no homo (nh)

[jesmu84]

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").

Agreed.

Also, didn't there used to be a 3rd mod?

[reinko]

Honestly, I am bit disappointed this is actually a debate.  The term "homo" is a slur, period, and those hiding behind "jokes" or "PC Culture" I guess are folks who need the admiration of strangers on a message board.  And yeah, I used to that be person who said things I didn't like "were gay", but my eyes were friggin' opened about how my words impacted people, regardless of my intentions.

[rocky_warrior]

Also, didn't there used to be a 3rd mod?

There are 4.  SoCalwarrior and spiral97 included.  SoCal lurks quite a bit and might hit you with a ban if you're bad.  Spiral lurks infrequently these days but handles moderation reports as he's available.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

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.

Actually "boy" can be offensive in a certain context, such as referring to a black adult male as "boy."

[tower912]

It is juvenile.  And sad that anyone feels the need to use it in 2018.  But it takes a lot to get me on the 'ban'dragon.  Acknowledge it for what it is and who it is and leave it. 

[mu_hilltopper]

Actually "boy" can be offensive in a certain context, such as referring to a black adult male as "boy."

Reminds me .. an early job, I was the only white guy in an office.  My (far older) boss was into body building and would eat mass amounts of protein at lunch.  One day, he's wolfing down his daily whole chicken and were giving him crap about it, and I say "well, he's still a growing boy." 

10 minutes later he shows up in my office and mentions this to me, I was mortified and apologized.  He knew I was just ribbing him, and that was that.

[Benny B]

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.

1) We have now established that "nh" can be used in a manner that is not intended to be derogatory or discriminatory.

2) Try saying "giggity" in front of a woman who is familiar with the Quagmire character (doesn't even have to be a survivor).  See how far that gets you.

3) My point is that people say a lot of things that can be perceived as discriminatory when the intent couldn't be further from it.  Sometimes it's willful ignorance (see: "Clerks 2" and "porch monkey"), sometimes it's complete innocence, like when a five year-old watches Blazing Saddles and starts calling her friends "Kansas City handsome persons" because they're singing and jumping around on the playground, and sometimes it's humor, parody or satire.


And speaking of parodies (since satire is difficult to understand)...

"If you want to rid the world of discrimination, start by ending stereotyping your enemies."  (Not directed at TAMU)

[reinko]

1) We have now established that "nh" can be used in a manner that is not intended to be derogatory or discriminatory.

2) Try saying "giggity" in front of a woman who is familiar with the Quagmire character (doesn't even have to be a survivor).  See how far that gets you.

3) My point is that people say a lot of things that can be perceived as discriminatory when the intent couldn't be further from it.  Sometimes it's willful ignorance (see: "Clerks 2" and "porch monkey"), sometimes it's complete innocence, like when a five year-old watches Blazing Saddles and starts calling her friends "Kansas City handsome persons" because they're singing and jumping around on the playground, and sometimes it's humor, parody or satire.


And speaking of parodies (since satire is difficult to understand)...

"If you want to rid the world of discrimination, start by ending stereotyping your enemies."  (Not directed at TAMU)

I have grown and learned a lot this area, and I have accepted that intentions are not an excuse.  I liken it to the the type of apology "To those I have offended..." or "Well, I didn't mean THAT way"

Just own your crap, learn, and don't use deragatory language.

[brewcity77]

Honestly, I am bit disappointed this is actually a debate.  The term "homo" is a slur, period, and those hiding behind "jokes" or "PC Culture" I guess are folks who need the admiration of strangers on a message board.  And yeah, I used to that be person who said things I didn't like "were gay", but my eyes were friggin' opened about how my words impacted people, regardless of my intentions.

+1,000

As far as ignore, there's two problems. First, this isn't an individual specific thing, it's a community thing. The rules are clear and (NH) is a clear violation. This is an allowance of discrimination against conservatively hundreds of Scoop users (though there are thousands more that visit the site without registering).

Second, people use the quote function so as to make ignore useless. Either way, Scoop users collectively sticking their heads in the sand doesn't nullify the discriminatory behavior the site as a whole is endorsing.

[warriorchick]

While we are at it, I am not terribly fond of the term "Vadgers" to describe Bucky fans.

I have not brought it up before because I believe in picking my battles, especially when it comes from this board. But I certainly wouldn't be upset if it fell out of favor.

As far as the "chick" thing, that is a function of familiarity and context. I don't mind any of my friends referring to me as a chick. But if a guy says something like, "So tell me, what's the deal with all these chicks coming out of the woodwork to say they've been assaulted by famous men?", that's going to offend me.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

1) We have now established that "nh" can be used in a manner that is not intended to be derogatory or discriminatory.

Yes. I never meant to give any other impression.

2) Try saying "giggity" in front of a woman who is familiar with the Quagmire character (doesn't even have to be a survivor).  See how far that gets you.

On this point, I actually have said it in front of dozens of women, some of whom I know are survivors. To date, I have never had someone tell me that they were offended or insulted. Of course that doesn't mean that they weren't. I can see how someone could be.

3) My point is that people say a lot of things that can be perceived as discriminatory when the intent couldn't be further from it.  Sometimes it's willful ignorance (see: "Clerks 2" and "porch monkey"), sometimes it's complete innocence, like when a five year-old watches Blazing Saddles and starts calling her friends "Kansas City handsome persons" because they're singing and jumping around on the playground, and sometimes it's humor, parody or satire.

I think we are on the same page here. I would argue that most of the time people don't intend to be discriminatory.

And speaking of parodies (since satire is difficult to understand)...

"If you want to rid the world of discrimination, start by ending stereotyping your enemies."  (Not directed at TAMU)

I know you say not directed at me, but I'm confused by this. The message that I'm getting is that you feel that people on one side of this argument were stereotyping the other side. I have seen disagreement and accusations but nothing I would classify as stereotyping. Apologies if I am off base.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I have grown and learned a lot this area, and I have accepted that intentions are not an excuse.  I liken it to the the type of apology "To those I have offended..." or "Well, I didn't mean THAT way"

Just own your crap, learn, and don't use deragatory language.

I see what you are getting at but I disagree. Intent is not an excuse but it does give context. Personally, I think someone intending to say something racist or homophobic is worse than someone who says something racist or homophobic without realizing it. One is borne out of hate the other out of ignorance.

I know the apologies you are referring to and I agree that they usually ring hollow. But I do think it is possible for someone to explain their intent while apologizing for their impact. E.G. "I am sorry for what I said. I didn't intend it the way it was received but that doesn't change the fact that I hurt people with my words. I will try to do better in the future."

[reinko]

I see what you are getting at but I disagree. Intent is not an excuse but it does give context. Personally, I think someone intending to say something racist or homophobic is worse than someone who says something racist or homophobic without realizing it. One is borne out of hate the other out of ignorance.

I know the apologies you are referring to and I agree that they usually ring hollow. But I do think it is possible for someone to explain their intent while apologizing for their impact. E.G. "I am sorry for what I said. I didn't intend it the way it was received but that doesn't change the fact that I hurt people with my words. I will try to do better in the future."

Very well said, and 100% agree.  Thank you for calling me out, as that was not my original intention  . But for reals, what you said is exactly what I was trying to convey.

[mu03eng]

While we are at it, I am not terribly fond of the term "Vadgers" to describe Bucky fans.

I have not brought it up before because I believe in picking my battles, especially when it comes from this board. But I certainly wouldn't be upset if it fell out of favor.

As far as the "chick" thing, that is a function of familiarity and context. I don't mind any of my friends referring to me as a chick. But if a guy says something like, "So tell me, what's the deal with all these chicks coming out of the woodwork to say they've been assaulted by famous men?", that's going to offend me.

Similarly this is why I stopped referring to Bucky as Becky several years ago, fianlly realized it was condescending to women

[mu03eng]

My thoughts, not that anyone cares but I feel like sharing so 

- if you knowingly use language that is/can be offensive...you should be called out and it's not cool
- I dont think the moderators should do anything about it, the community should call it out collectively
- if you unknowingly uses offensive language, it's the communities responsibility to educate them as gently as possible
- the moderators shouldn't have to deal with this crap because we're adults, let's all act like it.
- as much as we can we should make this place an escape from the ugliness of the world, not another source of it. Act accordingly.

[panda]

No shock JB still uses no homo. Attached is the below picture of him trying to fit in.

[MU82]

- the moderators shouldn't have to deal with this crap because we're adults, let's all act like it.

I know you are, but what am I?

In all seriousness ... agree completely with your post.

[mu03eng]

I know you are, but what am I?

In all seriousness ... agree completely with your post.

We all know you are a man baby....ya big man baby 

[D'Lo Brown]

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.

As a gay man, I can assure you that you are thoroughly wrong. I think the general assumption is that since there aren't enough out there to be "outraged", it's not that big of a deal.

This has nothing to do with political correctness, or politics, at all. It is a phobia based on someone's sexual orientation. Where do politics come into that again?

And we all know that your glowing endorsement here will only serve to encourage the sheer ignorance going forward.

As a youth sports coach, I take every opportunity to explain and correct usage of any of these terms. Kids often just don't understand it. Adults know better, and it's unacceptable. For some reason, there are still adult men that encourage this type of language in sports, in particular. Which is regrettable, as you never really know when such a word could be devastating for a child that looks up to you.

Dissapointed in you guys, but unsurprised.

[D'Lo Brown]

My thoughts, not that anyone cares but I feel like sharing so 

- if you knowingly use language that is/can be offensive...you should be called out and it's not cool
- I dont think the moderators should do anything about it, the community should call it out collectively
- if you unknowingly uses offensive language, it's the communities responsibility to educate them as gently as possible
- the moderators shouldn't have to deal with this crap because we're adults, let's all act like it.
- as much as we can we should make this place an escape from the ugliness of the world, not another source of it. Act accordingly.

You're right. The moderators shouldn't have to deal with it. They should provide a warning, and then a ban if it continues. Not hard.

[brewcity77]

While we are at it, I am not terribly fond of the term "Vadgers" to describe Bucky fans.

That's fair, and personally I've tried to not use that. But I've definitely used it in the past. And I think the point is to do better, to be better. I used to describe things as "gay" in a derogatory sense. Now I don't.

I think the point of this discussion is that Scoop as a community can be better. And the rules as laid out give the mods the authority to enforce that, especially in a case of blatant sexism like this (or, as chick noted, Vadger).

I guess where this leads me is why wouldn't we want the site and community to be more welcoming and inclusive? If we know posts are discriminatory against other users, why not just correct that issue?

[brewcity77]

As a gay man, I can assure you that you are thoroughly wrong. I think the general assumption is that since there aren't enough out there to be "outraged", it's not that big of a deal.

This has nothing to do with political correctness, or politics, at all. It is a phobia based on someone's sexual orientation. Where do politics come into that again?

And we all know that your glowing endorsement here will only serve to encourage the sheer ignorance going forward.

As a youth sports coach, I take every opportunity to explain and correct usage of any of these terms. Kids often just don't understand it. Adults know better, and it's unacceptable. For some reason, there are still adult men that encourage this type of language in sports, in particular. Which is regrettable, as you never really know when such a word could be devastating for a child that looks up to you.

Dissapointed in you guys, but unsurprised.

Agreed with all this.

[MU82]

As a gay man, I can assure you that you are thoroughly wrong. I think the general assumption is that since there aren't enough out there to be "outraged", it's not that big of a deal.

This has nothing to do with political correctness, or politics, at all. It is a phobia based on someone's sexual orientation. Where do politics come into that again?

And we all know that your glowing endorsement here will only serve to encourage the sheer ignorance going forward.

As a youth sports coach, I take every opportunity to explain and correct usage of any of these terms. Kids often just don't understand it. Adults know better, and it's unacceptable. For some reason, there are still adult men that encourage this type of language in sports, in particular. Which is regrettable, as you never really know when such a word could be devastating for a child that looks up to you.

Dissapointed in you guys, but unsurprised.

What intelligent person could argue with any of this?

[GGGG]

As a gay man, I can assure you that you are thoroughly wrong. I think the general assumption is that since there aren't enough out there to be "outraged", it's not that big of a deal.

This has nothing to do with political correctness, or politics, at all. It is a phobia based on someone's sexual orientation. Where do politics come into that again?

And we all know that your glowing endorsement here will only serve to encourage the sheer ignorance going forward.

As a youth sports coach, I take every opportunity to explain and correct usage of any of these terms. Kids often just don't understand it. Adults know better, and it's unacceptable. For some reason, there are still adult men that encourage this type of language in sports, in particular. Which is regrettable, as you never really know when such a word could be devastating for a child that looks up to you.

Dissapointed in you guys, but unsurprised.

Well said.

[dgies9156]

While we are at it, I am not terribly fond of the term "Vadgers" to describe Bucky fans.

I have not brought it up before because I believe in picking my battles, especially when it comes from this board. But I certainly wouldn't be upset if it fell out of favor.

As far as the "chick" thing, that is a function of familiarity and context. I don't mind any of my friends referring to me as a chick. But if a guy says something like, "So tell me, what's the deal with all these chicks coming out of the woodwork to say they've been assaulted by famous men?", that's going to offend me.

A couple of thoughts:

1) The proper term for a supporter of or sports team from the University of Wisconsin is "Road Kill," "Rodents," or "Wisconsin's Favorite Junior College." Oblique comparisons between the University of Wisconsin and the female genitalia is a general insult to the female genitalia and should be avoided.

2)  Incidentally, as Item 1 points out, I agree with Sister Chick. There are better and less sophomoric ways to denigrate the Road Kill.

3) I don't get the debate in here about double meanings associated with offensive words. At day's end, the goal is to communicate or call out someone only by pointing out their facts are incorrect or their sports teams are inadequate compared to our beloved Warriors (which, of course, they are).

4) From time to time we will get into discussions that will have a political bent. The best way I know to discuss politics is to try to know your audience and know how far you can go. The discussions around Marquette's treatment of its conservative professor were good, for quite some time, until they got out of hand. It's too bad but I understand why political discussions are banned after I saw this and after a few other discussions.