Four Score and Seven Years Ago...

[rabanito]

That is as unhelpful, not to say as misogynistically discourteous, a comment as has appeared in this thread to date, and it oversteps the mark. Consider yourself warned.

Jeremy

... Well, not that long ago, it was about December when I protested because somebody made a joke I considered tasteless about four children I knew and photographed with the consent of their parents using the term "future rapists and drug dealers".
That's not the point now, I'm glad to say that this kind of thing didn't happen again .


But at that time I felt I was in great danger of being lynched by "freedom-of-speech"- fighters.
OK, I didn't know the rules, I had to accept them or leave them. OK with me.

FIRST let it be said that I am no friend of personal (tasteless) jokes
This said, I found that one of our members has been warned for making a joke about the First Lady.

Now:
"...and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal...."
(I had to learn this by heart more than three score and seven years ago in my English class. I liked it)

Does this still apply?
Or is the First Lady "more equal" than those four children?

What do you think?
No lynching please.. I have still to make some great photographs.

Please note: The remark of the Administrator was NOT addressed to me

[jeremyrh]

No, it was addressed to me. And as I explained at the time, the point I was making was not to denigrate those children in any way - quite the opposite - it was to scorn those who judge in a superficial way.

But crack on.

[rabanito]

No, it was addressed to me. And as I explained at the time, the point I was making was not to denigrate those children in any way - quite the opposite - it was to scorn those who judge in a superficial way.

But crack on.

I understand that now. At that time I didn't know you at all.

Again, that is not the point but that for the same deed the administrator didn't intervene and now he did. There was then a great tam-tam from many corners involving "freedom of speech"

What I'm referring to now wasn't addressed to you and it doesn't matter to whom. I'm referring to different handling of similar deeds by the general public  .

Maybe the circumstances have changed

[Rob C]

I understand that now. At that time I didn't know you at all.

Again, that is not the point but that for the same deed the administrator didn't intervene and now he did. There was then a great tam-tam from many corners involving "freedom of speech"

What I'm referring to now wasn't addressed to you and it doesn't matter to whom. I'm referring to different handling of similar deeds by the general public  .

Maybe the circumstances have changed

Amigo, it all comes down to human nature and even one's frame of mind when reading a particular post. Sometimes, I just roll my eyes (our last dog taught me how to do that) and move on to another cup of tea, but not as Jeanloup Sieff interpreted that. It's been a long time since I enjoyed those kinds of cuppas!

That's probably why Isla Mujeres sounded promising.

:-)

[Jeremy Roussak]

FIRST let it be said that I am no friend of personal (tasteless) jokes
This said, I found that one of our members has been warned for making a joke about the First Lady.

It wasn't a joke; it was fatuous, tasteless, irrelevant, playground abuse directed at someone easily identifiable and, as was later observed, spoke more loudly about the abuser than about the recipient.

In any event, I make no strong claim, outside my work, to consistency. My occasional capriciousness amuses me; I moderate, within fairly broad limits, as the mood takes me. This is a forum dedicated, generally, to fun. Nobody dies as a result of anything written here.

Most of the time, my approach seems to work. If I become persuaded that it should change, I shall change it.

Jeremy

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... In any event, I make no strong claim, outside my work, to consistency. My occasional capriciousness amuses me; I moderate, within fairly broad limits, as the mood takes me. This is a forum dedicated, generally, to fun. Nobody dies as a result of anything written here.

Most of the time, my approach seems to work. If I become persuaded that it should change, I shall change it...

+1 

And the great benefit of having a human moderator, instead of AI (that tends to flag and censor based on words, not context).

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...lynched by "freedom-of-speech"- fighters...

I strongly object to your tasteless and unwarranted use of that word as a joke. It is hurtful to the memory of true lynching victims, Italians and blacks alike. 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... the point I was making was not to denigrate those children in any way - quite the opposite - it was to scorn those who judge in a superficial way...

And nobody but rabanito understood it in any other way. It was pure sarcasm, and the moderator understood it that way too, like the rest of us.

[rabanito]

Hehe, nice answer, Sir!

I learned that too at school:
"L'État, c'est moi"

I personally prefer Lincoln over Louis XIV

Nobody dies as a result of anything written here.

I presume that you'd have problems at court proving a negative, Sir!
And it is not necessary that anybody dies, just annoying others is bad enough. That's when the fun ends

But let's leave it there...

   

[rabanito]

I strongly object to your tasteless and unwarranted use of that word as a joke. It is hurtful to the memory of true lynching victims, Italians and blacks alike.

Well, Slobodan.
It's a figure of speech (a word or phrase used in a non-literal sense for rhetorical or vivid effect.)
I expected  everybody from some cultural level upwards to understand it
Sorry Slobo. I take it back.
But at least you now know one more 

[Rob C]

Would anyone have a link to what we're talking about here? Personally, I worry about photographs of children unless one's own, and refuse to make any for anyone. For a start, I did once, and never saw proofs or parents again, and certainly no money! Once more the price of innocence, mine. Never happen again after the first time.

Those learning curves...

[rabanito]

And nobody but rabanito understood it in any other way. It was pure sarcasm, and the moderator understood it that way too, like the rest of us.

Slobodan, Slobodan....Tsk, tsk...
You missed the point again. I explained this to Jeremyrh, it is at the top of the page.
I'm not bringing back cold coffee. It was just used as a comparison between making "fun" of the First Lady and making "fun" of four children of Indian ascent.
The point is, let me explain it again, that the reaction in one case was different than in the second one.
The First Lady has the same right to be protected as the four little indians, following the Gettysburg Address.
That was all.

Try to read more slowly before beginning to type against poor rabanito.