The Hillary Clinton thread

Smutly · Post by **Smutly** » Tue Sep 20, 2016 8:57 pm

Holman wrote:
Smutly wrote:
Holman wrote:
Smutly wrote:
Sepiche wrote:
Rip wrote:conniving cunt
Stay classy Rip.
If the vagina fits.
Ah. There's that high ground you keep claiming.
It's intuitively obvious to the most casual of observers that the vagina fits. Am I allowed to say vagina?
When it's very obviously used as a coy echo of "cunt," it certainly indicates something about you.

Disapproval isn't the same as censorship, you know. You and Rip needn't be paranoid, just less obnoxious.

Before you go back and edit your post, you said that "some words should not be acceptable" on the forum. Nice 'crawfish'.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Tue Sep 20, 2016 9:04 pm

Smutly wrote:
Holman wrote:
Smutly wrote:
Holman wrote:
Smutly wrote:
Sepiche wrote:
Rip wrote:conniving cunt
Stay classy Rip.
If the vagina fits.
Ah. There's that high ground you keep claiming.
It's intuitively obvious to the most casual of observers that the vagina fits. Am I allowed to say vagina?
When it's very obviously used as a coy echo of "cunt," it certainly indicates something about you.

Disapproval isn't the same as censorship, you know. You and Rip needn't be paranoid, just less obnoxious.
Before you go back and edit your post, you said that "some words should not be acceptable" on the forum. Nice 'crawfish'.

Saying that terms aren't acceptable doesn't mean calling for censorship or banning. It's about standards of decency. Maybe Trump supporters have lost any concept of that, but we haven't.

I'll turn it around. Is OO a forum where we casually accept racial, ethnic, sexist, or bigoted slurs without comment? Is that us?

Is it you?

Smutly · Post by **Smutly** » Tue Sep 20, 2016 9:11 pm

Holman wrote:
Smutly wrote:
Holman wrote:
Smutly wrote:
Holman wrote:
Smutly wrote:
Sepiche wrote:
Rip wrote:conniving cunt
Stay classy Rip.
If the vagina fits.
Ah. There's that high ground you keep claiming.
It's intuitively obvious to the most casual of observers that the vagina fits. Am I allowed to say vagina?
When it's very obviously used as a coy echo of "cunt," it certainly indicates something about you.

Disapproval isn't the same as censorship, you know. You and Rip needn't be paranoid, just less obnoxious.
Before you go back and edit your post, you said that "some words should not be acceptable" on the forum. Nice 'crawfish'.
Saying that terms aren't acceptable doesn't mean calling for censorship or banning. It's about standards of decency. Maybe Trump supporters have lost any concept of that, but we haven't.

I'll turn it around. Is OO a forum where we casually accept racial, ethnic, sexist, or bigoted slurs without comment? Is that us?

Is it you?

Of course you can comment on anything. That's what people do here. So, why the outcry by you and Grifman asking if it's 'acceptable conduct'? Grifman implied that we don't allow overt racism. Do we? If the answer is 'no, we don't', then you (and Grifman) are questioning the use of the word and it being acceptable (allowed). But whatever. Rewrite history or re-interpret it to fit whatever meaning is convenient to you.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Tue Sep 20, 2016 9:18 pm

Rip wrote:
Grifman wrote:
Rip wrote:Give me a break, if I call Obama a dick is that being sexist as well?
The term "dick" has come to mean someone acting as a jerk. I'm not aware of the other word having any meaning other than a derogatory word for a woman.

I don't do PC and SJWs can lick my balls.
Excuses, excuses. Calling you out on the use is this term is not PC, because I'm one of the least PC people out here. You're merely trying to cut off discussion by labeling it as PC.
No it isn't I call my brother a little cunt all the time.

Right, because calling boys girls isn't an age old insult. Using a derogatory term normally reserved for women doubly so.

geezer · Post by **geezer** » Tue Sep 20, 2016 9:19 pm

Smutly wrote:So, Hillary just postponed a local fundraiser in North Carolina "without reason". This was after her hideous interview where her eyes got all cockeyed making me sick to my stomach. Her left eye was not tracking with her right eye -- and it was very disturbing. If she does that shit during the debates she will lose for sure. Trump said on Twitter: "Hillary Clinton is taking the day off again, she needs the rest. Sleep well Hillary -- see you at the debate!"

Can you track these eyes?

You're seeing what you want to see.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Tue Sep 20, 2016 9:21 pm

Smutly wrote: Of course you can comment on anything. That's what people do here. So, why the outcry by you and Grifman asking if it's 'acceptable conduct'? Grifman implied that we don't allow overt racism. Do we? If the answer is 'no, we don't', then you (and Grifman) are questioning the use of the word and it being acceptable (allowed). But whatever. Rewrite history or re-interpret it to fit whatever meaning is convenient to you.

Once again: disapproval isn't the same as censorship. If it were, then no disapproval without censorship would be possible, but no one here has called for anyone to be banned. You're playing victim to justify obnoxiousness.

At least Rip owns it. You're just a poseur.

Smutly · Post by **Smutly** » Tue Sep 20, 2016 9:24 pm

geezer wrote:
Smutly wrote:So, Hillary just postponed a local fundraiser in North Carolina "without reason". This was after her hideous interview where her eyes got all cockeyed making me sick to my stomach. Her left eye was not tracking with her right eye -- and it was very disturbing. If she does that shit during the debates she will lose for sure. Trump said on Twitter: "Hillary Clinton is taking the day off again, she needs the rest. Sleep well Hillary -- see you at the debate!"
Can you track these eyes?

You're seeing what you want to see.

Smutly · Post by **Smutly** » Tue Sep 20, 2016 9:25 pm

Holman wrote:
Smutly wrote: Of course you can comment on anything. That's what people do here. So, why the outcry by you and Grifman asking if it's 'acceptable conduct'? Grifman implied that we don't allow overt racism. Do we? If the answer is 'no, we don't', then you (and Grifman) are questioning the use of the word and it being acceptable (allowed). But whatever. Rewrite history or re-interpret it to fit whatever meaning is convenient to you.
Once again: disapproval isn't the same as censorship. If it were, then no disapproval without censorship would be possible, but no one here has called for anyone to be banned. You're playing victim to justify obnoxiousness.

At least Rip owns it. You're just a poseur.

Who said anything about banning anyone? Reading comprehension - do you have it?

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Tue Sep 20, 2016 9:27 pm

geezer wrote:
Smutly wrote:So, Hillary just postponed a local fundraiser in North Carolina "without reason". This was after her hideous interview where her eyes got all cockeyed making me sick to my stomach. Her left eye was not tracking with her right eye -- and it was very disturbing. If she does that shit during the debates she will lose for sure. Trump said on Twitter: "Hillary Clinton is taking the day off again, she needs the rest. Sleep well Hillary -- see you at the debate!"
Can you track these eyes?

You're seeing what you want to see.

Supposedly her brain doesn't work, but she's ten times as articulate as Trump on his best day?

I'm really surprised WND didn't mute the audio for that little fantasy.

Smutly · Post by **Smutly** » Tue Sep 20, 2016 9:29 pm

Holman wrote:
geezer wrote:
Smutly wrote:So, Hillary just postponed a local fundraiser in North Carolina "without reason". This was after her hideous interview where her eyes got all cockeyed making me sick to my stomach. Her left eye was not tracking with her right eye -- and it was very disturbing. If she does that shit during the debates she will lose for sure. Trump said on Twitter: "Hillary Clinton is taking the day off again, she needs the rest. Sleep well Hillary -- see you at the debate!"
Can you track these eyes?

You're seeing what you want to see.
Supposedly her brain doesn't work, but she's ten times as articulate as Trump on his best day?

I'm really surprised WND didn't mute the audio for that little fantasy.

On what basis can you say HRC is 10 times more articulate on his best day? Who is choosing his best day? You? Are you a trained speech pathologist who has the bona fides to make such a baseless accusation?

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Tue Sep 20, 2016 9:30 pm

Smutly wrote:
Holman wrote:
Smutly wrote: Of course you can comment on anything. That's what people do here. So, why the outcry by you and Grifman asking if it's 'acceptable conduct'? Grifman implied that we don't allow overt racism. Do we? If the answer is 'no, we don't', then you (and Grifman) are questioning the use of the word and it being acceptable (allowed). But whatever. Rewrite history or re-interpret it to fit whatever meaning is convenient to you.
Once again: disapproval isn't the same as censorship. If it were, then no disapproval without censorship would be possible, but no one here has called for anyone to be banned. You're playing victim to justify obnoxiousness.

At least Rip owns it. You're just a poseur.
Who said anything about banning anyone? Reading comprehension - do you have it?

What is your complaint then? There's no banning and no censorship on the horizon, but you object to people disapproving of behavior that all decent people everywhere consider to be unacceptable in decent conversation?

Do you realize what you sound like?

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Tue Sep 20, 2016 9:34 pm

Smutly wrote: On what basis can you say HRC is 10 times more articulate on his best day? Who is choosing his best day? You? Are you a trained speech pathologist who has the bona fides to make such a baseless accusation?

I've spent about fourteen months listening to Trump and Clinton almost every single day. Presumably you have too. If you can't make a distinction between their speech, at least, then you're deaf to anything but political fantasy.

I believe I'm done with you.

geezer · Post by **geezer** » Tue Sep 20, 2016 9:35 pm

Smutly wrote:
geezer wrote:
Smutly wrote:So, Hillary just postponed a local fundraiser in North Carolina "without reason". This was after her hideous interview where her eyes got all cockeyed making me sick to my stomach. Her left eye was not tracking with her right eye -- and it was very disturbing. If she does that shit during the debates she will lose for sure. Trump said on Twitter: "Hillary Clinton is taking the day off again, she needs the rest. Sleep well Hillary -- see you at the debate!"
Can you track these eyes?

You're seeing what you want to see.

So trumpy.

Zarathud · Post by **Zarathud** » Tue Sep 20, 2016 9:36 pm

Rip and Smutly think Trump and the conservative breitbart bullshit give them the right to be dicks. It's bullshit, and they know it. Even my 7 year old knows you get a time out for that type of bad behavior.

When adults -- let alone Presidential candidates -- can't understand basic civility and human decency, we have a problem.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Tue Sep 20, 2016 9:37 pm

Smutly wrote:So, Hillary just postponed a local fundraiser in North Carolina "without reason". This was after her hideous interview where her eyes got all cockeyed making me sick to my stomach. Her left eye was not tracking with her right eye -- and it was very disturbing. If she does that shit during the debates she will lose for sure. Trump said on Twitter: "Hillary Clinton is taking the day off again, she needs the rest. Sleep well Hillary -- see you at the debate!"

It's only disturbing if you desperately want it to be.

And you must really be so if you're hanging your dreams on this non event.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Tue Sep 20, 2016 9:38 pm

Counterpoint - Kristen Bell has indicated her "wonky eye" goes crazy when she's overtired from working....and I think it's kind of hot. There, I said it.

geezer · Post by **geezer** » Tue Sep 20, 2016 9:39 pm

Zarathud wrote:Rip and Smutly think Trump and the conservative breitbart bullshit give them the right to be dicks. It's bullshit, and they know it. Even my 7 year old knows you get a time out for that type of bad behavior.

When adults -- let alone Presidential candidates -- can't understand basic civility and human decency, we have a problem.

They DO have the right to be dicks. I've got no problem with it. But there's a certain subset of people that *revel in* being dicks, though they call it "not pc" or "telling it like it is." There's really nothing you can do with people like that.

Smutly · Post by **Smutly** » Tue Sep 20, 2016 9:40 pm

Holman wrote:
Smutly wrote:
Holman wrote:
Smutly wrote: Of course you can comment on anything. That's what people do here. So, why the outcry by you and Grifman asking if it's 'acceptable conduct'? Grifman implied that we don't allow overt racism. Do we? If the answer is 'no, we don't', then you (and Grifman) are questioning the use of the word and it being acceptable (allowed). But whatever. Rewrite history or re-interpret it to fit whatever meaning is convenient to you.
Once again: disapproval isn't the same as censorship. If it were, then no disapproval without censorship would be possible, but no one here has called for anyone to be banned. You're playing victim to justify obnoxiousness.

At least Rip owns it. You're just a poseur.
Who said anything about banning anyone? Reading comprehension - do you have it?
What is your complaint then? There's no banning and no censorship on the horizon, but you object to people disapproving of behavior that all decent people everywhere consider to be unacceptable in decent conversation?

Do you realize what you sound like?

It takes a lot of energy to keep doing the play-by-play for you.

1) You and Grifman made statements about "conniving cunt" should not be "acceptable" on the forum ala overt racism (which, no one every answered my question -- do we allow pointed overt racism on this forum -- which was the context for your assertion).
2) "acceptable on the forum" equates to not only "disapproval" but "not acceptable"...as in not accepted...as in not allowed.
3) You disagreed -- and I gave you the out.
4) You continue to belabor the point and mention something about banning someone...of which no one ever said anything about...unless you're telling me that overt racism is grounds for someone being banned...?
5) You accuse me of being a poseur and playing the victim...?

Let's just both walk away.

Smutly · Post by **Smutly** » Tue Sep 20, 2016 9:41 pm

Holman wrote:
Smutly wrote: On what basis can you say HRC is 10 times more articulate on his best day? Who is choosing his best day? You? Are you a trained speech pathologist who has the bona fides to make such a baseless accusation?
I've spent about fourteen months listening to Trump and Clinton almost every single day. Presumably you have too. If you can't make a distinction between their speech, at least, then you're deaf to anything but political fantasy.

I believe I'm done with you.

Oh, so you're expressing your opinion as fact. Got it.

Smutly · Post by **Smutly** » Tue Sep 20, 2016 9:43 pm

Smoove_B wrote:Counterpoint - Kristen Bell has indicated her "wonky eye" goes crazy when she's overtired from working....and I think it's kind of hot. There, I said it.

If you stare at Hillary's mouth long enough....well, nah.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Tue Sep 20, 2016 9:48 pm

Smutly wrote:So, Hillary just postponed a local fundraiser in North Carolina "without reason". This was after her hideous interview where her eyes got all cockeyed making me sick to my stomach. Her left eye was not tracking with her right eye -- and it was very disturbing. If she does that shit during the debates she will lose for sure. Trump said on Twitter: "Hillary Clinton is taking the day off again, she needs the rest. Sleep well Hillary -- see you at the debate!"

K.

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Tue Sep 20, 2016 9:52 pm

Rip wrote:
Grifman wrote:
Rip wrote:Give me a break, if I call Obama a dick is that being sexist as well?
The term "dick" has come to mean someone acting as a jerk. I'm not aware of the other word having any meaning other than a derogatory word for a woman.

I don't do PC and SJWs can lick my balls.
Excuses, excuses. Calling you out on the use is this term is not PC, because I'm one of the least PC people out here. You're merely trying to cut off discussion by labeling it as PC.
No it isn't I call my brother a little cunt all the time.

If you called him a n***** all the time too, would that make it acceptable?

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Tue Sep 20, 2016 9:53 pm

Smutly wrote: Well, if OO should write a policy to take away Freedom of Speech then it would be appropriate in R&P. You must be a Trump supporter.

Shouting 'Freedom of Speech!' after being criticized is on about the same level as comparing someone to Hitler.

Did OO ever guarantee you complete freedom of speech? It's been a while since we had the CoC actually linked, but I do seem to remember some distinct limitations on it, and those were in place the day we opened to doors.

Smutly · Post by **Smutly** » Tue Sep 20, 2016 9:56 pm

Blackhawk wrote:
Smutly wrote: Well, if OO should write a policy to take away Freedom of Speech then it would be appropriate in R&P. You must be a Trump supporter.
Shouting 'Freedom of Speech!' after being criticized is on about the same level as comparing someone to Hitler.

Did OO ever guarantee you complete freedom of speech? It's been a while since we had the CoC actually linked, but I do seem to remember some distinct limitations on it, and those were in place the day we opened to doors.

I wasn't being criticized. Rip was. I just thought it was stupid that people were getting their panties in a wad over CC.

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Tue Sep 20, 2016 9:57 pm

Smutly wrote:
Blackhawk wrote:
Smutly wrote: Well, if OO should write a policy to take away Freedom of Speech then it would be appropriate in R&P. You must be a Trump supporter.
Shouting 'Freedom of Speech!' after being criticized is on about the same level as comparing someone to Hitler.

Did OO ever guarantee you complete freedom of speech? It's been a while since we had the CoC actually linked, but I do seem to remember some distinct limitations on it, and those were in place the day we opened to doors.
I wasn't being criticized. Rip was. I just thought it was stupid that people were getting their panties in a wad over CC.

And then you were.

Smutly · Post by **Smutly** » Tue Sep 20, 2016 9:59 pm

Blackhawk wrote:
Smutly wrote:
Blackhawk wrote:
Smutly wrote: Well, if OO should write a policy to take away Freedom of Speech then it would be appropriate in R&P. You must be a Trump supporter.
Shouting 'Freedom of Speech!' after being criticized is on about the same level as comparing someone to Hitler.

Did OO ever guarantee you complete freedom of speech? It's been a while since we had the CoC actually linked, but I do seem to remember some distinct limitations on it, and those were in place the day we opened to doors.
I wasn't being criticized. Rip was. I just thought it was stupid that people were getting their panties in a wad over CC.
And then you were.

So you mean "Shouting Freedom of Speech before being criticized..." which makes whatever point you were making moot. Got it.

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Tue Sep 20, 2016 10:00 pm

I don't know how they apply, as they aren't actually posted anymore, but here's OO's freedom of speech:

Flames/Personal Attacks
No flaming or hate speech. This includes derogatory slang, nicknames, racial, sexual, and religious slurs. The "But he started it!" defense does not work on these forums. Insults posted in retaliation will be treated the same way as unprovoked insults. Remember, you are responsibile for your own conduct.

Profanity
At Octopus Overlords, profanity is allowed, but please don't go overboard. Excessive profanity is unacceptable and will be addressed (with warnings, post edits, etc.). Profanity in post titles, user names, forum tags, and signatures is not allowed. The definition of profanity and the line delineating excessive profanity is at the discretion of staff.

[snip]

As I recall, we always included non-members in the hate speech rule.

Default · Post by **Default** » Tue Sep 20, 2016 11:45 pm

Are we looking at the 2nd Battle of Fucktard Ridge?

Zarathud · Post by **Zarathud** » Tue Sep 20, 2016 11:57 pm

geezer wrote:But there's a certain subset of people that *revel in* being dicks, though they call it "not pc" or "telling it like it is." There's really nothing you can do with people like that.

Groundings and spankings. They're also the same people who say I'm not to spare the rod.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Wed Sep 21, 2016 12:44 am

Holman wrote:
geezer wrote:
Smutly wrote:So, Hillary just postponed a local fundraiser in North Carolina "without reason". This was after her hideous interview where her eyes got all cockeyed making me sick to my stomach. Her left eye was not tracking with her right eye -- and it was very disturbing. If she does that shit during the debates she will lose for sure. Trump said on Twitter: "Hillary Clinton is taking the day off again, she needs the rest. Sleep well Hillary -- see you at the debate!"
Can you track these eyes?

You're seeing what you want to see.
Supposedly her brain doesn't work, but she's ten times as articulate as Trump on his best day?

I'm really surprised WND didn't mute the audio for that little fantasy.

Indeed.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Wed Sep 21, 2016 12:46 am

Grifman wrote:
Rip wrote:
Grifman wrote:
Rip wrote:Give me a break, if I call Obama a dick is that being sexist as well?
The term "dick" has come to mean someone acting as a jerk. I'm not aware of the other word having any meaning other than a derogatory word for a woman.

I don't do PC and SJWs can lick my balls.
Excuses, excuses. Calling you out on the use is this term is not PC, because I'm one of the least PC people out here. You're merely trying to cut off discussion by labeling it as PC.
No it isn't I call my brother a little cunt all the time.

If you called him a n***** all the time too, would that make it acceptable?

Yes, my nigga, it does.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Wed Sep 21, 2016 12:50 am

Blackhawk wrote:I don't know how they apply, as they aren't actually posted anymore, but here's OO's freedom of speech:

Flames/Personal Attacks
No flaming or hate speech. This includes derogatory slang, nicknames, racial, sexual, and religious slurs. The "But he started it!" defense does not work on these forums. Insults posted in retaliation will be treated the same way as unprovoked insults. Remember, you are responsibile for your own conduct.

Profanity
At Octopus Overlords, profanity is allowed, but please don't go overboard. Excessive profanity is unacceptable and will be addressed (with warnings, post edits, etc.). Profanity in post titles, user names, forum tags, and signatures is not allowed. The definition of profanity and the line delineating excessive profanity is at the discretion of staff.

[snip]
As I recall, we always included non-members in the hate speech rule.

Then you recall incorrectly. The personal attacks rule has always been limited to forum members. Otherwise how could you guys say all the hateful things about the likes of Sarah Palin, Dick Cheney, and GWB?

Chrisoc13 · Post by **Chrisoc13** » Wed Sep 21, 2016 6:06 am

I guess I just hoped we were more adult than using generally deemed reprehensible language to describe someone whether a member or not, rules or not. This has taken an even more disappointing turn. I don't agree with Clinton but some terms should be beneath the vocabulary of adults discussing topics rationally. That is one of them.

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Wed Sep 21, 2016 7:22 am

Blackhawk wrote:I don't know how they apply, as they aren't actually posted anymore, but here's OO's freedom of speech:

Flames/Personal Attacks
No flaming or hate speech. This includes derogatory slang, nicknames, racial, sexual, and religious slurs. The "But he started it!" defense does not work on these forums. Insults posted in retaliation will be treated the same way as unprovoked insults. Remember, you are responsibile for your own conduct.

Profanity
At Octopus Overlords, profanity is allowed, but please don't go overboard. Excessive profanity is unacceptable and will be addressed (with warnings, post edits, etc.). Profanity in post titles, user names, forum tags, and signatures is not allowed. The definition of profanity and the line delineating excessive profanity is at the discretion of staff.

[snip]
As I recall, we always included non-members in the hate speech rule.

This is exactly what I was thinking about. I thought we did have a CoC, and in my opinion, Rip's comments violated that.

Zarathud · Post by **Zarathud** » Wed Sep 21, 2016 8:14 am

Rip wrote: Otherwise how could you guys say all the hateful things about the likes of Sarah Palin, Dick Cheney, and GWB?

You mean back when you were all OUTRAGED! that the forum didn't respect and rally behind the President and Vice President while complaining about much milder rudeness? I mean, no one questioned whether Sarah Palin and GWB were secretly Muslims born in Kenya or demanded their long form IQ tests.

Rationality doesn't enter the picture.

Post by **ImLawBoy** » Wed Sep 21, 2016 10:37 am

The Code of Conduct is long gone - lost at some point to an update. There are copies of it floating around in archives and such, but it hasn't really been needed in a long time. I hope it continues to not be needed.

Regarding the use of racial slurs, we've pretty much treated that on a case-by-case basis. The context can matter a lot. We have banned folks in the past (I think) for linking to white supremacist sites and being overtly racist, but you really, really have to push it to get there. I'm in the camp of "fight speech with speech", which is why I have never banned or threatened banning for using terms like "retarded". Instead, I call people out on it.

Regarding Rip's use of the term "cunt", it's certainly not something we would have banned for in the past. Depending on the mood of a mod, we might have asked for an edit, but that would probably be rare. I think the "fighting speech with speech" mantra is somewhat effective here. It may not influence Rip (who is likely beyond influence and reason at this point), but I think someone reading this thread would get a pretty good idea of the community and our (informal) standards based on the responses.

Personally, if I had any respect left for Rip's posting in R&P, I would likely have lost the last vestiges of it with this post. He probably doesn't care that I don't respect his posting, though, so he's not likely to change. That's not ground for banning/punishment in my mind, though.

With that said, I'd like to suggest that any further discussion of this topic move to a new thread in Meta. These candidate threads are pretty wide ranging in their topics, but this one is so far off the rails it looks like the train is about to reach the moon.

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Wed Sep 21, 2016 10:38 am

Rip wrote:
Blackhawk wrote:I don't know how they apply, as they aren't actually posted anymore, but here's OO's freedom of speech:

Flames/Personal Attacks
No flaming or hate speech. This includes derogatory slang, nicknames, racial, sexual, and religious slurs. The "But he started it!" defense does not work on these forums. Insults posted in retaliation will be treated the same way as unprovoked insults. Remember, you are responsibile for your own conduct.

Profanity
At Octopus Overlords, profanity is allowed, but please don't go overboard. Excessive profanity is unacceptable and will be addressed (with warnings, post edits, etc.). Profanity in post titles, user names, forum tags, and signatures is not allowed. The definition of profanity and the line delineating excessive profanity is at the discretion of staff.

[snip]
As I recall, we always included non-members in the hate speech rule.
Then you recall incorrectly. The personal attacks rule has always been limited to forum members. Otherwise how could you guys say all the hateful things about the likes of Sarah Palin, Dick Cheney, and GWB?

Read again. I said hate speech, not personal attacks. There was never an OO where we could casually throw around slurs.

/edit - if I didn't make it clear, I wasn't citing the CoC as ammunition for banning or moderation, but as a counter to the idea that people here have always been free to use whatever language they chose without limits.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Wed Sep 21, 2016 10:42 am

Chrisoc13 wrote:I agree. I don't mind rips differences even when it borders on trolling and I actually appreciate a completely different point of view than most people have here, but that's a very offensive term and using terms like that make this place an environment that is not inviting. As such I would hope we would all refrain from using words of that nature.

Thanks for your response Chris. I know you lean more right than most here and I'm glad to see this isn't necessarily breaking down along ideological lines..

I personally don't feel strongly about it one way or the other. It's one of the strongest profanities in English and is often used to denigrate women specifically, certainly in North America (not sure about the UK, where I believe it originated), so I recognize the problem.

That said, when my boganella in Borderslands the pre-sequel calls me a "c***", it's funny as hell, so the word itself isn't the problem.

Plus, I'm just happy that calling Rip on it pissed him off. Considering the amount of time and energy he puts into trying to get a rise out of people, it's fun watching him get a taste once in awhile.

Zarathud · Post by **Zarathud** » Wed Sep 21, 2016 11:10 am

Frankly, it's pretty telling that even here Trump's defenders are overtly using racist or misogynist terms and ideas to attack Hillary. Deplorable.

YellowKing · Post by **YellowKing** » Wed Sep 21, 2016 11:16 am

I've definitely used some terms to describe Hillary in the past that I now regret. But water under the bridge and all that.

I've attempted in this election not to do any name calling of either candidate, just because I felt like I can't feel good about criticizing Trump for doing it if I do it myself. So I've refrained from even using Drumpf and Trumptards and other monikers, as funny as I think they are. I'm trying not to get too caught up in it or engage in one on ones, just limit myself to general observations. The struggle is real.....