I don't have to give a crap about it, it doesn't change anything. Me caring doesn't suddenly make this not right. Me not caring doesn't make it right either. But this goes back to my original point, mods refuse to admit their mistakes and that things were mishandled. Just keep sweeping everything under the rug. You're making your money off of the ads anyways by having us keep clicking on this thread.
The term "animals" is probably used disproportionately when it comes to non-whites. It's the same with "thug" or "monkey". I doubt that was a straight red anyway, especially if he had done the sensible thing and explained he meant no offence and apologised if any was taken. But the fact is he wasn't banned for that. He was banned for posting something NSFW. If he put it in a spoiler tag and clearly labelled it with a NSFW warning, then that might mitigate, but otherwise I'm in favour of a straight red for that shit, maybe life imprisonment as well. I can only ever remember reporting one post, and that was for NSFW reasons. You can't be losing a job just because some tit posted a picture of some tit.
That doesn't make it acceptable. That is not the rule. Also for what it's worth the web browser loads and caches the image. So even if you do not click on the spoiler tag there is chance your employer can see it. Because you have already downloaded it.
Did Gamecock put up the same post as me or does the forum think I'm him now? Anyways, I agree it shouldn't be up there even with a spoiler tag, but IMO it shows that it was an honest mistake. Listen, Sal is a difficult poster, I am too, I just think this is the wrong moment to decide enough is enough and delete him for good. Especially when there are all these other previous issues that haven't/won't be addressed but should.
I see this is still here. http://forums.bigsoccer.com/threads...the-world-vol-v.807446/page-509#post-34012707 Plenty of NSFW in there. Why has it not been taken down yet?
Still active and a quick glance around that part of the forum finds plenty of NSFW in other active threads. Why do you hate T&A, DDR? And here I thought you were a Boriello fan.
Haha - thanks for having so faith in my judgement dude. Hide it under the rug, I just posted the link here for goodness sake. So my making a joke there was a mistake? Is that your point of view? because I'm not sure I share it. In hindsight now that it is in this thread and out of context, I will admit that it sounds misogynistic which is unfortunate as that was not my intent - my intent was making a joke relevant to the context, with a dumb your mother joke, in an attempt to lighten up the mood after a semi-harsh mod comment.
Sal calling the behavior of those people acting animal like was a joke. Calling people old farts was a joke. Whatever abuse he supposedly sent mods was a joke. Let's just all call it a joke since that clears everything. I don't have anything against the post, as you know I found it funny. Thats why I'm arguing that mods are too strict on Sal for certain things. But being strict on Sal's behavior but calling your post "a joke" is not making too much sense to me. Now let's put it this way. If the comments were about your mother and Sal posted the same comment as you, how would it have been received? I can guarantee you he's facing another ban.
so youre open to the idea of sal returning? we have won then. we'll take our pitchforks and return to our farms! ...don't worry guys, no need to clear your history on whichever browsers you use. cops won't be coming. your hard drives are safe.
That is an outright lie. Sal never made such comparison. Others did. His comment was about the actions of people destroying a neighborhood. But others imposed their subjective views and made it a race issue. Those who objected to Sal's comment are the one's that have have a problem with race as he never made it race specific. It was in reference to the behavior of those rioting and had nothing to do with the color of anyone's skin.
In what world? How is it that a common word has a different meaning if associated among non-whites? That is the most ridiculous piece of crap. Is this the shit they teach in colleges these days? The problem is people are creating new definitions of words and then expecting everyone else to follow. The world is going mad.
My question has never been addressed, ever. It's always skipped over by any mod it is asked of. The mod in question, chose to, as did the rest also claiming it was racist choose to, interpret "animals" based on skin color and not action. That means you all have interest in believing his intentions were one way, while some of us don't see it your way. Our perspective is as equally capable of being argued as yours, so at the end of the day, is simply that you make decision based on what you believe to be true, NOT actual facts. Our opinions just don't matter in the end. Unless you enjoy this, there is one way you can end the scrutiny (without banning us all) and that's to say "Right, our belief and mind read on Sal's intent is it, and none of your opinions matter." Case closed. Instead we get inaccurate rhetoric from various mods - Sal used a racial slur to characterize a group of people because of the color of their skin (a good majority of users believe this is false... doesn't matter). - he posted quotes from white supremist websites. I think this is false and stretched to accommodate the officiall BS stream, but I'm willing to be proven wrong. Are any of you mods? - he was told why his ban was arbitrarily extended for one month. Yeah, by Samora, who said that it was only because all the mods agreed it wasn't long enough the first time. Really?! And you wonder why so many people aren't buying into the original story? So really his inital post was contently and conveniently interpreted as racist by one moderator who he was getting under the skin of, and that's it. That's just the way it is going to be. But that's not it. From now on you're under the microscope because we believe you're racist and there's nothing you can do about it. And some aren't sensitive enough to understand how being marginalized that way would be frustrating? Again, no one, you included, has ever answered why you chose to believe intent was on skin color and not action. You've never even acknowledged the latter is a possibility. No other moderator will answer when I asked that question. It's still being dodged. So effectively we're told, it's our view and no other.
I think to be a mod you have to be a vegan leftist transgender atheist crossfitter male feminist and if you dont agree with them well fcuk you, you sexist pig.
I didn't know that words were immutable and their meanings never changed, they didn't teach that in my college. "Abeed" means slave in Arabic. It is used almost exclusively to refer to black Muslims by some racist Arabs. There is nothing in the word itself which implies that colour has anything to do with it. So some Arabs try to explain away their use of the word by saying that in Islam, everyone is a slave of God which is an honour, so they are in fact trying to honour the black person by calling him Abeed. When you ask them why they don't call their white friends Abeed to honour them too, they change the topic. If I call a black person biglipped whilst commenting negatively on them, even if they have big lips and I don't mention their race it will be considered racist. Its not a real defence to say that its true and say that some white people have big lips too. If I call a black person a monkey, even if they actually look like a spitting image of a monkey I'm afraid that is going to be taken as a racist epithet. Saying that white people can look like monkeys too isn't a real defence. Does Sal regularly call white lawbreakers animals? If he does then he should just have pointed it out, apologised for any misunderstanding, accepting that it might have been perceived as racist but clarifying that it wasn't intended to be racist. If he only uses the terms animals to refer to black rioters, the term is probably racist in intent as well as perception.
Why should he apologize for the subjective misunderstanding of others? Why should anyone? The problem is with the perception that others are imposing, not on the words of the user. The individuals destroying the neighborhoods in Baltimore were acting like animals. It had nothing to do with skin color. It was also one of his first comments that evening on that thread, so if anyone took anything out of context, it was those who complained. His comment was on the rioters, not on anyone's skin color. People with bad intents to destroy the properties of others are not acting human, regardless of the pigment of their skin. So there is no reason to associate anyone on that basis. But somehow it is OK to think racist if one is pretending to defend someone of a different color. Our society will never become colorblind because of that.