A ridiculous way of warning

[fresh_42]

Sorry, guys, but this is ridiculous:

I think I should have the right to know whom I offended and how. A warning in this form is simply a certificate of despotism. I know, I have enemies on the board. How should I know whether this is justified or a simple act of revenge? Or a punishment due to my political opinions I expressed on our sister page?

Poor taste is funny, given that the Lame Jokes thread is full of poor taste. Not to mention that this is a personal assessment. The moderator or member responsible for this was obviously even too cowardly to sign it and stand behind his decision.

Anyway, a warning that doesn't refer to the one who warned nor to the reason for the warning is pure despotism. Strange, how this fits in these days!

If I am warned for a too poor taste for PF and being offensive too often, by the way, what have been the other occasions(?), if there have been so many, then please list a few so I could see them(!), and, please note that I cannot see deleted posts as moderators can, then there is only one possible conclusion that can be drawn.

Got it. Just in case a fellow EU citizen comes to a similar conclusion, here is the relevant link:
https://gdpr-info.eu/issues/right-to-be-forgotten/

Let me say it with George Bernard Shaw: You should first read all the things I have not written out of goodwill! But maybe Shaw has also had poor taste.

 

[javisot]

Sorry, guys, but this is ridiculous:

View attachment 367835


I think I should have the right to know whom I offended and how. A warning in this form is simply a certificate of despotism. I know, I have enemies on the board. How should I know whether this is justified or a simple act of revenge? Or a punishment due to my political opinions I expressed on our sister page?

Poor taste is funny, given that the Lame Jokes thread is full of poor taste. Not to mention that this is a personal assessment. The moderator or member responsible for this was obviously even too cowardly to sign it and stand behind his decision.

Anyway, a warning that doesn't refer to the one who warned nor to the reason for the warning is pure despotism. Strange, how this fits in these days!

If I am warned for a too poor taste for PF and being offensive too often, by the way, what have been the other occasions(?), if there have been so many, then please list a few so I could see them(!), and, please note that I cannot see deleted posts as moderators can, then there is only one possible conclusion that can be drawn.

Got it. Just in case a fellow EU citizen comes to a similar conclusion, here is the relevant link:
https://gdpr-info.eu/issues/right-to-be-forgotten/

As an expert in receiving warnings, the message is a formality, but you can discuss it with the appropriate people if you wish to learn more about what happened.

 

[fresh_42]

As an expert in receiving warnings, ...

I once was scolded for quoting a professor at Cornell. I win!

... the message is a formality, but you can discuss it with the appropriate people if you wish to learn more about what happened.

No signature, no "appropriate" people. That is my main criticism. Nobody is responsible, and no evidence of what it was even about? How should such a discussion look?

The good news is that I already deleted as much personal information as I could when I had the possibility to do so. My only remaining concern is that I want my "interview" to be deleted before I leave and @Greg Bernhardt didn't do that although I already asked about it. Hence, the link.

 

[Nugatory]

I cannot speak for the mentor who issued the warning, but I can quote myself from the discussion when I supported removing the post:

the dubious humor is in the sniggering “look how I can call her a ‘whale’ and get away with it”.

(For those who are not native English speakers, calling a woman a ‘whale’ is always offensive and insulting).

 

[fresh_42]

I cannot speak for the mentor who issued the warning, but I can quote myself from the discussion of the post when I supported removing it: (For those who are not native English speakers, calling a woman a ‘whale’ is always offensive and insulting).

Thank you. I am not a native English speaker and did not know about this. The joke only needed a contrast to calling women "baby," which, in fact, would be in a way insulting. Any other big animal would have done. The joke relied on this contrast and, in a way, on the fact that whale is insulting. The discrepancy between "baby" and "whale" was the joke. I didn't promote calling women a whale; I demonstrated an absurdity! So poor taste isn't justified, as the joke is based on the fact that this would be inexcusable. It promotes the opposite!

At least my conclusion stands: not knowing such subtleties of a foreign language results in a warning rather than information translates to: my English is too poor for PF. Got it. And yet, the warning itself is insufficient. "poor taste" and "too many" without knowing whose "taste" has been the measure, and in this particular case, obviously, the inability to understand the clue of this joke, and what made it "many" is despotism, not a warning.

 

[martinbn]

(For those who are not native English speakers, calling a woman a ‘whale’ is always offensive and insulting).

In what language it isn't!

 

[fresh_42]

In what language it isn't!

Maybe, but calling women a whale and actually criticizing this is exactly the opposite! The joke works because it is insulting, not requesting it! It actually is the opposite of an offence! But sure, logic and reading skills are not everybody's strengths.

Regardless, the form of the warning is a settling of scores, not an attempt at improvement. That's the whole point. Revenge, not criticism.

 

[martinbn]

Maybe, but calling women a whale and actually criticizing this is exactly the opposite! The joke works because it is insulting, not requesting it! It actually is the opposite of an offence! But sure, logic and reading skills are not everybody's strengths.

Regardless, the form of the warning is a settling of scores, not an attempt at improvement. That's the whole point. Revenge, not criticism.

Yes, i understood that you told a joke and it was considered offensive. I don't see the problem. It is quite different calling an actual person a whale than a fictional character in a joke.

 

[berkeman]

I guess the default is to just make the warning/infraction from the "Moderation Staff", but I try to always personalize the warning/infraction DMs with my username so the person receiving it knows who to contact for further details.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I reviewed the post and actually there are a string of bad taste jokes. They aren't funny, just insulting and not to the spirit of our community. There is no debate on this.

 

[fresh_42]

Regardless, the form of the warning is a settling of scores, not an attempt at improvement. That's the whole point. Revenge, not criticism.

 

[fresh_42]

I reviewed the post and actually there are a string of bad taste jokes. They aren't funny, just insulting and not to the spirit of our community. There is no debate on this.

The joke mocked "baby" by suggesting a replacement with whale. That is not insulting; it is the opposite.

And the form of the warning actually offended me. I would definitely appreciate it if you would delete my "interview" on PF as it contains personal information. Thank you.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

The joke mocked "baby" by suggesting a replacement with whale. That is not insulting; it is the opposite.

Then there isn't a joke, lame or not. If you don't understand the historical and cultural context behind calling a women a whale or cow, in any context, then that is on you and I'm telling you now. It's not a joke, it's not funny, it's insulting. If we're saying lame jokes are insulting jokes, then that thread gets closed immediately.

 

[fresh_42]

Then there isn't a joke, lame or not. If you don't understand the historical and cultural context behind calling a women a whale or cow, then that is on you and I'm telling you now. It's not a joke, it's not funny, it's insulting.

No, it is not. I did not suggest calling a woman a whale or a cow. I only demonstrated the absurdity of calling a woman "baby". That is a usual rhetorical means. The pun is the absurdity of the comparison, not the words. It is funny because of this absurdity.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Comedy via the absurd or not, the punchline still relies on the woman being compared to huge animals. If you need to twist and turn to reason the joke, it's not in the community spirit.

 

[fresh_42]

Comedy via the absurd or not, the punchline still relies on the woman being compared to huge animals. If you need to twist and turn to reason the joke, it's not in the community spirit.

Yes, but it mocks the insult of a comparison of a woman with a baby. I do not twist anything; I demand reading skills, and warnings that

1. do not realy on assessments like taste, poor, too many
2. inform about what was wrong
3. provide examples if "too many" is used

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I said I wouldn't debate this. Lame, absurd, high brow or not, stay away from stereotype, marginalizing and anything borderline insulting. I'm not doubting your intentions, but I'm telling you, the joke hasn't landed and I and others have taken it as insulting. Always know your audience.

 

[fresh_42]

Thanks for deleting my interview.

 

[fresh_42]

I said I wouldn't debate this. Lame, absurd, high brow or not, stay away from stereotype, marginalizing and anything borderline insulting. I'm not doubting your intentions, but I'm telling you, the joke hasn't landed and I and others have taken it as insulting. Always know your audience.

I am criticizing the warning form as it doesn't show what and why something has been warned. That's my primary complaint, not the lack of reading skills, which is sad but cannot be changed.

 

[Borek]

That is not insulting; it is the opposite.

For the reference, and hopefully not sounding patronizing (or at least: not my intention): not being a native speaker and coming form a different cultural background than most Mentors I found the joke offensive. Each time I think something like that (happens all the time, I am actually full of bad taste jokes) I just bite my tongue.

 

[fresh_42]

For the reference, and hopefully not sounding patronizing (or at least: not my intention): not being a native speaker and coming form a different cultural background than most Mentors I found the joke offensive. Each time I think something like that (happens all the time, I am actually full of bad taste jokes) I just bite my tongue.

This entire discussion wouldn't have happened if I had understood the concerns. However, the way the message was addressed insulted me since it was settling scores, not improving the community spirit! My point of view. That some rhetorical means are forbidden due to the lack of understanding is a completely different discussion.

 

[256bits]

Maybe, but calling women a whale and actually criticizing this is exactly the opposite! The joke works because it is insulting, not requesting it! It actually is the opposite of an offence! But sure, logic and reading skills are not everybody's strengths.

Regardless, the form of the warning is a settling of scores, not an attempt at improvement. That's the whole point. Revenge, not criticism.

That always comes to mind when someone is 'chastised', a normal human reaction nonetheless whether true or not true, but the chastiser will never admit, but do non other than double down most of time, as is seen in real life cases by the way.
Full disclosure can be equally as hazardous to the chastiser as well.
What would be an adequate solution? Well at minimum at least a statement of where the infraction occurred that someone could write into the generic message, so as to not leave guessing. The automation of the infraction is a time saver for moderators in short supply, But please do not follow the same path that some countries, institutions, and professional bodies have let be the norm where an accusation of imaginary suspect behavior leaves the accused befuddled.

The rating of 'poor taste and questionable' humour part is itself questionable on several fronts. One aspect of humour is that it can be a means to discuss issues that plague human human kind in a manner more direct than a 5 page essay could ever hope to accomplish, through puns, satire, word play, stories with the unexpected turn of events. Most people are bigots, racists, scoundrels to some degree, some evidently more than others as evidenced in the world's political landscape, even if they feel saintly and wish to attempt to live their life towards a justly cause. Humour will at times let themselves see "Oh. My God. That IS me!" More harm can be let upon the world by not humourizing certain issues and letting them stew in silence. I suppose the converse is true as well.
Looking back at humour from the 60's 70's 80's I do wonder how THAT was ever funny, and why did people laugh. Now, some of it does seem crude. But perhaps the humour did play its part in passing laws for equal rights, and leveling if social rights for communities and individuals, by making more and more people questioning.

The humour at hand is whether a joke is a fat joke, or about something else.
And whether a fat joke about something else, combining the two, is offensive.
Or whether on their own, an offense can be taken.
Or whether which one is more offensive.
I would conjecture that opinions differ.

My joke had no mention of a fat person, but one of plus size. By neglecting to mention that the shopper was dressed a the time in beach ware, the shop was near the beach, and was looking for a suitable bathing suit, the reader him or herself makes the implied connection that 'the ocean is that way' means the she, the shopper, is a fat person and being made fun of. Such is how we do make connections without knowing all the facts, that we are trained to think a certain way, and it is difficult to change such thoughts without much effort. Leaving out pertinent information changes the story from one that can be agreed with, or disagreed. News stories from FOX. CNN, BBC do this all time
Humour does this too, but the difference is that one knows they have been had if it is done correctly
Leaving out the pertinent information makes the joke.
Putting it in make it blah, and forgettable.
My sin and error was to leave out too much information such that it was Not an Ah moment. No connection could be made by a sane person.

 

[dextercioby]

Humor is so relative; what I find funny, other finds gross or insulting. I never find humor insulting. Jimmy Carr and Ricky Gervais are my favorite "insulters". I am overweight myself, I love to eat as a very basic form of finding satisfaction, or exaggerating, happiness. So if people would directly, or indirectly through innuendos or jokes, call me fat, then my message is "dying hungry is not for me" or "if the hippo wasn't fat as hell, he'd be lion food".

On the other side, there are rules of a community. And this one is not the audience of a Jimmy Carr show.

 

[fresh_42]

On the other side, there are rules of a community. And this one is not the audience of a Jimmy Carr show.

Again. Warning with "poor taste" and "many" isn't any better, in particular if you do not mention what has been warned at all!

This is revenge, not criticism. I take that personally.

 

[OmCheeto]

This entire discussion wouldn't have happened if I had understood the concerns. However, the way the message was addressed insulted me since it was settling scores, not improving the community spirit! My point of view. That some rhetorical means are forbidden due to the lack of understanding is a completely different discussion.

How much will it cost me to get a PM/DM of the joke in question?
This entire discussion makes no sense to me, without the context.

And 'fat jokes are not appropriate' strikes me as hideous, as 'yo mamma so fat, she got litteler fat mammas orbiting around her' strikes me as the epitome of humour.

 

[AlexB23]

For the reference, and hopefully not sounding patronizing (or at least: not my intention): not being a native speaker and coming form a different cultural background than most Mentors I found the joke offensive. Each time I think something like that (happens all the time, I am actually full of bad taste jokes) I just bite my tongue.

I am siding with the mentors. Comparing a woman to a non-human is unacceptable in any culture. @fresh_42 was in the wrong here. As a young male, I was taught to respect all individuals, women and men alike. Making a joke about physical qualities or beliefs (race, weight, sex, religion, etc) is verboten. A no go.

 

[fresh_42]

I am siding with the mentors. Comparing a woman to a non-human is unacceptable in any culture. @fresh_42 was in the wrong here. As a young male, I was taught to respect all individuals, women and men alike. Making a joke about physical qualities or beliefs (race, weight, sex, religion, etc) is verboten. A no go.

Did you read the joke? It was mocking the word "baby" and not a comparison of women with a whale. Interesting that "baby" isn't insulting, but my attributes "independent" and "strong" were. However, I do not want to discuss poor reading skills. I was complaining that I wasn't told what the warning was for!

This is revenge. Not criticism.

 

[dextercioby]

Again. Warning with "poor taste" and "many" isn't any better, in particular if you do not mention what has been warned at all!

This is revenge, not criticism. I take that personally.

I understand your issue. I would have definitely signed my warning/delete with the text: "Fat people jokes are found by most people offensive, so clearly against this community's spirit". OTOH, a lot of other jokes/memes visible there are borderly, buy we don't know what the mods delete.

 

[AlexB23]

Did you read the joke? It was mocking the word "baby" and not a comparison of women with a whale. Interesting that "baby" isn't insulting, but my attributes "independent" and "strong" were. However, I do not want to discuss poor reading skills. I was complaining that I wasn't told what the warning was for!

This is revenge. Not criticism.

You can DM me the joke. I can run it through an local (offline/private) LLM to do sentiment analysis on it.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Did you read the joke? It was mocking the word "baby" and not a comparison of women with a whale. Interesting that "baby" isn't insulting, but my attributes "independent" and "strong" were. However, I do not want to discuss poor reading skills. I was complaining that I wasn't told what the warning was for!

This is revenge. Not criticism.

Oh stop it. You're telling me that it's just a wild coincidence that you used whale and cow as figures for strong and independent and that those just happen to be the common insults towards women? Why didn't you use the animals lioness and eagle?