META: Verboten topics

Submitted by BiSB on November 7th, 2013 at 9:13 AM

As a periodic reminder, there are a few topics that are never cool, even if they seem relevant. A brief list:

  • Politics
  • Anything by Ace Williams or ChatSports
  • Bleacher Report (with the occasional, NARROW exception for some of their lead writers)
  • Drew Sharp
  • Mike Valenti
  • Anyone buying or selling tickets (use the ticket spreadsheet)
  • Anyone looking for a Michigan bar: too many cities, not enough MGoBoard.
  • Politics
  • Religion
  • Politics

Jason Whitlock is veeeeeeeery close to joining that list.

COMMENCE FIRST AMENDMENT DEBATE.

Comments

MikeCohodes

November 7th, 2013 at 9:18 AM ^

I'm pretty sure you forgot politics from that list.

/s obviously

On a similar and serious note, can we also have a discussion about what sort of comments within threads will earn you a banhammering/trip to Bolivia?  I propose that personal attacks on another mgouser should be on that, as well as using "that's gay" to describe something with nothing to do with homosexuality.

BiSB

November 7th, 2013 at 9:23 AM ^

It's largely based on intent, and is a real case-by-case kind of thing. Long-time users will usually get more leeway than newbies. An off-handed "that's gay" will receive less punishment than calling someone a gay slur. General ranting will get less punishment than comments we think are designed to start fights.

Personal attacks are generally Bolivianable, with the length based on the severity. Deliberately provoking shit will get you booted.

xxxxNateDaGreat

November 7th, 2013 at 10:07 AM ^

As a person who supports gay rights, I still have problems using "well, that's gay" and such. I really put a conscious effort to stop it after high school and I'm getting better about catching myself, but it slips out from time to time and I always feel bad about it.

It's just sad that it has almost become a reflex for many people because they use it so much without thinking of the context and they don't usually make that connection until prompted.

maineandblue

November 7th, 2013 at 7:23 PM ^

It's one thing for a person who identifies as gay to use it, another entirely for someone who isn't gay to say it. Just like with black people using the "n" word. 

I'm (ostensibly) Jewish. I'm ok with Jewish people making Jew jokes, or even if a friend of mine who isn't Jewish but knows that I am makes a joke in a teasing/endearing manner, but am certainly offended when a random stranger makes a Jew joke in front of me assuming that I'm not Jewish.  

M-Wolverine

November 7th, 2013 at 3:07 PM ^

That was a pretty common derogatory term when I was a kid, probably not even really tying it into the disabled.  I wouldn't defend it now, but I do find myself blurting it on occasion, usually alone in the car describing how someone else is driving. But regret it immediately. Because no one deserves to be compared to bad drivers.

Except Nazis. I hate those guys.

74polSKA

November 7th, 2013 at 10:25 AM ^

I always think "that's gay" is just a comment of something being different or odd, not stupid. I guess it depends on the context. While homosexuality is gaining acceptance in our culture, it is still "gay/queer" to much of society because homosexuals are such a small minority. I can see why mods would have to handle this on a case by case basis.

74polSKA

November 7th, 2013 at 11:12 AM ^

I'm not sure anyone uses gay to mean happy or carefree anymore, but I generally agree with you. I do think there are some terms, however, that you can't really use in an innocent way. I don't think anyone uses "retarded" to mean "your train of thought is lacking in development". They mean "you think/act like someone with developmental disabilities". I think that term has an inherent negative or discriminatory component.

SurfsUpBlue

November 7th, 2013 at 1:31 PM ^

My little brother was mentally disabled.  He passed away at the age of 54 last month.  He was classified as "retarded" as a child.  That classification was defined by a specific IQ point (70 I think).  It was not only an acceptable term, but was a qualifier for certain disability assistance.  The word came to be an offensive slang term and was replaced.  As you know, most people now do not use the term.  I was fascinated to see how quickly my brother found the wording "retarded" to go from a neutral term, which he would use to describe himself, to a hurtful one.  He was not one to read the newspapers and such.  His perception of the change resulted from others using it as a term to belittle him.  I am very happy to see the change that has ocurred and retirement of retarded as an acceptable term.  It was very hurtful to some people.  

I think "gay' is somewhat different because changes in its use are resulting from the empowerment of homosexuals in our society.  I hate hearing gay used as a demeaning term even if its use is not intended to be hurtful in reality (SouthPark for example). I am probably more sensitive to it than many gay people.  I will be interested to see how use of the term goes. 

74polSKA

November 7th, 2013 at 1:50 PM ^

I'm sorry for your loss. Thanks for sharing your experience with your brother. I appreciate hearing personal stories because I tend to think in generalities and need reminded that societal trends are made up of the experiences of hundreds and thousands of individuals. I'm glad you and your brother got to see "retarded" dropped from the acceptable vocabulary of our society. It will be interesting to see what happens with other controversial terms. Thanks for your post.

Commie_High96

November 8th, 2013 at 8:14 AM ^

You forgot to add "being critical of Taylor Lewan" to your list as making a comment critical of his past behavior got me an MGOtimeout last spring. But St. Lewan has played as crappy as the rest of the oline this year, so I feel sad but vindicated.

jabberwock

November 8th, 2013 at 1:07 PM ^

in UFR then?

Because according to the numbers he's by far the best O-linman and it's not even close.

I would agree with the statement that he probably isn't living up to his potential OR hype, but crappy? . . . hardly.

At least you're not like the tool on here yesterday that claimed Lewan had a severe lack of character partially symbolized by his freshman finger tattoo!

Space Coyote

November 8th, 2013 at 1:27 PM ^

After last season, and seeing some of the other OL, I didn't think he was a top 15 prospect like some of the TV and internet guys were claiming. I think he was borderline 1-2 round pick. I think that's the info that was told to him and that he came back partially because he had potential and believed he was good enough to be a top 10 type pick. Not bad reasoning, but not necessarily as nice of a story (this is speculation, but it is based on what I personally saw on film, he had lots of room to improve compared to the other OL taken in that early range).

Now, this year, I've seen mistakes that I don't believe he has been dinged for in the UFR. I don't think he's been as solid. Unfortunately - and he's not being helped by the inexperience around him - I think he's probably dropped into the mid-2nd round or so. I don't think some of his extra-curriculars on the field (not just this year, but last year as well) have helped him. I don't think his hands to the face (which gets called more regularly in the NFL than in college) helps him. I think a big thing he came back for was to prove he could clean up that stuff and ride the fine line between being a little too aggressive after the whistle and "bullying" the opponent during the play. I'd bet, right now, if the season was over and all that, he'd end up with a 2nd round grade with potential to be a steal but also never come around mentally (that stuff won't fly in the NFL) for some team.

His senior bowl or whatever and how he works there, in my opinion, will ultimately determine if he can raise that or not.

All that said, Whitlock is still a dumbass that is speaking from no base to support his claims. He isn't saying criticism, he's speaking slander.

Yeoman

November 7th, 2013 at 9:33 AM ^

The more pedantic among us just use the rules to justify obnoxious behavior that happens not to be encompassed by the rules.

So, for example, somebody on the Coach Funk thread pointed to the rule against "personal attacks" and noted that his attacks weren't actually personal, they were just comments on his job performance. Made in a condolence thread because, well obviously, that's what you do in a condolence thread.

Rules on thread production are useful because that's site-dependent. In the comments it's more a matter of acting like a human being. (Well, except for the site-dependent stuff like no politics.)

Bryan

November 7th, 2013 at 9:20 AM ^

on how Valenti and Sharp got together to form their own Tea Party group that was exposed by Ace Williams and linked on Bleacher Report? I'd be happy. 

Also, anyone have an extra for this Saturday? Oh, and I need a good Michigan friendly bar in Moscow to catch the Iowa game?

AriGold

November 7th, 2013 at 9:35 AM ^

+3 for clarifying origin of non-sense...if Mich loses this weekend i won't mind Bolivia, i hear the weather is nice this time of year and the locals make good food...and worse case scenario, im not too far away from where the majority of the world's cocaine is produced....cocaine is one helluva drug!!!'

but for real, I do not want Michigan to lose any game

MGoChippewa

November 7th, 2013 at 9:46 AM ^

Let's just add Whitlock to that list right now please.  There's zero chance that he's going to improve.  The guy just doesn't get it.

ALSO RELEVANT TO THE MGOBOARD