no homo (nh)

[rocky_warrior]

Just gonna' throw this out here, because we get at least one scathing "report to moderator" every week complaining about someone using the term, and the fact that we've done nothing about it.

First of all, here's a wikipedia of the term for those that need to catch up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_homo

Do we care? 
Me personally, not really.

Don't you want to be politically correct? 
Hah!  MUScoop probably wouldn't exist if being politically correct were a requirement.    We do need to moderate aggression and hate speech, among a slew of other things.  Go Warriors!

Isn't this hate speech though? 
In the cases I've seen it used - No. It's been used to clarify the meaning of the words used.  Of course, they were unlikely to be taken out of context anyway, but in a very sexually minded teenager world, they could have been taken out of context.

This reflects poorly on you as a community!
Maybe.  It's really a reflection of those who use it.

OK, that's my say.  Not sure how the other mods feel, but none of us were doing anything about the reports, so I thought I'd chime in with my philosophy.

[rocky_warrior]

And....I just read this has recently been addressed in the NM thread.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

And....I just read this has recently been addressed in the NM thread.

NM = No Meats. aka No Arbys.

[brewcity77]

Isn't this hate speech though? 
In the cases I've seen it used - No. It's been used to clarify the meaning of the words used.  Of course, they were unlikely to be taken out of context anyway, but in a very sexually minded teenager world, they could have been taken out of context.

I'm going to focus on this, because frankly, it's a load of crap. Nothing personal, rocky, but it's BS. It isn't use to clarify the meaning of anything. There has never been an instance I've seen it used when it isn't thrown into a post in a completely unnecessary way. Let's consider a few examples:

Quick look & thoughts... single year APR of 935... multi-year only 950. Worries for this year re: Harry... and hope Andrew finished out strong (nh) & there were no Haani issues

He said he'll never have anything with his name on it.. the "10 years" seems suspicious, ai'na? So did #buzzsbbq

Nonetheless, I think he touched some of these guys (nh) in very good ways, so I'm OK with it

I may be a lot like Buzz, in the right way, so I'm not upset.

 

You're speaking truth, finally. The Wreck is incredible. Everything on it.

Which Wich I never get. Portillo's is comin tho.

Jersey Mike's just left.. they are solid. Employees are tools... by design.. "want it Mike's way?".. so h0mo.. but, good.

JJ's is horrible. Only good thing are the pickles (nh) and drive-thru

None of these are going to be mistaken for any sexual innuendo. Further, the "h0mo" indicates there is something wrong with posting "homo" otherwise there'd be no zero. The only reason this is used is to make some sort of "that's not me" statement. And doing so indicates there is something wrong with people that are that way.

As I mentioned in the NM thread, it's worth looking at the Scoop Rules from the front page of Hangin' at the Al:

Some (very brief) forum rules:

• Respect other posters.  Insults, and flames will not be tolerated
  
• If you post breaking news (sometimes referred to as rumors), be prepared to back it up or it will be deleted
• Opposing fans are welcome - for basketball conversation.  If you're going to spam or flame, you will be banned
• No pornography (there are plenty of other sites for that)
• Use of profanity, racist or sexist comments prohibited
  
• No illegal activities (duh)
• Use caution in giving out your personal information

Insults and flames will not be tolerated. I assume that means discriminating against people the poster views as "other". The use of (NH) is to otherize individuals. It is an insult every time it is used. As I mentioned in the NM thread, that includes Marquette graduates. That also includes Scoop users. Scoop has 8,330 users according to the member list. Even if we assume only 10% are active, a recent study by Gallup found 4.5% of our society to identify as LGBTQ, so there are dozens of users on Scoop that are being discriminated against every time this is posted. Another study by GLAAD found that number to be at 20% among millenials, so the future Scoopers are even more likely to be included in that slur.

Then we have the part about sexist comments. So I assume that only applies to women then? Sexual orientation must not be included by the mods here. Because even if you try to argue it's not an insult (though the intent is obvious, and it is NOT to clarify anything) it is unquestionably sexist.

I asked this in the NM and didn't get an answer. If a user added (N) every time they mentioned a black player, poster, or anything else associated with the black community, would that be accepted? Or if someone decided to add a (B) with every mention of a female or something feminine? Or is it okay because the LGBTQ portion of the pre-millenial population is still small enough to make it okay to discriminate against them?

I'll also note, both hilltopper and rocky have now brought up that these are reported every time the posts are made. If you want to end those reports, it's rather simple. End the posts from being made. I don't think adjusting the swearing filter and/or providing a timeout to the 2 or 3 members that tend to use that phrase on an escalating level is unreasonable at all.[/list]

[Galway Eagle]

Brewcity if it was a poster that was hated and contributed little to nothing then that poster would've been banned by now. But Jaybee has AAU insight and so he basically gets away with being as much of a jerk as he wants without reprimand.

[GGGG]

Brewcity if it was a poster that was hated and contributed little to nothing then that poster would've been banned by now. But Jaybee has AAU insight and so he basically gets away with being as much of a jerk as he wants without reprimand.

While calling for others to be banned in the process.

[rocky_warrior]

None of these are going to be mistaken for any sexual innuendo.

Wow.  Either you're very naive or are not able to understand the snickering juvenile mind. 

Insults and flames will not be tolerated.

He is indicating he did not intend the words he wrote in a homosexual way.  Nobody has called anyone homosexual, nor have they been directly insulted.

Then we have the part about sexist comments.

Again, he is referencing himself.  Am I to scold warriorchick for calling herself a chick? (sorry for bringing you into this chick, you should probable insist on warriorfemale )

If a user added (N) every time they mentioned a black player, poster, or anything else associated with the black community, would that be accepted? Or if someone decided to add a (B) with every mention of a female or something feminine?

No, you fail to see the difference between calling others names, and indicating "nothing sexual was meant" by words you write. 

You've obviously very passionate about this.  I appreciate that.  But also you are using an excessive amount of hyperbole to describe what you think the problem is. 

[brewcity77]

While calling for others to be banned in the process.

Yup, constantly. And yet the mods saw fit at one point to ban "aina".

I suspect there is something to what Galway says as well, but Scoop could survive the loss, temporarily or permanently, of any member. CBB has been removed time and time again. Big Daddy left on his own and it didn't impact the site. Ners was banned for a time. I left for a year and it didn't negatively impact Scoop.

The idea that any of these would be misunderstood by juvenile minds is preposterous. The only juvenile minds here belong to 50s, 60s, and 70s year old men that choose to be that way to normalize discrimination. The actual young minds that visit are more likely to identify with the LGBTQ community, and yet the mods have no care about that.

[rocky_warrior]

Brewcity if it was a poster that was hated and contributed little to nothing then that poster would've been banned by now. But Jaybee has AAU insight and so he basically gets away with being as much of a jerk as he wants without reprimand.

Truth be told, I dislike most of what JB posts, and wouldn't mind banning him.  But generally my role as a moderator dictates that I be more moderate and  not succumb to acting irrationally based on personal feelings.

Again, a lot of hyperbole here.  A lot of supposition too.  You folks don't know the lives of the moderators, nor do we know most of yours.  You can't always presume you know more about social issues than others.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

Wow.  Either you're very naive or are not able to understand the snickering juvenile mind. 

He is indicating he did not intend the words he wrote in a homosexual way.  Nobody has called anyone homosexual, nor have they been directly insulted.

Again, he is referencing himself.  Am I to scold warriorchick for calling herself a chick? (sorry for bringing you into this chick, you should probable insist on warriorfemale )

No, you fail to see the difference between calling others names, and indicating "nothing sexual was meant" by words you write. 

You've obviously very passionate about this.  I appreciate that.  But also you are using an excessive amount of hyperbole to describe what you think the problem is.

Welp, you gotta be rocky_eagle now (Thanks Fr D.).  I'll change mine to ZiggysFryPerson (why can't I work the register?  Or the grill?  No that mad man is making me stick with the fryers.  LiFe is unfair).  Chick is warriorfemale, or better yet, eaglefemale. 

Topper needs to be Middler, because even though it refers to the Hilltoppers, we don't want anyone to be offended by his implied elitism...not everyone can be on the top of a hill and all. Some have to be on the middle of the hill, some on the bottom.  What about the poor people that live in a valley.  Just no concern for those people at all.

Cripes, brewcity is offensive to all of the non-drinkers in Milwaukee.  The have therapy and meetings and such to deal with that trauma.  Not everyone in Milwaukee makes or drinks beer after all.

[🏀]

Lots of tall horses out there today.

[brewcity77]

Truth be told, I dislike most of what JB posts, and wouldn't mind banning him.  But generally my role as a moderator dictates that I be more moderate and  not succumb to acting irrationally based on personal feelings.

This has nothing to do with personal feelings. It has to do with abiding by the rules you wrote.

This discussion exists because hilltopper brought it up in NM and you created a thread about it. Clearly you both recognize there is an issue to be addressed. All I'm asking is you address it in a way consistent with the rules of the site as written.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

Lots of tall horses out there today.

says the guy with a Schmidt's Gay beer avatar.   

[jesmu84]

Curious question -  why have I never seen JB clarify a comment that could be taken in a joking heterosexual way?

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

https://linguisticpulse.com/2013/06/04/why-no-homo-is-homophobic-in-case-you-somehow-missed-it/

This article is five years old at this point but I think it does a good job of explaining why some people find the term "no homo" offensive.

I post it not to shame anyone who disagrees but just to offer some insight as to why some people don't like the phrase. You can disagree with them but your disagreement isn't going to change the negative impact that the phrase has on some people. The question becomes, is your enjoyment of the phrase "no homo" worth the potential negative impact it may have on the people who hear you say it? Each person needs to make that decision for themselves.

Personally, I love a good double entrende. I choose to punctuate them with a "giggity" a "phrasing" or a good old "that's what s/he said". Why use a phrase that some people find hurtful when there are plenty available that say the same thing with a lower risk of a negative impact?

[MUBurrow]

Rocky, if in the mods view, "(nh)" is deemed insufficiently offensive to warrant their intervention, then point taken. That's your discretion as moderators. Its certainly not a job I'd want, I appreciate all you do around here.

But to claim that "(nh)" is used merely to clarify that a post "intended nothing sexual" and has no more offensive a connotation to LGBT folks than "warriorchick" does to women, that's simply not correct.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Truth be told, I dislike most of what JB posts, and wouldn't mind banning him.  But generally my role as a moderator dictates that I be more moderate and  not succumb to acting irrationally based on personal feelings.

Again, a lot of hyperbole here.  A lot of supposition too.  You folks don't know the lives of the moderators, nor do we know most of yours.  You can't always presume you know more about social issues than others.

Rocky, you and Topper are BY FAR the most patient and forgiving moderators I have ever seen.  BY FAR.  And I think that is greatly to your credit.

That said, I don't think there is a scintilla of doubt about JayBee's intentions when he uses "nh". 

But as I said elsewhere, I am in agreement with your decision to let posters show their true colors (read "idiocy").

[MU82]

Rocky, you and Topper are BY FAR the most patient and forgiving moderators I have ever seen.  BY FAR.  And I think that is greatly to your credit.

That said, I don't think there is a scintilla of doubt about JayBee's intentions when he uses "nh". 

But as I said elsewhere, I am in agreement with your decision to let posters show their true colors (read "idiocy").

This.

Rocky and topper are good people -- one might even call them good homos (sapiens).

BJ is a whiny little beyotch who constantly breaks the rules and tries to get others banned -- in other words, a big mfin' hypocrite.

If it were up to me, I wouldn't ban BJ. As is the case with racists, I want to see and hear their racism so we know who they are.

[Benny B]

https://linguisticpulse.com/2013/06/04/why-no-homo-is-homophobic-in-case-you-somehow-missed-it/

This article is five years old at this point but I think it does a good job of explaining why some people find the term "no homo" offensive.

I post it not to shame anyone who disagrees but just to offer some insight as to why some people don't like the phrase. You can disagree with them but your disagreement isn't going to change the negative impact that the phrase has on some people. The question becomes, is your enjoyment of the phrase "no homo" worth the potential negative impact it may have on the people who hear you say it? Each person needs to make that decision for themselves.

Personally, I love a good double entrende. I choose to punctuate them with a "giggity" a "phrasing" or a good old "that's what s/he said". Why use a phrase that some people find hurtful when there are plenty available that say the same thing with a lower risk of a negative impact?

Same thing with a lower risk of a negative impact?  Are you freaking serious?

You've been in Texas way too long... "Don't abandon your discriminatory ways, just use different words that hides your true intent."

[rocky_warrior]

This article is five years old at this point but I think it does a good job of explaining why some people find the term "no homo" offensive.

I do respect the fact that some find it offensive.  I can also point out a more recent article (2014) from the guardian coming to the conclusion that more should use it - from a psychologist!

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/23/gay-rights-homophobia-michael-sam

As well as a recent article indicating (supporting?) what I believe, it's really a display of JB's insecurities in life. Note the article has a gay author.

https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/is-no-homo-still-a-thing-kvnw/

But articles are just opinions, like ours.  Maybe I'll put it into the bad word filter, maybe not.  As of today, I just wanted to try to explain our logic for some that have reported it repeatedly.  And really, to explain that we do "get it", and actually think about these things.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Same thing with a lower risk of a negative impact?  Are you freaking serious?

You've been in Texas way too long... "Don't abandon your discriminatory ways, just use different words that hides your true intent."

What? I honestly have no idea how you came to this conclusion from my post.

The point I am making is that if people are truly saying "no homo" as a way to point out a double entendre instead of as a slur against LGB individuals, then they can use things like "phrasing" "that's what s/he said" and "giggity" which as far as I know are not widely considered offensive.

In my time I have learned that while people's words and actions often have discriminatory impact, they more often than not don't have discriminatory intent. In this case, I think most people saying "no homo" don't intend to be discriminatory but their impact is discriminatory to some. My post was meant to comment on how to make their impact match their intent.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I do respect the fact that some find it offensive.  I can also point out a more recent article (2014) from the guardian coming to the conclusion that more should use it - from a psychologist!

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/23/gay-rights-homophobia-michael-sam

As well as a recent article indicating (supporting?) what I believe, it's really a display of JB's insecurities in life. Note the article has a gay author.

https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/is-no-homo-still-a-thing-kvnw/

But articles are just opinions, like ours.  Maybe I'll put it into the bad word filter, maybe not.  As of today, I just wanted to try to explain our logic for some that have reported it repeatedly.  And really, to explain that we do "get it", and actually think about these things.

Well that first article does come to the conclusion that more men should express their emotions and no homo makes it more comfortable to do that, it also comes to the conclusion that it is homophobic and discriminatory.

I challenge the idea that what I posted was an opinion. It is a fact that many find the term offensive. I merely posted the article to share those people's points of view. It is also a fact that many don't find the term offensive. Nothing we do or say is going to change those facts. That's why its up to each individual to decide whether or not their use of the phrase is worth the reality that they may offend or insult somebody. Some people will say yes, some will say no. Who is right is definitely an opinion.

Personally, I agree with what someone posted in the NM thread. Unless it is a blatant attack against another poster, my preference is to leave things uncensored. Better to have these things in the light of day so they can be addressed.

[mu_hilltopper]

Thoughts -

* I'd never heard of NH until it was flagged; I had to look it up, which means I personally classify "NH" as an esoteric term, rarely used -- demonstrably true on Scoop, which is the center of the universe. 

* We all score 'offenses' by our own subjective tastes.  A few think this is egregious but myself (and rocky) view this as less.  That a handful of people on Scoop are unhappy is similar to the people who were unhappy by the Indian Warrior head logo and look at the 24 year hell-hole that sent us down. 

* I'll echo rocky .. JayBee is barely sufferable.  Fortunately, there is a handy-dandy complementary 'ignore' tool that will solve this issue for those who super want it solved.  -- If the real issue was to educate us on how it's uber offensive, you've presented your case.

In the mean time, Let's go Warriors.

[GGGG]

Welp, you gotta be rocky_eagle now (Thanks Fr D.).  I'll change mine to ZiggysFryPerson (why can't I work the register?  Or the grill?  No that mad man is making me stick with the fryers.  LiFe is unfair).  Chick is warriorfemale, or better yet, eaglefemale. 

Topper needs to be Middler, because even though it refers to the Hilltoppers, we don't want anyone to be offended by his implied elitism...not everyone can be on the top of a hill and all. Some have to be on the middle of the hill, some on the bottom.  What about the poor people that live in a valley.  Just no concern for those people at all.

Cripes, brewcity is offensive to all of the non-drinkers in Milwaukee.  The have therapy and meetings and such to deal with that trauma.  Not everyone in Milwaukee makes or drinks beer after all.

I guess I don't understand your point.  No one is complaining about these things.

But the meaning of words and phrases evolve.  So yeah...someday "boy" might be considered offensive.

[Galway Eagle]

Truth be told, I dislike most of what JB posts, and wouldn't mind banning him.  But generally my role as a moderator dictates that I be more moderate and  not succumb to acting irrationally based on personal feelings.

Again, a lot of hyperbole here.  A lot of supposition too.  You folks don't know the lives of the moderators, nor do we know most of yours.  You can't always presume you know more about social issues than others.

Fair enough Rocky. I understand it's a tough spot to be in running a forum and I truly appreciate what you guys do.

I'm not going to press the issue but the moment that I was told in high school it was an offensive term I didn't dig in and try to question it, I switched to "phrasing". I guess I'm just someone who tries to lessen the amount of negative impact I have on others. But I agree I don't corner the market on social issues.