That's a deflection from the fact that the language cited by the OP is disgusting. I'm surprised the report did not result in an edit or removal of the post.
Of course it's not the end of the world. The end of MacRumors world is when one is permanently banned.
But now allowing someone to say "****ed in the ass" or "fisted in the ass" is a sign of growth and stability?
I beg to disagree. This is not widely accepted language for kitchens and living rooms. Not by a long shot.
Censorship of ideas is one thing. Cleaning up gutter language for "treated unfairly" is something else again.
MacRumors needs to get a grip. There seem to be a lot of deliberate end runs around the spirit of the profanity filters this year. The moderation had been part of what made the forums a pleasant place to debate or hang out.
Awhile back I remember long debates over whether "fanboy" or "fangirl" were to be considered insults. Wow, those were the days, huh? Now one may call political candidates pigs, sows, cows, or criminal bitches and when someone complains one may call them "fragile snowflakes"? I call such complainants people who remember the days of civil discourse.
MacRumors moderators have allowed themselves to be worn down by users of crude language, to the detriment of the forums. I'm sorry to hear that crude expressions have now been allowed to proliferate outside the PRSI as well. Y'all should have a rethink here. People well under the age of 13 doubtless browse these forums looking for clues on tech problems they encounter. I've provided MacR links in the past to young members of my own extended family. Maybe that's not such a great idea any more.
Superb post. And well said.
........
I personally agree (though I have no opinion about the snowflake comment).
The discussion is, as I've already stated, taking place.
In answer to your request for a reason for the current rule in place, MacRumors chose way back not to police comments made about public figures as a balance between civil debate and allowing users to express themselves. Whether or not there should be a more clearly defined framework for this is certainly something that can be discussed.
That's useful feedback. I would encourage you to submit post reports of any examples you see, even if they're not direct rules violations. That will aid our discussion.
Again, I'll say that we take this seriously.
Thank you for taking the time to write a thoughtful reply.
Now, firstly, I am more than aware that the mods are volunteers, and that policing over one million users takes time and is demanding of time, resources, and juggling competing demands - for fairness, on the one hand, with the need to allow people to express passionate political positions, stances and views they have come to hold, on the other.
Balancing these competing demands is a constant challenge, and I do not fault MR for not always succeeding.
Moreover, I appreciate the politics will always engender excessive emotions - and I do understand this - for I have spent my entire professional life (and much of my personal life) immersed in the study of, the teaching of, and the analysis of, politics and political matters.
However, two things in your reply strike me as worthy of further comment.
These are - firstly - on the subject of reporting posts deemed offensive, and secondly on the position of MR of having taken a decision that the forum had decided on a policy of "not policing comments on public figures".
On the first, given that posts which had referred to Secretary Clinton as a 'criminal bitch' had been reported - not by me, yes, granted, this is true, but I am aware of such reports in the course of PMs exchanged with forum members whom I respect, - and, given that such reports were dismissed with exactly that response - namely, that MR does not "police comments on public figures", I decided not to pursue this further while the election campaign continued.
This was for two reasons: The first, frankly, was that I felt it would make no difference whatsoever. The decision had been taken, - that calling Secretary Clinton a 'criminal bitch' did not violate forum norms - because the forum had decided not to 'police comments made on public figures' - and I doubted that any further discussion - let alone a considered decision to reverse it - could have taken place while the election campaign continued.
The second is that I might not have been seen as a neutral actor on the issue, and thus, any complaint - in the form of any 'reported post' I might have made on this issue might have been easily dismissed. In any case, I had made no secret of the fact that I despised and detested Mr Trump and everything he stood for.
With that in mind, I decided to raise this issue after the election campaign had come to a - conclusion, and, had the OP not started a thread on this, I most certainly would have done so.
Now, then, to a small discussion on the more pressing subject of the forum's decision that it would prefer to engage in "not policing comments on public figures", or, rather, would prefer not to engage, or, not to have to engage, in "policing comments on public figures".
Right: The first point I would make here is the obvious one about language as a tool of power, what is otherwise known as "political correctness". Yes, even drawing attention to this is much derided, detested, disdained, and disliked in some 'right' wing circles - but it is no less important for that, and the point is this: Language is not neutral, as it is not simply the means - or vehicle - by which thoughts and ideas are expressed.
Instead, is a vehicle - and a culturally loaded vehicle at that - a vehicle for the expression of these self same thoughts and ideas, as it is freighted with attitudes and informed by prejudice long before what is thought to be any sort of objective description has even begun to be articulated.
Language is a tool of power, as those who have been in power (cultural, political, economic, legal, sociological) have usually ascribed to themselves the right to define those who do not hold this kind of power in terms which they set, and often in vocabularies and words which describe "the other" in terms which are insulting, abusive, belittling, condescending, and, often offensive, precisely because they have they power to do so.
Thus, this is what has been described as "political correctness" is all about - a recognition that language, in itself, is not neutral, and has often been used as an abuse of power in itself. This is what lay behind challenging the use of language as a tool of power, contesting the use in public of certain nouns and adjectives - because they were not neutral, they came with a context of loaded belittling insult - and calling out the assumed right of those people who would seek to use language as a means to insult and give offence, or seek to reclaim the right to do so - on the basis of what someone is (gender, race, ethnicity) rather than what they choose to do.
In the recent election, how language was used to insult candidates was different, and expressed differently, for the respective candidates.
Secretary Clinton was attacked - on these fora and elsewhere - on what she was, a woman - terms such as 'pig', 'criminal bitch' - were liberally used, whereas when Mr Trump was attacked on physical grounds - the adjective 'orange' was used - it was inferred that this had come about through actions of his, namely spending too long on sunbeds in pursuit of seeking an even suntan.
What has this to do with MR, and its decision not to "police comments on public figures"?
Simply this: The comments on public figures did not take place in a vacuum, and the insults directed at Hillary Clinton were often aimed at the fact that she was (is) a woman, not a political figure with a life in the public space - which is, most certainly, a matter for debate; in other words, insults directed at what she was born as (which makes it sexist), and not, at what she did, (which is politics).
Comments - and the insults which ride shot-gun alongside them - are not dished out equally. Women, and people of colour, and gays (among others) are insulted more, on the basis of what they are, rather than what they do, have done, or have chosen to do, and have done, in public life.
The fact that this was allowed, tolerated, overlooked, ignored, and dismissed on these fora has further implications beyond the depressing fact of merely allowing - and accepting - that women in the public space (as blacks in the public space) should now be expected to accept, as a matter of course, that sexist and racist remarks and insults are in danger of becoming a default setting for what it is considered acceptable to say to them and hurl at them when playing a role in the public space, as a result of what has been allowed to take place during this horrible election campaign.
Arguing that it is perfectly acceptable to call a woman who has a life in the public space a 'criminal bitch' - while attempting to explain that this is really rather a discourteous expression to use to a woman who turns down your unwelcome and unwanted advances doesn't really wash.
You can't really argue for a situation where calling a woman a 'criminal bitch' is perfectly acceptable if she has a public life, but is not really considered polite on the fora, (are the fora not public?) or in private - without the most excruciating linguistic and balancing act worthy of a contortionist - the kind that that has everyone in knots, not least the moderators. This is not remotely credible, or consistent.
Let us bring this even closer to home, on the fora:
So, when an alienated and frustrated teenager - and on this forum - tech dedicated as it is - inevitably, there have been many of them, - starts a thread looking for sympathy, guidance and advice on how to talk to women, and how he might persuade the lady he has his eye on to look upon him more favourably, and then discusses how the 'bitch' won't reply to his endless tsunami of tweets and texts - how can the forum credibly explain to him that, actually, it is perfectly okay to call a woman who seeks election to public office a "criminal bitch" but that a woman who rejects your awkward advances is a human being who might not welcome being called a "criminal bitch" when she turns you down, and - moreover - that she even has the right not to welcome being called a "criminal bitch" when she does actually turn you down?
You cannot - rationally - make the argument that this is perfectly acceptable and that it is permissible to describe women thus in the public - the political sphere - yet attempt to plead that it is unacceptable in private settings, or when addressing female forum members, or friends, or family, or colleagues.
As a woman, I have to say that I am appalled that MR chose not to contest, or dispute this term ('bitch') when used - openly, even though it was reported - and that, as it was not contested, it was apparently condoned - (yes, I repeat that I know full well that mod activity is voluntary, I appreciate that) but I am appalled that this was considered acceptable to use about a woman who was contesting an election in the public space.
By not calling it out, yes, you enabled it, allowed it, and condoned it.
And, in briefings which I have given, I have cited MR - a forum I like - as a regrettable example of the deplorable standard that public debate and discourse was allowed to plumb this year during the election campaign in the US.
Now, I write this as a former academic who specialised in politics (and the study of elections) and as the sort of "snowflake" who has worked on elections across the globe for twenty years, including running them, monitoring them, observing them, and analysing them, and reporting on them, to governments, international organisations and supranational bodies (the UN is an example of the former, while the EU would be classed as the latter, and yes, I have reported to both), in some of the most contested political spaces on the planet, so, yes, I do know about heightened emotions and fraught outcomes, and frightful consequences when things go wrong in electoral contests.
However, I think that your interpretation of what ought to be allowed to be said under the umbrella of the First Amendment too generous by far, and grossly and egregiously unfair, because insults and offensive comments are in themselves disproportionate; precisely because Secretary Clinton is a woman, most of the more vicious insults directed at her focussed on her gender, not her achievements, accomplishments, experience, political stances, positions, platforms, policies - and some of the latter did indeed beg questions. Serious questions.
Above all, since this discussion has been invited, I want to know if - on these fora - it is still considered acceptable to call a woman seeking public office a "bitch", and if so, why. And then, what argument can you credibly make to the misogynists on your threads to persuade them that this term should not be used when describing women in other contexts and still claim consistency in moderation.
@LizKat and
@Scepticalscribe
Is it fair to take actions in PRSI and extrapolate them to the rest of the forum?
To all just remember that plain talk or telling it like it is is different than vulgar.
Yes, it is.
I have attempted to explain why this is so above.
