seriously? OmniNegro?

Essence · Post by **Essence** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 12:54 am

So the guy that I invited over here because I wanted to see him rant more openly about his political views -- OmniNegro (yes, he's my fault, feel free to hate me) -- PMs me and tells me that his account might get banned because people are bitching about his username.

SERIOUSLY?

All you barrel-of-cocksuckers talk shit about everyone all day long and you can't handle the fact that OMG a dude has a title that means fucking black in fucking LATIN?

That's some bullshit right there. It's one thing to think he's an idiot -- but complaining about his username because you're too attached to your ZOMG RACISM to stop and think that maybe he's not trying to say "every [EDITED]" (for whatever the fuck reason that might be?) -- that's just weak sauce.

Lay off the man. He may not be the kind of fact-oriented argumentative bastard that typically enjoys debates around here, but that doesn't mean you have to make up some bullshit about his name just to make his life harder.

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 12:58 am

You could seriously argue he chose to make his own life harder by choosing that title. He probably would have less trouble if he'd called himself "BarrelOfCocks."

http://satwcomic.com/obama-is-in-town

name_here · Post by **name_here** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 12:59 am

It does not mean black in latin.

Essence · Post by **Essence** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 1:08 am

niger, nigra, nigrum: black

Don't be a douchebag. It may not literally be Latin, but it's directly descended from Latin.

1550s, from Sp. or Port. negro "black," from L. nigrum (nom. niger) "black, dark, sable, dusky," figuratively "gloomy, unlucky, bad, wicked," of unknown origin (perhaps from PIE *nekw-t- "night," cf. Watkins). As an adjective from 1590s.

The point is, if you're freaking out because some dude using a word that means "black", it's because you're an ignoramus who is freaking out because you can't imagine someone using the word in it's original context instead of in the narrow area of space/time in which you're accustomed to hearing it as something that may occasionally be considered an insult.

That's not his fault. It's yours.

Post by **fbmf** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 1:13 am

Essence wrote:So the guy that I invited over here because I wanted to see him rant more openly about his political views -- OmniNegro (yes, he's my fault, feel free to hate me) -- PMs me and tells me that his account might get banned because people are bitching about his username.

[The Great Fence Builder Speaks]
Then he's misrepresenting the facts.

I've gotten a handful of PMs saying that OmniNegro's name is offensive. I agree, and have since he registered. I PMed him offering to change it for him on the database side so that he would not have to re-register.

He PMed back saying that he didn't want a change. He pointed out that people were calling him assholes in a thread he created, and that if that is okay but his name was not "please feel free to delete my account."

He's not banned. He asked for his account to be deleted rather than he have to change his username. He even said please. I obliged him.
[/TGFBS]

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 1:15 am

Is his primary language ancient Latin? If so, this is clearly one of those hilarious things that happens when language barriers are crossed.

If not, then it probably wasn't that smart a choice, but I wouldn't have thought "Aha, this fellow is being racist!" I was too busy thinking "Aha, this fellow is dumber than Ant's shit!" from the content of his posts.

And the offer to hate you for inviting him is well and truly accepted and redeemed.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 1:17 am

Um... some people mildly pointed out that his name made it more likely that he was a troll. You know, exactly like they did with SockPuppet.

Here is how you know no one was trying to ban him for his name. He said people were trying to ban him for his name.

We made regular calls to ban Roy, PR, Tzor, and I remember at least a couple to ban me. Also we still make them to ban Shadzar. It's been years for him, and years where PR and Roy weren't banned, and Tzor still isn't.

But even despite that, no one actually made calls to ban him.

If your stupid friend is upset that people are trying to ban him, he's in the fucking wrong exactly like he is on everything else, and so maybe you should spend the 36 seconds it takes to read the posts he thinks are calling for him to be banned instead.

Or, if he received a PM from a mod, then take it up with that mod, because obviously we didn't make any calls for him to be banned, and the mods don't do what we say anyways.

There was a thread created called "let's ban GC" let me know when even a single thread created by anyone besides you even features his fucking name in the title.

Further comments about how stupid he is will occur in the thread where he was stupid.

Ted the Flayer · Post by **Ted the Flayer** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 1:17 am

I agree that his name is a stupid reason to ban him. And a stupid reason to complain.

To touch on the other point, he's a guy that doesn't believe in any sort of evidence ever and believes things based on his personal observations. And I don't mean this as a personal attack on my Negro because even if I think his ideas are screwy he's harmless (and kind of funny), but by definition personal observations are limited (and as I said, I have never met someone who believed only what his eyes could see who wasn't way out in left field).

Essence, if you don't know about this board then I forgive you, but if you are in any way familiar with this board, what the bloody hell did you think what was going to happen? This isn't a touchy-queery message board where we accept people of different viewpoints with acceptance and tolerance.

Frank Trollman wrote:"Welcome to the Den. We will steal your car, burn your house, rape your wife, and kill your dog. Then we will say mean things to or about you. On the internet." -Username17 Trollman

Essence · Post by **Essence** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 1:18 am

Ah, my misunderstanding then.

I have to ask -- what the hell is offensive about his name? What could "OmniNegro" possibly mean that is offensive to anyone?

So people in the US between the turn of the century and the 1960s used it to refer to Americans of African descent...so fucking what? It's literally another word for black, and there's no connotation or definition for "negro" that isn't also held by the word "black".

So...what?

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 1:20 am

I'm so stupid that I didn't even read it as nee-grow. I couldn't figure out what everyone was so upset about because I kept pronouncing it like you do in Spanish -> nay-grow.

Wow. Just wow.

Whipstitch · Post by **Whipstitch** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 1:23 am

Essence wrote: it's because you're an ignoramus who is freaking out because you can't imagine someone using the word in it's original context

Nobody gives two shits about its original context. Dude pissed into the wind and got wet. Deal with it.

This thread is moving too goddam fast.

name_here · Post by **name_here** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 1:37 am

Essence wrote:Ah, my misunderstanding then.

I have to ask -- what the hell is offensive about his name? What could "OmniNegro" possibly mean that is offensive to anyone?

So people in the US between the turn of the century and the 1960s used it to refer to Americans of African descent...so fucking what? It's literally another word for black, and there's no connotation or definition for "negro" that isn't also held by the word "black".

So...what?

In English it literally has no connotations that are not a racial reference. It does mean a color in Spanish, but unlike Latin, Spanish is not generally used by English speakers except when actually communicating in Spanish.

Since this is an English, and not Spanish, message board, Negro is racial in contextual meaning.

Post by **fbmf** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 1:38 am

My problem with it that I foresaw people having a problem with it. Also, a number of racially sensitive terms are filtered. There isn't much we filter, but we do filter that. Someone sensibly pointed out that using "negro" in a username was filter dodging of a sort.

Game On,
FBMF

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 2:16 am

Ancient History wrote:He probably would have less trouble if he'd called himself "BarrelOfCocks."

This name is now registered. By me. However, now I'm considering if I'd rather have it as my title...

Shrapnel · Post by **Shrapnel** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 2:25 am

That is probably the most awesomest, funniest wastes of time I have ever seen commited. Bravo, sir.

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 2:32 am

Prak_Anima wrote:
Ancient History wrote:He probably would have less trouble if he'd called himself "BarrelOfCocks."
This name is now registered. By me. However, now I'm considering if I'd rather have it as my title...

Well, now when we tell someone to go suck a barrel of cocks, you can pop into the thread and post "How you doin'?"

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 2:46 am

Precisely.

Essence · Post by **Essence** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:55 am

name_here wrote: In English it literally has no connotations that are not a racial reference. It does mean a color in Spanish, but unlike Latin, Spanish is not generally used by English speakers except when actually communicating in Spanish.

Since this is an English, and not Spanish, message board, Negro is racial in contextual meaning.

I never said it wasn't. Has everyone forgotten how to read suddenly? What I said is that 'Negro' doesn't have any connotations that 'Black' doesn't share.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 4:14 am

Actually it does. Negro was used to refer to blacks all the way back when the more common term was "nigger." Negro was the vaguely more polite term, and carries almost the same connotations of oppression and racial insensitivity.

Juton · Post by **Juton** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 4:28 am

If OmniNegro had just called himself 'AllBlack' we would have thought he just really likes rugby. People would have still disagreed with him.

Essence wrote:I never said it wasn't. Has everyone forgotten how to read suddenly? What I said is that 'Negro' doesn't have any connotations that 'Black' doesn't share.

Does it really? Are you really sure about that? I have black shoes, if I said I had negro shoes that would sound some sort of crazy. Calling a man a black man is different than calling a man a negro, negro has some historical connotations that the word black does not have. Even if you don't see the difference, others do. If you want to have a conversation with other people it makes sense to use the same words the same way.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 5:17 am

Negro is a very different word from black, because the sixties happened and things change. Negro is a word whose use is contextually inoffensive or offensive. There are people alive today who describe themselves as negro, but pretty much everyone born past the sixties just uses black or African ____/____ African. Absent context, negro is simply uncomfortable for the reader, who is forced to guess whether the user is an older person of African ancestry who prefers that term, or using the word unaware of or in spite of its new context, or being genuinely kind of sort of racist, or from some part of the world they aren't familiar with where polite racial terminology is different.

I don't actually know anything about Omni, so while my gut reaction was to wince at the user name, because as someone in the U.S. under 30 the odds are when I hear that word significant racism is involved, I kind of just shoved that aside and gave him the benefit of the doubt because people older than 30 exist and there is more to the world than my little corner of the U.S. of A. Also, I was afraid that if I tried to point out that negro was potentially offensive because of a popular shift in language in the sixties, he would tell me the government faked the sixties.

But yeah. It isn't actually easy to call negro universally offensive. There are still people alive who were a part of the civil rights movement, watched black replace negro as the most acceptable term, and disagree with the arguments for doing so. We're about twenty years off from calling it universally offensive. And that's just the U.S. I'm genuinely not sure what the terminology is in non-English speaking countries.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:37 am

The word Negro is either pejorative, archaic, or Spanish. It's not fucking Latin. The United Negro College Fund has that name because it is super old. It would not be called that if it had been made in the last thirty years. It would not be called that if it was made in the last fifty years. It is not physically possible for anyone to have had an internet handle that included the word "Negro" from before it was culturally unacceptable to name things "Negro" in the United States. James Brown's "Black and Proud" predates even the drawing up of the plans to create ARPANET by several months.

In the real world, when someone uses the word "Negro" in any English context, they are explicitly referencing pre-civil rights views on race. Because it's a pre-civil rights word. They might be being deliberately insulting to Black people, or critiquing things they feel are insulting to Black people. But regardless, if you use the word "Negro", you are talking about racism. Systematic, ugly, racism.

wikipedia wrote:Critics use "negro" because its modern usage is now considered to be archaic and sometimes offensive.

There is literally no English context where "Negro" simply means the color black. The fact that OmniNegro claimed this was true just made him as offensively wrong and unwilling to educate himself on that subject as he was on every other subject.

There are valid reasons to use the word "Negro" in your handle. Maybe you feel that overcoming and confronting racism is an important part of who you are and what you want to do online. But it's like putting "Queer" in your handle. It's offensive, and if you aren't doing it to offend for the purpose of a broader conversation on prejudice, you're either a clueless asshole or a deliberate troll. There is no option four.

-Username17

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:37 am

fbmf wrote: [The Great Fence Builder Speaks]
He's not banned. He asked for his account to be deleted rather than he have to change his username. He even said please. I obliged him.
[/TGFBS]

This has had the unintentional side effect of making all of his posts un-ignored for me. So here I am using my own scroll wheel like a sucker. Dangnabit.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:49 am

FrankTrollman wrote:There are valid reasons to use the word "Negro" in your handle. Maybe you feel that overcoming and confronting racism is an important part of who you are and what you want to do online. But it's like putting "Queer" in your handle. It's offensive, and if you aren't doing it to offend for the purpose of a broader conversation on prejudice, you're either a clueless asshole or a deliberate troll. There is no option four.

-Username17

That's not entirely true...
(says someone who identifies as a variety of queer)

Cynic · Post by **Cynic** » Tue Nov 06, 2012 2:28 am

Prak: There's a difference between reappropriation and the idea of one person (and ONLY one person) using it, despite all suggestions, that the name did not mean what he thought it meant and also because others found it offensive.

Shit, I said that in the the thread he started. I was also the one who sent fbmf the pm about filter-dodging. Really, my pm was more along the lines of what rules do we have that allows him to have that name. But, if it lead to a clarification of rules that showed that his name wasn't rules appropriate, I'm happy.

The Gaming Den

seriously? OmniNegro?

seriously? OmniNegro?

Re: seriously? OmniNegro?

Re: seriously? OmniNegro?