|
01 May 01 - 10:46 AM (#452864) Subject: Shamefull threads From: katlaughing We do have a few of them right now, don't we? Is this what we want people to see when they first come to the Mudcat? The Mudcat is in my heart and not a day goes by that I don't tell someone about this incredible website and its community. Lately, that has been more difficult to do, and, as of today, I won't be telling anyone, for awhile, to give it a try. I'd be too embarrassed for them to see some of these shameful thread titles, let alone their content. Let's get back on track and let the good shine through. kat |
|
01 May 01 - 10:58 AM (#452871) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: Patrish(inactive) Kat, I have just recommended the site to a popular radio station here in the UK. I wish I could take back what I said. Anyone looking at some of the threads might get the impression this is a racist site, and by association that I am racist. Patrish |
|
01 May 01 - 10:59 AM (#452873) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: katlaughing I know, Patrish, that is how I am feeling right now. I am hopeful more will see the good threads and read stories like Shula's in Melting Pot Muddles. |
|
01 May 01 - 11:01 AM (#452875) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: GUEST,Matt_R It's so hard to face That in this day and age Somebody's race could trigger somebody's rage And somebody's preference Can drive some total stranger To make somebody somehow feel the wrath of their anger Why were we put here? What for? We're unsure. We sure weren't put here to hate Be racist, be sexist, be bigots, be sure We won't stand for your hate! Now why so cut and dry? A simple concept missed Give tolerance a try, this confusion still exists Ignorant mongers, and "No area's gray" Couldn't be any wronger in this age and day Why were we put here? What for? We're unsure. We sure weren't put here to hate Be racist, be sexist, be bigots, be sure We won't stand for your hate! Get that straight! Now how far have we come? How come there still are some Who won't let some march to the beat of a diffrent drum To face it, it's so hard You must be on your guard It's not okay and you're not free to be a different way Why were we put here? What for? We're unsure. We sure weren't put here to hate Be racist, be sexist, be bigots, be sure We won't stand for your hate Let's try to erase it, it's time that we face it If we don't, then who will? Shame on us Let's try to erase it, it's time that we face it Let's face it, the time is upon us Let's try to erase it, it's time that we face it If we don't, then who will? Shame on us Let's try to erase it, it's time that we face it Let's face it, the time is upon us.. |
|
01 May 01 - 11:04 AM (#452879) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: Charley Noble Attention only encourages them. Ignore, ignore, ignore! |
|
01 May 01 - 11:10 AM (#452887) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: GUEST,Sad For heaven's sake kat, it was disappointing enough to see you even participating-along with three or four others-in that other revolting thread, let alone admitting that you "enjoyed" the early part of it. Now you start this, which will just call attention to the other(s). Why would you dignify this unpleasantness? Yes I AM sad. |
|
01 May 01 - 11:10 AM (#452888) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: radriano Exactly right - just don't post to the threads and they will die out. |
|
01 May 01 - 11:25 AM (#452906) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: KingBrilliant I think sometimes its worth registering our distaste rather than ignore it & maybe be taken for compliant. Especially in your cases Patrish & Kat, when you're worried that people you've recommended to might think you approve. Still - it will pass - most stupidity does. Kris |
|
01 May 01 - 11:42 AM (#452930) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: GUEST,UB Dan I'm guessing this is in reference to the joke threads...I think its important to point out that the joke thread started by Cranky Yankee was started with the best intentions and idea...they were Jewish jokes in the same way a story can be Irish folklore...it required a certain understanding of a language and/or culture...to understand the joke, rather than being about a perceived racial stereotype with the cultural group as the opject of ridicule. For example, referencing kosher requirements is not derogatory, but it does require an understanding of what kosher means. The thread did slip down some, and I think the other "joke" thread was started to show how some of the addditional postings were seen as offensive. The originator of this thread thought that nobody understood that these jokes were offensive and was trying to show that if the exact samne jokes were made about a different 'group' they would immediately be recognized as racist. I think the thread was trying to make a good point in a bad way. The assumptions were that nobody recognized anything wrong with any of the earlier jokes and that everyone who saw the new thread would be familiar with the old thread... The ironic ending, is that the person who claimed to be the most offended, ended up offending the most people. Far too often I have seen people react far too loudly for their point ever to be heard. |
|
01 May 01 - 11:46 AM (#452934) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: GUEST,bbc at work People do as they please, kat. Those who start those threads & post to them either don't see them as shameful or don't care. Threads like that killed my love for Mudcat. I still read a few of the threads, but I don't post much & I don't feel an emotional connection anymore. It made me very sad at the time. I still cherish the friends I made at Mudcat in the past. bbc |
|
01 May 01 - 11:48 AM (#452935) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: Peter T. I have posted this on the Jewish thread: I think this thread and the others are a mistake, and inevitably lead to hurt feelings, bad manners, and anger. Justifying it under the notion that humour is somehow a universal healer and we should all be tolerant is perhaps true theoretically, but not in this circumstance. This is the Internet, not your living room, or a small group of your buddies getting together, whatever the ethnic group, and however O.K. it is when you and your group are together. It will be taken badly here. We have no control or ability to signal as a community when people have gone over the line. This kind of thread will inevitably attract grief -- it amounts to what we used to call "coat trailing". It is not censorship if people have the good grace not to get started in what inevitably will cause grief around here. yours, Peter T. |
|
01 May 01 - 11:52 AM (#452940) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: wysiwyg Kat, I join you in your distaste but you know what happens as well as I do when anyone here starts to try to rally everyone to a central point of view of any sort. Some will agree, some will ignore, and some will power up an attack. Maybe folkies tend to be so iconoclastic IRL that we are even braced a bit too much against potential "controls" here at Mudcat, where so few really want to control anyone at all! And, well... there is a long list of people who have, at one time or another, stated that certain threads were distasteful. And been roundly criticised for having done so. It starts to feel like, "Who's got the hot button today" sometimes-- which thing is gonna bother which person, and who is going ot be bothered that they are bothered, and who is going to be bothered that someone was bothered by..... It's pretty obvious that the bottom line is, we who are here regularly care about the Mudcat, but maybe most especially about the Mudcat each of us has in our minds at any given point in time. We also know what does and does not work to deal with such things, but it's funny how hard it is to remember and DO that when we ourselves are the one with the hot button of the day. Maybe a couple of new strategies can evolve in place of the continual stream of "What Seems Awful Today." Perhaps a way to register distaste for others to see one's stand would be posting nothing more than the simple frowny emoticon, which presents a much slimmer profile for attacks in response but which sends a message like one sends IRL when one physically moves away from that with which one does not care to be associated. Another might be that if one wants to recommend Mudcat, one can do it not with a link to the whole site first off, but a link to a specific thread or even a specific message in a thread that one, as an individual, might think the person one is inviting might really enjoy, and which speaks to what one, as an individual, sees as the finest of Mudcat. When someone comes here and falls into a thread like that the first time, something magic happens that, I think, arms them against the awfulness. It makes it easier to see that even on its worst day, the Mudcat is still just about the best place on the Net to be. It makes it easier to see how positively such awfulnesses are handled, instead of just seeing that they are there. Because IRL these things happen but are usually NOT handled well at all. Another would be the oldest standby in the Mudcat Anti-Crap Book of Tricks-- and that is, start a coupole of new music threads each time one spots a new stinker. Do so many music threads that these shamefull ones fall off the page and slink away... Pull people to what inspires you, and they will come there with you anytime. I do that once in awhile with an e-mail link to a new thread that looks really good, among Mudcat friends whose interests I know. And it works, every time. ~Susan |
|
01 May 01 - 11:52 AM (#452941) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: Art Thieme I have long advocated that the powers that be here should take control of his website like any E-List owner worth half a ruble would do. DELETE the merde like any good maintenance man with a shovel would do following the lephants at the circus. But lately this isn't the main tent. It is the freak show. Max knows I support him, but this level of acceptance in the name of P.C. is insane. Art Thieme |
|
01 May 01 - 11:54 AM (#452942) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: wysiwyg Double post due to dialup hiccup. |
|
01 May 01 - 12:07 PM (#452953) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: gnu Just posted this on one of THOSE threads........ and I'm not going back to it. The jokes are neither funny nor in good taste. I didn't even bother to access this thread (nor the Jewish "Jokes" thread - and still haven't) until I read the thread about being ashamed to recommend the Mudcat. I've always said **** 'em if they can't take a joke, but this type of humour really should be kept in the circles of the small minded. I will ignore these threads and repost this to the Shame thread because the only redeeming value I can see being generated here is that fact that most 'Cats will speak out against these threads. Should they be banned from the 'Cat ? Where do you stop ? Would you ban the recent "Coping with Women" thread ? Gosh.... it never ends, does it ? See you in "Shame". BTW. GUEST,Honkey.... you are an ***hole |
|
01 May 01 - 12:24 PM (#452968) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: Scabby Douglas I don't post that much. I saw the "Jewish" thread and didn't even open it. When I saw the "Black" thread I thought : Ah, an attempt to display the stupidity and crassness of this type of humour. I opened it and was apalled. I won't post there. I understand the inclination to free speech, and the determination not to censor, but this could do serious harm to this site. SD |
|
01 May 01 - 12:42 PM (#452976) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: Clinton Hammond I'm with Art... This place needs a good moderator with the STONES to step up to the plate and delete the crap that this place attracts like flies... Hiding behind PC whinning about censorship is just stupid and cowardly... This place is SUPPOSED to be about folk and blues music isn't it?!?!?! Where's the problem with making sure it stays that way? |
|
01 May 01 - 12:43 PM (#452977) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: Noreen this could do serious harm to this site. I don't think so, while the vast majority of mudcatters are ignoring the nonsense (I didn't have a clue what shameful threads were being referred to when this thread was started because I hadn't opened them). Attention seekers will alays try it on, while they get rewarded for being offensive. Noreen |
|
01 May 01 - 12:46 PM (#452979) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: Jon Freeman Shameless thread titles kat? I can only see 2 at the moment that looked as if they could be trouble (and I chose to ignore) and the second one of those appears to be a reaction to the first. I note that in the first one of these threads, you say, "I, too, was enjoying the beginnings of this thread, at least some of them, but became uncomfortable when the stereotypes were drug out." which would give reasonable grounds to believe that this cannot possibly be one of the TITLES you are objecting to. This only leaves one thread which has a very similar title that I can find. Please enlighten me. Jon |
|
01 May 01 - 12:46 PM (#452980) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: GUEST Clinton Hammond: A little different from what you posted in one of those threads. Subject: RE: NON-IRRITATING BLACK JOKES From: ClintonHammond Date: 01-May-01 - 12:35 PM "I've always said **** 'em if they can't take a joke, but this type of humour really should be kept in the circles of the small minded." Isn't that what Mudcat is?? A haven for the small and close-minded??? So, some here find them offensive? So fecking what?!?!?! Ya don't like it, don't read it and DON'T POST TO IT!! D'UH!!!! I'm glad I live in a world where some things offend... it shows that we're still different in some respects... not all the fecking same white-bread-and-butter like the PC feckwits want us to be! Without differences, we cease to evolve... So keep offending! |
|
01 May 01 - 12:52 PM (#452985) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: Dave (the ancient mariner) Not that it will mean much in the grand scheme of things but I agree with bbc on this issue...Yours,Aye. Dave |
|
01 May 01 - 12:56 PM (#452988) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: Clinton Hammond Not really... I'm all in favour of offensive stuff... but I'm also aware that there's a time and a place for everything... if Mudcatters DON'T want this place full of smut and garbage, then they should make sure that there's a mod taking care of that stuff... Hell, I can think of one or 2 threads of MINE that I'd delete to preserve the spirit of Mudcat... But as that doesn't happen, I'm not likely to self-censor... In this place I don't have to! Gust... get stuffed.. trying to throw my words back at me... have the balls to do it in your own name, or don't do it at all... fecking coward! |
|
01 May 01 - 01:11 PM (#453007) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: Frug I've just read this thread for the first time and find myself in sympathy with the issues raised by Kat and others. I'm relatively new to Mudcat, only been around for a month or two and have enjoyed the dialogue that has been going on and have equally enjoyed being able to ask questions and get informed help and advice. I have also enjoyed some of the more humourous threads and have contributed where I felt able. Humour is important in all things but there has to be lines over which people people do not step, particularly in a public forum like this. As a result of reading Kats comments I opened the Current 'non-irritating' threads that are running and can admit to being horrified at some of the content which I regard as being out and out racist. I agree with Art and Clinton that someone up there should exercise control and keep the crap off the site. Its just unfortunate that there are those who will seek to propogate the brand of intolerance and ignorance and hatred on any potential platform and for that reason censorship is necessary to keep the Mudcat clean. |
|
01 May 01 - 01:17 PM (#453012) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: Lonesome EJ Katlaf, I think Cranky Yankee started his thread with good intentions, but the whole ethnic joke area makes me uncomfortable, unless the jokes are told by members of the ethnic group concerned. When a WASP guy tells another WASP guy a Jewish or Black or Hispanic joke over a beer, there's usually a hint of condescension and the us vs them mentality, even if the jokes are basically harmless. I believe that the Black joke thread was ironic on the part of the thread creator...he may be a Jew who found the other thread offensive and wanted to make a point. |
|
01 May 01 - 01:18 PM (#453016) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: TamthebamfraeScotland But arn't all joke in some way racist in some way, I mean there's a comdian called Frank Carson who's Irish and he was called a racist because he told Irsh jokes. |
|
01 May 01 - 01:21 PM (#453022) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: RichM Once you enter a discussion, you validate it--not the premise, the discussion. If you don't approve, don't post! That's the quickest way to kill a thread.... If you really want to distress yourself, read some of the social newsgroups that discuss conflicts between Arab/Israeli, Indonesian/Timorese, North/South Ireland, India/Pakistan...the list is endless. Personally, I was more upset by the Mississippi state flag thread.... Rich McCarthy |
|
01 May 01 - 01:21 PM (#453023) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: Little Hawk There's always lots of good stuff on Mudcat, and then there are a few things which may offend someone. Sounds pretty much like life in general to me. I guess the best idea would be to concentrate on the good stuff. Just like in regular life...except on the News Media, that is. - LH |
|
01 May 01 - 01:24 PM (#453026) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: Justa Picker I'm with Art. A suggestion. I'm on another forum as well, which takes IP addresses and encodes them (only the administrators have password access to decode them, revealing the IP) but the encoded IP is always consistent with that, of the poster and is always displayed beside their "name". If the programming wizards here at Mudcat, could come up with similar technology perhaps on a trial basis, I think this would discourage flamers and trolls. My gut feeling is that those who are currently smearing cyber "graffiti" on the walls of this "house", ARE members. Be a piece of cake to match up the encoded IP of a GUEST with the corresponding encoded IP of the Member. It would save the Mudcat "profilers" a lot of time. And then like I've advocated in the past, one private warning to the individual(s) responsible, and if it persists, out them or simply deny them access to the Forum by blocking their IP. Just a suggestion. |
|
01 May 01 - 01:26 PM (#453028) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: Wolfgang The thread respectively post that has in my eyes been the most shameful in recent days has been a thread with a completely innocent title in which a poster has deliberately been referred to as 'it'. Wolfgang |
|
01 May 01 - 01:33 PM (#453036) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: Amergin JP, I think there is something like that here....as max always seems to know who the flamers are..... |
|
01 May 01 - 02:02 PM (#453069) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: katlaughing Jon, it should have read singular, "thread", as when I started this one, I was thinking of the black joke thread. I am well aware of what I said on the Jewish thread. LEJ, I know that Cranky Yankee didn't mean any harm when he started it and I know somebody thought they were being heavily ironical by posting the other thread. You put it better than I could have, though. Personally, I wish Max would moderate and remove such titled threads, or at least change the titles. Those are the first thing a new person sees when they come to the forum. Those titles stand out because they are not the norm. I sure don't want any of my friends coming in here and seeing them. It may not be right to judge a book by its cover, but in the cyber world of fast clicks, one glance is all it takes to put people off. katfeelingmoreandmorelikebbcanddave |
|
01 May 01 - 02:09 PM (#453079) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: nutty My puppy (8months old) torments my older dog(6 years) till he gets a reaction which is either a chase or a bite on the nose. However hard the old dog tries to ignore him he gets annoyed and reacts in the end. This is what I'm seeing here - We all get told "ignore these threads and they'll go away" then people like you - the backbone of Mudcat - just can't resist stirring things up In Yorkshire we say "THERE'S NOWT SO QUEER AS FOLK" (Queer - meaning odd or strange)and the more time I spend on this site the more prophetic those words become. It really is a shame - cos you are all such lovely people. |
|
01 May 01 - 02:12 PM (#453085) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: McGrath of Harlow The suggestion above that when you recommend the Mudcat you give a link to a particular thread that is relevant to the person you are recommending it to instead of to the forum makes a lot of sense. Gives the newcomer a taste of the Mudcat when it tastes good.
But I think you'd need to be pretty jaundiced to think the Mudcat is full of racists just on the basis of those threads, which I hadn't even opened before reading this one. What comes across much more clearly is that racism is not welcome here.
Moderation yes, moderating no. There can be a point when free speech runs up against more important values, but we're a long way from that point and I hope always will be.
|
|
01 May 01 - 02:15 PM (#453088) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: Matt_R Nutty...and all this time I thought that was a Hobbit saying from The Shire! At least that's what Pippin said! Lol! |
|
01 May 01 - 02:18 PM (#453091) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: Jim the Bart Censorship just ain't the way. Neither is silence when one finds something offensive. I think what Kat has done a good thing here; she created a thread in which people can voice their disapproval of offensive titles, content and comments without keeping the offensive thread(s) alive. Let the evil threads die their well-deserved deaths, along with the non-productive ones, boring ones, self-serving ones, etc. Max & Joe give us freedom here; in return we need to exercise good judgment. The fact that not everyone will do that is unfortunate. |
|
01 May 01 - 02:30 PM (#453108) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: Pseudolus I might be painting a bull's eye on my forehead with this but I think I disagree with almost all of you. Ya see, when I first came to the site and started posting it was threads like these that show a large majority of the community coming to the "rescue" of a catter, a group of catters, or the entire community!! Hell, we do a lot of kidding around here but it's in times of stress that the true colors show around here. I would recommend this site right here, right now. Let's hide nothing, especially our willingness to go after threads we think aren't appropriate. We're not perfect, we're a community..... Frank |
|
01 May 01 - 02:46 PM (#453132) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: Naemanson Kat was right to start this thread. There are those of us who want nothing to do with those other threads and still need to express our opinion of them. I don't think it is necessary for Max or anyone else to control what is said here. We need to be reminded of the dark side of this human race. We need to remember that it is our own responsibility to exercise our own good judgement and keep our statements here rational and reasonable. The "anonymity" of cyberspace allows some people to express what is actually in their heart. When you see those who post such drivel you are seeing something you won't see anywhere else. You are seeing that person's real thoughts and feelings. Kind of depressing sometimes... |
|
01 May 01 - 02:55 PM (#453140) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: John Routledge I wholeheartedly recommend Mudcat to others with the comment that it is a forum open to all and people can be as anonymous as they wish - with all that this implies. |
|
01 May 01 - 05:11 PM (#453228) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: Irish sergeant I don't think censorship or not informing your friends of Mudcat is the answer. I didn't post to the Nonirritating threads so I can't comment on those. I can comment on the Mississippi Flag thread. People for the most part did state their beliefs in a concise and reasonable manner. I was personally maligned by a poster who didn't take the time to read what I had written and proceeded to shoot his or her mouth off. (I wasn't the only target) I apologize if my thoughts have been condtrued to be racist. That has never been my intent and I think most of you know that from my posts. Kat please recommend your friends in spite of the occassional off colour post. They don't represent the true spirit of Mudcat or of the Mudcatters I've met. I believe we can continue to make this a quality music site and I will recommend my friends on that basis. Kindest reguards, Neil |
|
01 May 01 - 06:04 PM (#453263) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: paddymac Sometimes, it seems, we need a bit of the bad to really appreciate all the good that is mudcat. |
|
01 May 01 - 06:30 PM (#453281) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: Dave the Gnome CarolC - If your on this thread as well, I agree. I have stopped posting to the Jewish/Black jokes threads and will no longer do so. Let them rest in pieces. I don't particlarly think any thread is 'shameful' but I will not add to anything that may hurt someone else. The 'cat is a wonderful community and I will continue to love it dearly. Just because a few trolls try to bring it down to their level doesn't make it any the worse. Anyone who sees the 'racist' threads that are being refered to and thinks that the offensive jokes are typical of Mudcat does not realise what a good commumity this is. Love to all and stay with us. Is the correct term 'Nil carborndum illegitimide'??? Cheers Dave the Gnome |
|
01 May 01 - 07:17 PM (#453318) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: GUEST,mgarvey@pacifier.com I disagree with those who just want to ignore posts that definitely cross a line of racism or whatever. It is tempting to think if you ignore stuff it will go away. That is based on animal behavior studies and is misinterpreted. The only behavior that extinguishes through ignoring it or non-reinforcement is behavior the animal/person wasn't all that interesting in anyway, like pushing a lever. If the puppy wants to chew shoes, ignoring it will not stop that behavior. If a person wants to really antangonize people and cause serious damage to a group and further the cause of racism or whatever, and no one protests, he or she will keep doing it and most likely escalate. So I am all for calling them on it and shaming them, using discretion and tolerance of course...some things can be safely ignored because they aren't too serious. Some can't. mg |
|
01 May 01 - 07:39 PM (#453333) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: CarolC Thanks, Dave the Gnome. I appreciate that.
Best wishes, Carol |
|
01 May 01 - 08:15 PM (#453364) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: Skeptic Is hard to guess intent from a post: much easier to do it sitting around with friends where intent is more apparent. Something like 70% (the figure was from a training consultant so a little suspect) of the meaning of what soemone says is not in the words themselves but from non-verbal cues. (body langauge, tone, rhythm of speech, eye contact). I think we should all keep Edmund Burke's advice in mind. The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. The frowny face idea would probably be a fairly grown-up way for the community to signal displeasure. Regards John |
|
01 May 01 - 08:57 PM (#453389) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: Big Mick I object strenuously to anyone trying to define what this place means to everyone else, hence I would not want to see any form of censorship. I believe The Mudcat is one of the most popular sites of its type precisely because we can discuss anything that we want under the umbrella of the music and the issues/feelings/loves/hates/etc that spawn it. Allowing this has spawned some of the most amazing threads, full of depth and insight, that you will see anywhere on the Net. It has also given us some of the worst shite that you will find, but I believe the tradeoff to be fair. I also am deeply offended by this crap that was started innocently enough, but had thought been given to it, it would have been obvious what it would cause. I still believe that the best solution is starvation of the threads, because these people take these positions to get the reaction. I have not been in either of the two threads mentioned exactly because of the titles. I knew where they would go. But I also knew what the feckwits know. And that is that you won't be able to stay out, hence they will get their feed. Why don't those of you that are so incensed by these things do to these scum what they do to you. Hijack the damn thread, load it up with nonsense, turn it into a love thread full of counters to the notions that these rummies want spread. Jump in and ignore them and take over their gig. If they can't get what they are after, they quit. Mick |
|
01 May 01 - 09:20 PM (#453405) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: CarolC Big Mick, I don't think these two particular threads are about feckwits. I think they are about people trying to come to some kind of understanding about what kinds of behavior can translate from the 3D world into this kind of reality without causing unnecessary hurt.
I, personally, don't appreciate the sort of humor that is contained in those threads. Some people see it differently than me. But I think people are coming to some kind of consensus that maybe this isn't such a good place for that sort of thing. Regardless of their position about whether or not it is acceptable in the 3D world. Carol |
|
01 May 01 - 09:39 PM (#453420) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: mmm I have been coming in here for awhile, the one thing I enjoy is the variety of topics. No I do not enjoy or approve of all the threads,but that is my choice as is all of ours. IMHO censorship has no place in a site like this , or any other place for that matter. mmm |
|
01 May 01 - 09:59 PM (#453427) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: Chicken Charlie In my opinion, Mudcat is the best site available for music discussions. If we were limited to that, however, it would lose some of its charm. We need to communicate with each other for emotional reasons sometimes, as much as for informational reasons. Therein lies the problem. I don't think my weird sense of humor is offensive though perhaps others take offense at something I say. Unless I give up my right/priviledge/whichever to indulge my feelings, I have trouble advocating taking away the r/p/w of others. That's from the liberal side of my brain. The other side says that, well, the BS threads are sort of beginning to lose charm just by their sheer quantity, and I seriously question whether there is such a thing as an "Inoffensive Ethnic-Group Joke." Seems to me that common sense would say no matter how that starts, you know how it's going to end. The other frustration with contentious posts is the almost absolute lack of rational argumentation; there's a whole lot of sloganizing, not too much factual info., and even less rational consideration of the opposite point of view. I guess that makes it clear that only right-thinking people should post non-music threads. Now, all wrong-thinking people, please raise your right hands. I don't see you ..... CC |
|
01 May 01 - 10:28 PM (#453449) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: Peter K (Fionn) Kat, you may know what you said in another thread, but I didn't. So if Jon hadn't quoted it, your brass neck would have passed unnoticed by me. Am I reading you right? You want Mudcat censored because one thread - ONE - strikes you as shameful out of all the hundreds, perhaps thousands, so far posted? Does that one errant thread really warrant your telling Max what's wrong with his gift? Must you really hide Mudcat from your friends because of it? Clinton Hammond went further and accused Max of cowardice. Certainly nothing cowardly about Clint's huffing and puffing at an anonymous guest, though I can't help finding such futile spluttering faintly risible. You perhpas need to reflect, Kat, that most of the people posting in this thread would never have been tempted to open those other threads, if you hadn't given them the oxygen of publicity. I have even opened them myself, but only to skim (out of sheer curiosity) the lists of those who posted to them. |
|
01 May 01 - 10:50 PM (#453460) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: katlaughing I just love the way you turn a person's good intentions around, Fionn. You've really mastered that well. So now when I have a concern about the Mudcat, I should be sure NOT to start a thread and encourage us all to talk about it, eh? NO, I do not want Mudcat censored. I've said so many times. I do think it would benefit from moderating and I do NOT think we would lose anything of much value by being very careful about it. We already do that, on rare ocassions, when there have been vicious personal attacks, BUT not always. For the record, if you reread what I posted, I also said or at least change the titles. Nowhere have I ever said that we should absolutely have censorship. My concern was about first impressions. It's too bad someone gets castigated for giving a flying fuck. BTW, Big Mick, I do not consider CRANKY YANKEE/Jody Gibson to be a feckwit and I do NOT believe he had any intentions of starting that thread for the nefarious reasons you mention. His intentions were not hurtful, just perhaps not thought out well. His other contributions have been wonderful reads in the classic style of the heart of the Mudcat. Sorry I gave a damn and sick of getting shit for it, kat |
|
01 May 01 - 11:02 PM (#453466) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: Big Mick Kat, we have known each other a long time. I would have thought you would have known I wasn't talking about Cranky Yanky, but those that post looking for the response. I will assume that you are just suffering from hurt feelings and that is why you have jumped me. But the last comment in your post smacks of a persecution complex. You started the thread, and you have been here long enough to know what that means. Think about it, cause I don't see why you would snap at someone who agrees with you more than not. And who considers you a friend. And if anyone were to modify anything that I ever say, I would leave without notice. Not a threat there, just a statement of principle. As far as Cranky Yankee goes, he seems like a very nice man to me. I would love to get inside his head about square rigged ships. Mick |
|
01 May 01 - 11:10 PM (#453474) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: CarolC I hope people aren't reading just the lists of names of those who posted to those threads without reading the posts, and then making assumptions about what those people were saying, and forming opinions on that basis. That's hardly fair.
I think only those who have read the contents of those threads are in a position to form opinions about them. Carol |
|
01 May 01 - 11:10 PM (#453475) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: katlaughing Mick, you said, I also am deeply offended by this crap that was started innocently enough, but had thought been given to it, it would have been obvious what it would causeand...because these people take these positions to get the reaction. I have not been in either of the two threads mentioned exactly because of the titles. I knew where they would go. Crank Yankee started one of those, so I thought he was one of the ones you referred to. Just seemed pretty obvious. Anyway, it's going to be what it is without or without my caring, so I'll let it go. kat
|
|
01 May 01 - 11:19 PM (#453482) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: Tedham Porterhouse Kat, I'd like to thank you for starting this thread. A couple of days ago, when I raised my concern about the negative stereotyping in some the Jewish "jokes," I received several responses that have soured me somewhat on Mudcat. I hope this is but a passing phase, if not I'll be on the next stage out of Dodge. |
|
01 May 01 - 11:22 PM (#453484) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: Jim the Bart Unfortunately, human beings are reknowned for making assumptions, with little or no information at all. And free speech means they can form and express opinions about anything based on next to nothing. That does not mean that those assumptions or opinions merit recognition or have value. They are no more than a f*rt in a windstorm. |
|
01 May 01 - 11:33 PM (#453489) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: Jon Freeman kat, I'm even more confused. You seem to be saying that you were well aware of the first thread title, "NON-IRRITATING JEWISH JOKES", and what you posted in it indicating that you enjoyed the start of it and yet you object to a thread entitled "NON-IRRITATING BLACK JOKES". Apart from choice of ethinic group, where is the difference? Jon |
|
01 May 01 - 11:52 PM (#453500) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: Big Mick Kat, A simple "I'm sorry I misunderstood" would have done nicely. I am not sure what is up, but whatever......... Carol, ......... what can I say....... except that you certainly post on any damn thing you want whether the rest of us think you are qualified or not. That is your right, and I defend that. Kindly offer us the same courtesy. If you can't see your way clear to do that, then be advised that I don't care if you think I have the right to post or not. I have been a member of this community a very long time, and think that I pretty well understand what I can have an opinion on. But rest assured that if I am at a loss on this subject, I will check with you..........LOL. And just to restate my position, 1) Cranky Yankee is a fine man. 2) If you start a thread taking a strong position, don't whine when others disagree. 3) Flamers love those of you who respond when they throw out their load of ripe shite. You validate them. See Psych 101. Pay particular attention to the bit about bullies..............it applies. 4) The Mudcat will survive the latest round, it is bigger than the horses arses that start this. 5) It is what it is..........leave it be. Mick |
|
02 May 01 - 12:05 AM (#453506) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: CarolC Big Mick,
My last post was not directed at you. It was in response to some comments made by some other people who said they were just reading the names but not the contents of the posts.
Getting a little touchy here tonight, aren't we? Carol |
|
02 May 01 - 12:10 AM (#453509) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: CarolC ...and it's nice that you've come out in the open about how you really feel about me. |
|
02 May 01 - 12:10 AM (#453510) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: Big Mick Then, Carol, please accept my complete and abject apology. I read it as though it was directed at my previous comment where I indicated that I hadn't read the threads because I knew where they would go. I apologize most sincerely. Mick |
|
02 May 01 - 12:12 AM (#453512) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: Big Mick Carol, I am not sure what it is that you perceive that I think of you. But I will PM you and let you know so that we aren't having a disagreement here. Mick |
|
02 May 01 - 12:18 AM (#453514) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: CarolC Well, regardless of what you may or may not think of me, I never turn away an apology that is sincerely given. |
|
02 May 01 - 12:22 AM (#453516) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: JedMarum Good thoughts here, in this thread. I saw "the Nonirritating threads" and never opened them. I supposed they'd quickly get to the ugly, even if they didn't start that way. I worked for a wonderful Jewish family when I lived in Boston. Good folks, good work ethic, good humor. They told some of the most wonderful "Abbie and Rebecca" jokes (Jewish ethnic humor). I enjoyed them immensely, but quickly found that retelling just didn't work for me. It was not my heritage, it was not my humor. Sorry to see the same old set of ill-equipped Mudcat "adults" yet again creating havoc in those threads (which is what it sounds like happened). Some people just don't know how to behave. I think Mick may have offered the best solution for those who feel that action is required; hijack their thread! Fill it up with nonesense, good thoughts ... anything not related to the ugliness being spewed ... or just let it die a death. Kat - I appreiate your efforts and your sentiments. I too wonder when I recommend this site to others, "what will they think of some of the ugly stuff" ... but I recommend it anyway - occasionally with the warning that they might find some thoughts, let's say out of their range ... the real value of Mudcat lives on, though - thanks to Max and Joe and crew ... thanks to the music contributions of Mudcatters, and to the thread posts carefully contributed by you, Mick, Neil, McGrath, Fionn, LEJ - and so many many others. |
|
02 May 01 - 12:23 AM (#453517) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: katlaughing Jon, The last I will say on this: The difference is obvious. Cranky Yankee started his thread under his real Mudcat name and stated his own Jewish background. The other thread was started by an anonymous idiot in a very poor attempt to be ironic. kat |
|
02 May 01 - 12:39 AM (#453526) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: Jon Freeman OK kat, I get it now. People come in here, see "shamefull thread titles" but only know the title is shamefull if they read the contents and perhaps even have some clairvoyant perception of the intentions of the poster????? Jon |
|
02 May 01 - 12:46 AM (#453529) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: GUEST,_gargoyle OH....Kitty Kitty...
You do meow so!!!!
(Stepped back into "Your-World" - just in time - once more....)
Lord Nelson, Batman, McArthur, aka gargoyle |
|
02 May 01 - 12:54 AM (#453534) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: GUEST,_gargoyle So....let ME (gargoyle) get THIS straight....you..., You...., YOU...., are now the proud protector of the Mudcat threads???
Direct Quote - "So now when I have a concern about the Mudcat....NO, I do not want Mudcat censored. I've said so many times. "
Here little, Kitty, Kitty, cum, cum, lick the nice, big, round .... |
|
02 May 01 - 01:02 AM (#453542) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: GUEST,_gargoyle OK....I've traveled through the whole jolly-lot of threads, three times!!!
Please include "blue-clicky-things" so I can find out "where the good stuff is hidden!"
What the fuckin-hell has gotten yer arse to puckering? |
|
02 May 01 - 01:06 AM (#453549) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: GUEST,Hi Kat It appears you have made the MudCat in your image. The Jews can take credit for the following list; Woody allen, Morey Amsterdam, Jack Benny, Milton Berle, Shelly Berman, Joey Bishop, Victor Borge, David Brenner, Fanny Brice, Albert Brooks, Mel Brooks, Lenny Bruce, Art Buchwald, George Burns, Red Buttons, Sid Ceasar, Eddie Cantor, Titie Fields, Phil Foster, Buddy Hacket, Goldie Hawn, George Jessel, Danny Kaye, Alan King, Robert Klien, Paul Krassner, Louise Lasser, Norman Lear, Sam Levinston, Jackie Mason, Lou Mason, Bette Midler, Henry Morgan, Zero Mostel, Jan Murray, Gilda Radner, Carl Reiner, Don Rickles, Joan Rivers, Mort Sahl, Soupy Sales, Dr, Seuss, Dick Shawn, Allen Sherman, Phil Silvers, Neil Simon, The Three Stooges, Larry Storch, Sophie Tucker, Billy Wilder, Gene Wilder, Paul Winchell, Ed Wynn and Henny Youngman just to name a few... |
|
02 May 01 - 03:39 AM (#453602) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: Wolfgang Sometimes, a translation into another language makes us to see things clearer. If I had to translate the thread title 'non-irritating jewish jokes' into German I had to make a choice between two translations which have two completely different meanings. One would be verbatim 'jewish jokes' and the other 'jew jokes'. The first in German means 'jokes as told among jews' and the second means 'jokes as told about jews'. If there would be a book published now in Germany with the first title, we'd know it is a book with jokes that jews tell among themselves about themselves or even about non-jews. That would be considered a harmless book. A book with the second title would at the very least get the publisher boykotted. BTW, in German there would be also two different expressions for jokes told among/about the Irish, Scottish and so on. This line between jokes as told among and as told about has been crossed several times in the thread. Cranky Yankee clearly started the thread with examples of the first type. Several of the later jokes were of the second type. Wolfgang |
|
02 May 01 - 04:04 AM (#453610) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: Owlkat Hi, Well, this is an interesting thread. My two cents are as follows. Enlightened as this little corner of the internet is, there is a wide range of opinion expressed here, some of it nice, and some which is not so nice. With Noam Chomsky in mind, I may not like what you say, but censoring your point of view means applying the same measuring stick to mine as well. So, censorship is not the answer. Standards of good taste? Whose, and applied by whom? My brother sends me stuff which he thinks is hilarious, but is, as I see it, gargantuanly sexist and racist. Still, he is welcome for dinner any day of the week. There is the democracy of moderation, if that is agreed upon, but I can't see that working in such a polymorphism as the Mudcat.The peasants would be revolting So? Whadda ya wanna do? The internet is indeed the last untamed frontier, where there are often no rules and no holds barred. Most of us are grownups. If you see something you don't like, you can look and leap or not. If you don't like what you see, then stand on your hind legs and say something about it. If enough people say enough similar things, your point was obviously wanting. If not, well, that's democracy, babies. Although Mudcat is an interesting,provocative, extremely informative site in which to paddle about, it's also a microcosm of the world, with all it's wonders and warts. There. Your serve. Owl |
|
02 May 01 - 04:29 AM (#453623) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: Dave the Gnome I love those last two posts by Wolfgang and Owlkat. Wolfgangs for pointing out so clearly that there is such a vast difference between the two types of joke. I wish the English language could make such a distinction. Special thanks to Owlkat for reminding me what is so good about the Mudcat. OK - the threads in question may be considered shamefull by some but how the majority of our members behave when faced with some of the more base comments should make us more proud than ever of this little community. So kat and patrish - don't worry. If your friends see this site, warts and all, and see how it still manages to pull itself up to higher levels then they will know that your choice of web friends ain't such a bad 'un after all! Cheers DtG |
|
02 May 01 - 04:32 AM (#453624) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: Lady McMoo I'm not in favour of censorship and don't see why Max should be expected to spend all his precious time moderating the site. I never post to thyese racist or otherwise "crap" threads and the easiest way to improve things would be to just ignore them and swamp them with more and more good threads about folk, blues, jazz, performers, recording, instruments and accessories, lutherie, advice, recommendations, nerdish questions, Spawisms and all the other things that make Mudcat a thoroughly great site. Just my 0.1Euro worth! mcmoo |
|
02 May 01 - 04:57 AM (#453634) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: Wolfgang Thanks for the words of praise, Dave, but on second thought: Does not the English language also have an unequivocal expression in 'jewish humour'? But firstly, I'm not sure, and secondly, it doesn't work with 'black humour'. Wolfgang |
|
02 May 01 - 05:49 AM (#453654) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: bbc folks, We can talk about censorship--pro & con--all we want. Max has made it clear that he doesn't want to do it. It is up to each of us what we post & what we read; Max is merely providing the site. And, yes, w/ its various faults (if they are perceived as such), it remains a darn good site. best to all, bbc |
|
02 May 01 - 06:24 AM (#453661) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: GUEST,Roger the skiffler I'll just say this... Express opinions about the issue on THIS thread not the offending threads or they'll be forever at the top of the list. RtS |
|
02 May 01 - 06:27 AM (#453662) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: GUEST,Honky I was the person who started the Black jokes thread. The four jokes that I posted there were all taken from the Jewish jokes thread, I merely made a few changes from so that they's reflect another group. My intent was to show up racist humor as the vicious garbage that it is, that racist humor is racist humor. I had thought that the denizens of Mudcat would have understood my intent. It is odd that very few Mudcatters seemed to care when the racist humor was solely directed at Jews. I appologize to all who misunderstood that my intent was to show that such humor is offensive. |
|
02 May 01 - 07:41 AM (#453688) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: catspaw49 We really need to name this dance we do here on a regular basis. Let's see.............How about the "Let's Beat Up On Ourselves Tango?" I forget....What was the one before this one? You know...the last time we had one of these badthread/goodthread "discussions?" This one's about to run it's course with the usual leftovers of hard feelings and warm huggies.......just like last time and the time before and the time before and the time before and the time before.................... I think we need to name it so that the next time we can start a thread under that name and we'll all know where to look so we can beat the crap out of each other. Spaw
|
|
02 May 01 - 08:47 AM (#453734) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: McGrath of Harlow Saying disparaging/potentially insulting things things about yourself, including jokes, is different from other people doing the same thing. Sammy Davis, asked about his handicap in the context of golf replied to the effect "I'm a one-eyed black Jew", and I think that was a gutsy and funny thing to say. If someone else had said the same thing about him, that would have been totally different.
And I think that is the underlying principle in these things.
Itherwise we should maybe stick to jokes about imaginary ethnicities. NON-IRRITATING JOKES ABOUT KLINGONS... |
|
02 May 01 - 09:09 AM (#453754) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: Dave the Gnome I got into trouble telling Klingon jokes on another thread... Hang On! I thought it was you that was the Klingon anyway Kevin!!! Dave the Gnome (or Ferengi?) |
|
02 May 01 - 09:12 AM (#453757) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: GUEST,Roger the skiffler A Klingon walked into a bar - so that's how they get those sscars on their foreheads. RtS |
|
02 May 01 - 11:53 AM (#453872) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: GUEST,bbc at work Dear GUEST_Honky, Thanks for clarifying your intentions. You have run up against one of our most common phenomena. For each person who will realize you are spoofing, there are several dozen more who will take you seriously & add to the pile. The most impressive time it happened was when Art Thieme started the now infamous condom thread, to protest BS threads in general. His intention fell flat, but people sure loved the thread! Go figure. bbc |
|
02 May 01 - 11:55 AM (#453875) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: mousethief usual leftovers of hard feelings and warm huggies If the Huggies are warm, with leftovers (whether or not they feel hard), it's time to change them. No wonder the baby is screaming. Alex |
|
02 May 01 - 12:01 PM (#453879) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: GUEST May I direct a question to the following Mudcatters: Owlkat, Les from Hull, Kendall, Bagpuss, annamill. Why are you people continuing to post to the Black jokes thread today? You're just ensuring that the thread remains at the top of the pile to greet new Mudcatters. |
|
02 May 01 - 12:10 PM (#453883) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: Lyrical Lady Alex ... that was a very 'poofacious' comment!......LL |
|
02 May 01 - 12:31 PM (#453893) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: Jon Freeman Dave the gnome, I doubt that kat was ever worried about reccommending Mudcat to others. She is a well seasoned vetran of Mudcat who has seen worse before. Take notice of when the protest arose and what happened before. All that has happened here is that kat made a post to the first thread and as she didn't like the lack of support and a similarly titled thread arising and decided to stir up some shit. Kat, in her usual devious manner, has used the guise of caring about Mudcat to try to excercise control because things were not going HER way, has shown she is even prepared to suggest that she will no longer reccommend Madcat in the process and has yet again sucked a number of people in. Jon (mystified why people can not see through Kat and her tactics) |
|
02 May 01 - 01:02 PM (#453930) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: Bernard Mmmm... I joined in with the 'Jewish' thread in the spirit it was originally intended; I limited myself to jokes I had been told by Jewish friends, and was simply passing them on. I haven't opened the other threads - they seemed (by their titles) to be childish reactions to what started out in innocence, and became something of a battleground. There is no room for quarreling in this 'community', and I have no wish to offend anyone - if I have done, please accept my unreserved apology.
;o) |
|
02 May 01 - 01:47 PM (#453983) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: katlaughing Hmmm, Jon, maybe you could co-author the "Definitive Version of Kat", along with gargoyle, since you both know me so well. katthedeviousone |
|
02 May 01 - 02:11 PM (#454001) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: Tedham Porterhouse "I joined in with the 'Jewish' thread in the spirit it was originally intended; I limited myself to jokes I had been told by Jewish friends, and was simply passing them on." Bernard, It was one of your so-called "jokes" that first led me to object to the thread. I don't care who you say told you the joke, your line about the Jews hanging toilet paper out to dry is a viscious and insulting piece of anti-Semitic garbage.
|
|
02 May 01 - 02:12 PM (#454003) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: GutBucketeer In any public forum people of like mind are drawn to one another, and eventually congregate, communicate, etc. This is true no matter how noble, or ingnoble the forum may be. People will find their own level of discourse no matter how high or how low. There are liberals, conservatives, anarchists, christians, pagans, other religous people, irish, english, americans, austrailians, welsh, germans, environmentalists, young, old... the list goes on and on that inhabit this village we call the Mudcat. Many have beliefs, views, and a sense of humor that may be abhorent to others. While there are limits to what should be posted anywhere (advocating violence, direct personal slander, cyber stalking, hate mongering) for the most part we have a choice of either opening and reading any thread or not. If a thread are a post offends you there are Four choices in order:
Ignore it I spend at least 30 minutes to an hour on Mudcat each day. I must have developed a blind spot, however, because before I opened this thread I had not noticed, or opened, any of the threads that it refers to. Nor, will I open or respond to them. So unless they are breaking the law, or have seriously crossed the line (see above) let's ignore those that choose to be crass, rude, or bigotted. It's how we keep telling our kids that grownups are supposed to act. JAB P.S. It is my personal belief as I have stated before that guests should not be allowed to post. If they want to read the forum that's fine. If people knew that they could be traced then I think a lot of the egregious postings would simply never show up. |
|
02 May 01 - 02:37 PM (#454021) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: Jon Freeman kat, your own authorship will suffice. I will be content to remind you of this thread on the next occasion you try a similar stunt. Jon |
|
02 May 01 - 02:56 PM (#454035) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: katlaughing Whatever turns your crank, Jon, be my guest. |
|
02 May 01 - 02:59 PM (#454038) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: Tyke I say refesh all the other threads and send the offending thread to the bottom of the pile. |
|
02 May 01 - 06:31 PM (#454249) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: Bernard 'Tedham Porterhouse', why do you persist in hammering your point home when the wood has been well and truly split asunder?
Ignore it Respond in a PM offline. Directly confront the offense IN THE THREAD WHERE IT OCCURED. Create a new thread complaining about it. If your argument is so weak that you cannot find a more eloquent way of putting it across, then perhaps you should simply let it drop. Anti-semitic? I think not! Read this thread! Carefully!! I have no wish to make a quarrel - I'm sorry if you find the joke offensive, but you have made your point!
Over and over |
|
02 May 01 - 06:56 PM (#454269) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: GUEST,Formerly Ironic No Bbc. The classic example of why irony or satire should never be tried on Mudcat was Max's obvious April Fool's day thread a while ago. Truly amazing how many fell so quickly for it. Funny though. Orson Welles could have caused a riot with his "War of the Worlds" radio play here. |
|
02 May 01 - 07:01 PM (#454271) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: dick greenhaus Stan Freburg solved the whole problem by using "Swiss" as the generic minority, and "This way, we don't offend anyone" as the tag line. He had the Lone Ranger's faithful Swiss sidekick, Tonto, and reported cases of the Swiss Flu. |
|
02 May 01 - 07:50 PM (#454314) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: Lepus Rex This same thing happens every few months: There's a cluster of offensive threads, Mudcat regulars (some of whom have been here for years and have seen all this before) are SHOCKED, and they demand censorship/moderation. 3 months after this dies down, it'll happen again, and then 3 months later... Bleh. What are you all bitching about? You have something, Mudcat, which is FREE. Consider dealing with the bastards part of your payment (though I bet Max would prefer cash, eh?) for this place you all obviously love. And so what if some newcomer is offended, and never returns? People who are that sensitive should probably stick to their collection of Highlights (for Children) back issues. Let them go, and consider the herd thinned. One idea I DO like, however, is what Justa Picker wrote about Max 'outing' flamer's IPs, after a warning. Since most flamers are obviously cretins, I doubt they'd know how to get around this, and maybe the shame would drive those of them who are well-known members (I'm guessing that's almost all of them) to piss off, permanently. :) ---Lepus Rex |
|
02 May 01 - 08:11 PM (#454335) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: Mrs.Duck Part of the problem is that if an offensive thread appears and we make our feelings felt within it then it automatically returns to the top of the forum. It would be useful if we could register our disapproval in another way much as on paltalk you can ignore people and if enough do it they go away. Personally I do not agree with any stereotypical jokes and find it offensive to be associated with them. Up to now I had not opened the Jewish/black joke threads but on reading this I did and was extremely irritated!!! |
|
02 May 01 - 08:20 PM (#454348) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: McGrath of Harlow What about duck jokes - like Nell Flaherty's stereotypical Drake -
His neck it was green, he was rare to be seen,
|
|
02 May 01 - 08:26 PM (#454351) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: Ebbie Part of my objection to racist/sexist/flaming/ageist/whatever threads and posts is that, even if you don't buy into the premise, it still poisons your well. Imbibing from that well poisons you, and when you're in that condition it is easy to attack others in order to make them feel the same way. Personally- and I'm no Pollyanna- I'm better off if I don't even read the stuff. It's kind of like what my son-in-law experienced when he was a Child Abuse/Domestic Violence prosecutor. He said he could hardly bear to look at his children when he came home- and transferred to civil advisory. We are fragile creatures. Love Ebbie |
|
02 May 01 - 08:55 PM (#454362) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: Bernard Yup. The reality is that there will always be someone who cannot see things the way another does, with predictable consequences. Some 'flamers' probably do not set out to flame intentionally, but find that they cannot back down without losing face - as if that's so important... In reality, they may not even believe they are flaming the thread - they may well be quite serious in their views. The beauty of Mudcat is the way that we are able to 'publicly' discuss things, or contact an individual on a 'one-to-one' basis. When that discussion degenerates into a public 'brawl', slanging match, etc., everyone else can see clearly what is going on, and will form their own opinion - if they think it is worth the effort! Targetting an individual within a thread is an obvious effort to 'score points' - a Personal Message probably serves the purpose more tactfully, and causes less ill feeling. However, once a member has openly and deliberately targetted another, it is very difficult for them to back down. Then to repeat such a faux pas... I'm not sure about barring 'guests' from posting - it's only going to cause 'cookieless' members unnecessary inconvenience... Earlier on in this thread I apologised for any possible offence I may have unintentionally caused - that still stands. In polite society it is usual to graciously accept such an apology - not to repeat the attack.
|
|
02 May 01 - 09:28 PM (#454382) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: Ma Fazoo It breaks my heart that Joseph Paul Katzberg's naivete at sharing some of his father's and granfathers favorite stories has turned into a vicious thing and caused such bitterness and controversy. From now on you may be assured that I will censor my own thoughts heavily before sharing them on this site. It has been such a boon to me, as I am disabled and don't get out to see my friends very much. I thought perhaps I would find some friends here. I do want to thank those who realized that there was no bad intent on Cranky Yankee's part. Please, I know he will become defensive and express himself in blunt terms. I have been married to Jody for 31 years this month and have never seen him deliberately hurt anyone. I gusess what I would say in the end is, let us all evolve at our own pace, and we'll all try to grow as well as we can. |
|
02 May 01 - 09:33 PM (#454385) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: Geoff the Duck Recently there have been several threads which I have found unpleasant. I understand the arguments against a mudcat "administrator" using a censorship veto, but I would appreciate a way of giving a "thumbs down" to offensive threads. Many people talk about Democracy, but usually mean "I want to behave like a spoiled brat, and stuff you if you don't like it". People who do "give a damn" and attempt to counter with a reasoned argument, just get sidelined. Is it within the programmers capabilities to add a "veto" box to threads, so when a specified number of mudcatters (different ones, and not Guests) object to a thread it be consigned to Room 101, where our worst nightmares live. This would be a form of internal democratic moderation, not an imposed arbitrary censorship. Just a thought for the day! Geoff the Duck!
|
|
02 May 01 - 09:37 PM (#454387) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: bbc Formerly Ironic, You've got me there. April 1st was the start of me realizing, for a time, that Mudcat was very important to me. I was certainly one of the ones who fell hard for the "joke." The sense of community that many perceive on Mudcat largely began w/ that incident & those of us who fell hard, for what it's worth. For me, "Why are Americans so fat?" was the straw that broke the camel's back. bbc (no longer of the Resources site) |
|
03 May 01 - 04:19 AM (#454536) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: Bernard I think the problem with your suggestion, Geoff, is the way threads spread out like ripples in a pond. Closing down a thread will only make it reappear elsewhere, possibly with more vigour - possibly giving it some artificial 'cult status'. We saw this a few months ago when Max deleted a thread... No, I believe they have to be allowed a 'natural death' by being ignored.
|
|
03 May 01 - 04:57 AM (#454548) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: CRANKY YANKEE WHAT ARE WE DOING HERE, CHOOSING UP SIDES??? WELL, COUNT ME OUT. MY BRAWLING DAYS ARE OVER. Let's just suppose,. for one moment, that Abner Doubleday DID invent the game of Baseball. (Which he did not, English kids have been playing "Rounders" for centuries). Let's just pretend that he did. That being the case, then, he also invented "Baseball Bats". Right???? A very small number of people have used baseball bats to inflict pain, injury and/or destruction of property. DOES THIS MEAN THAT THE GAME OF BASEBALL IS "SHAMEFULL"? SHOULD BASEBALL BE BANNED ? Basketall WAS invented outright by some guy from Springfield, Mass. Is it a shamefull thing because players sometimes foul their opponents without intending to, and also DELIBERATELY foul the other team????. |
|
03 May 01 - 05:16 AM (#454550) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: CRANKY YANKEE Let me close this battle with one last joke. This one should offend , OOOH!!, about 2/3 of the world's popultion, but it, nevertheless, is very funny. aboput 1, 995 years ago, an unfortunate woman was being stoned by villagers, for some crime or other. Jesus stopped the process and said, "Let he, who is without sin, cast the first stone". An old woman came out of the crowd, picked up a large stone and hurled it at the poor, unfortunate woman. Jesus took the old woman by the arm, gently led her away from the crowd, and, when out of earshot quietly said, "Mother, sometimes you really piss me off." |
|
04 May 01 - 11:16 AM (#455770) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: GUEST,Katy P. My dad is a folksinger, so I've been around folk music and folk music people all of my life. I grew up listening to my dad's songs and those of Pete Seeger, Phil Ochs and other family friends and I lived most of my life under the illusion that folk music people leaned left, believed in peace and brotherhood, and would never hurt or insult anyone based on such things as race, religion or ethnicity. That's why I'm often taken aback when I visit the Mudcat Cafe. Here I see advocates of militarism and capital punishment, proponents of multinational big business, ethnic-based nationalism, etc. Obviously, there are a lot of different values at play in this forum. But reading through the joke threads, I was utterly shocked, both at many of the jokes, and at the underlying racism and anti-Semitism that is at the heart of them. As an example, I cannot fathom how the teller of the toilet paper joke would not see how hurtful is. I agree that these threads are shameful. They are most unbecoming of a forum that describes itself as "a magazine dedicated to blues and folk music." Katy P. |
|
04 May 01 - 12:12 PM (#455823) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: Jande Skeptic: "I think we should all keep Edmund Burke's advice in mind. The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. " Thankyou! That was in my thoughts as well as I read through the posts here. Mick: On one of the popular game forums in which I have been a long-time respected regular, we always hi-jacked the threads produced by trolls --and simply had a troll barbeque and a virtual party. LOL! Trolls didn't seem to stick around for long there. Then inevitable thread-drift would kick in and the thread name might even get changed. But that was on a usenet forum. Here, it might help if when the topic of a group changed, someone monitoring things might change the thread title accordingly, or put a warning on the offensive ones. I don't know how realistic that would be though... I tend to ignore joke threads anyway, but I'm glad I didn't miss that Jesus joke that Cranky Yankee posted here. I suppose it will offend people who believe that Jesus IS God, but I believe he was a man who was aware of human-ness AND the sacred spirit in all of us, including himself. That joke underlined for me the human-ness of Jesus. I believe his whole point was "I can do it and I am human just like you, therefore so can you (IF you have ears to hear and eyes to see)!" That Roman Citizen, (St.) Saul/Paul, has a lot to answer for, if you ask me. (which you didn't) ;`) Thanks for this thread, Kat. Stupid to suffer in silence, when speaking out will gather you support, and further discussion. ~ Jande
|
|
04 May 01 - 12:22 PM (#455832) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: mousethief I think one reason Max doesn't expunge offending threads/messages is the inordinate amount of WORK it would require. He would spend all his time reading messages on Mudcat. Perhaps he has figured that, since he can't censor EVERYTHING, it is best that he censor NOTHING -- lest he end up leaving the imprint of his own taste (or that of the people who complain loudest). So we must be self-monitoring. How I wish we could zonk offenders -- especially guests! -- who post offensive messages. Having been the brunt of a vicious attack in the past week or so, believe me, I understand the desire for censorship. Please also see this message. Alex |
|
04 May 01 - 12:27 PM (#455836) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: katlaughing Thanks to those of you who've expressed support. I appreciate it. |
|
04 May 01 - 01:21 PM (#455869) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: marty D Guest Katy, try not to get down about that kind of stuff. The VAST majority here are helpful caring folks. Ten agressive jerks with attitude and aliases can make it SEEM like they run the show, but they don't. Stick to the non-controversial and music threads and you'll get a much different picture. I have a friend who's been driving cab at night for 20 years. He encounters so many desperate and dangerous people, that he can't even conceive of another happier world outside the one he inhabits. marty |
|
05 May 01 - 04:27 AM (#456340) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: McGrath of Harlow Controversy is just a word for people exchanging views about things on which they disagree.
Controversy isn't the problem, discourtesy is. And that obviously includes racism, which is inescapably discourteous. |
|
05 May 01 - 11:43 AM (#456434) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: Jeri "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." And the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, when its sole purpose is to provoke people to do something, is to do something.
This is how I see things: |
|
05 May 01 - 02:35 PM (#456508) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: McGrath of Harlow Anyone who posts to a thread validates and supports it.
I know what you mean, and agree with it a lot of the way. But there can be a trap of imagining that a thread has an existence over and above the posts that it is made up of, and that whatever the intent of someone who started it might be has some special significance.
If a thread has developed into a pointless row about nothing in particular, leaving it be is often the sensible thing to do. But other times an interesting and relevant discussion is developing, albeit maybe interspersed with ill-tempered coat-trailing and personal abuse from people trying to stir things up, and I don't think that the stirrers should be given the privilege of shutting down the discussion. (And that's not a comment pointing at anybody. I feel it prudent to emphasize that, because sometimes people can be a bit thin-skinned here on the Mudcat, or something you've said with one meaning can take on a new one you hadn't meant, because of an intervening post etc.) |
|
06 May 01 - 04:19 PM (#456521) Subject: Bigotry From: Bernard bigotn. a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his own, |
|
06 May 01 - 04:55 PM (#456540) Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads From: CarolC Bye, Bernard. Take care of yourself. And good luck with the depression. Carol |