particular scene in Cronenberg's Crash. *shrugs*
It was, at least, the mainspring of an important conversation concerning moderatorial choices and their bases.

16:58 / 31.03.06

I didn't object on the grounds of 'offensiveness to amputees'. If there had been something in either the summary or the first post to hint that it wasn't someone deliberately trying to cause offense I never would have ambled towards the conclusion that it was. So I'm grateful to Sauron for explaining what it was about and a cautionary tale on what happens when other posters don't know your motives.

Our Lady Has Left the Building

16:58 / 31.03.06

I didn't ever think your thread merited locking/deletion, Sauron, but I think it was unwise in that it was ambiguous enough to leave you open to allegations based on a variable interpretation of the title. The fact that you weren't around for a while and couldn't explain/correct those misinterpretations didn't help.

17:01 / 31.03.06

Also, not everyone has seen 'The Mighty Boosh'.

17:10 / 31.03.06

Yes, I feel like I've woken up dead. I didn't realise two words would cause so much visceral reaction, or maybe I did.

By this I do not mean I purposefully stirred up a storm, but I purposefully made the title ambiguous so it would be compelling.

17:18 / 31.03.06

If there had been something in either the summary or the first post to hint that it wasn't someone deliberately trying to cause offense I never would have ambled towards the conclusion that it was.

I'm not sure to what extent it's the responsibility of a thread starter to ensure that his first post and summary are not the contribution of "someone deliberately trying to cause offence". While it is clearly sensible for him to do so (an ambiguous, possibly-offensive phrase risks a hostile response), I think there's also a degree of onus on the part of the moderators to assume innocence until proven otherwise - certainly where thread locking/deletion is concerned.

17:21 / 31.03.06

Additionally, I've just looked on the thread (I have not been on the site for days).

A hell of a lot of other people seem to have taken the title and ran with it- this is not my doing, so how come I'm coping the majority of the stick?

Indeed, most people have treated as it as banal threads should be treated -flump f*ckin' etc. I still find it hard to see how the majority of that thread is highly offensive.

Anyone who didn't get The Boosh reference who knows the way of The Boosh must not have read any of the thread- there are many more clear Hitcher references in there.

So is this trial just about the title?

miss wonderstarr

17:25 / 31.03.06

I don't think the fact that it was intended as a reference to a comedy live show -- of which I have no knowledge at all, despite living in the UK -- makes it a remotely worthwhile thread. I don't think it should have been locked or deleted, but I think you might as well have put a little more effort into the thread. I don't really see what the point of your topic was. "Edgy" and "compelling"? It's attracted a fair amount of discussion, I agree. But where was it meant to go? Was it supposed to prompt discussion about the comedy show, from people who recognised the reference? Or was it for riffs about stump fucking, again from people who knew what you were referring to? If you want to talk about this Boosh thing (I'm afraid the only one I know is the bounty hunter in Empire Strikes Back) why not start a thread that's obviously about the show, in Films and TV?

17:30 / 31.03.06

It was meant to do the former.

I'm not claiming it was great title which was edgy and compelling, I think a title such as 'Did anyone see The MIghty Boosh Live? Did you like the St**p Fu****' gag and other assorted treats?' would have been slightly duller.

17:32 / 31.03.06

This isn't intended to be a trial, Sauron, although I can see how you might be feeling beleaguered.

At the time the thread was put up for deletion, I had little idea why. No reason given on the open board other than "heap of puke" and "teeth-rottingly bad". A rationale of sorts was provided after the event, but it seemed a little unclear and poorly thought-through (IMHO). I got the impression the moderator decision had been an instinctive one (based on... what? the word "fuckin'"? a vague sense of 'ism'?), with explicit reasoning cobbled together after the challenge to clarify.

So... no, I can't say what, exactly, the problem is with your thread. Other than being open to iffy interpretation, which certainly isn't deleteworthy, and arguably doesn't require an apology from you.

17:34 / 31.03.06

Actually, it was meant to do both. I genuinely never thought S-Fing would be so offensive because in my mind it was about shagging the severed heads of two Shoreditch try hards as delivered by a skinny man dressed up as a mythical cockney evil spirit.

Thus utterly ridiculous and unlikely to cause offence.

I am now admitting how wrong I was.

miss wonderstarr

17:34 / 31.03.06

I think a title such as 'Did anyone see The MIghty Boosh Live? Did you like the St**p Fu****' gag and other assorted treats?' would have been slightly duller.

OK, well as a non-mod member of the community, I'd suggest it was better suited to Film and TV, under that sort of title. I think it would have gotten better traffic that way, and probably led to a better discussion actually.

17:36 / 31.03.06

I don't think it should have been locked or deleted, but I think you might as well have put a little more effort into the thread. I don't really see what the point of your topic was.

Again, this is a 'quality control' point, Wonderstarr. Insufficient effort and pointlessness are subjective judgments and could be said to characterise many threads. They're not reason to lock/delete, and they're not reason for Sauron to be apologising. I think he was throwaway and a tad ill-advised, but he hasn't actually done anything wrong.