Offended?

[romansh]

18 hours ago, PaulS said:

I see I hold the power to pick and choose what words might be construed as offensive!   I have trimmed the list down to just a few that would generally only be used to cause offence.

This reminded me of Hitchens' observation that being offended is not an argument:

Where might we stand on Hitchens' observation? I don't know what and how many words might be considered offensive. The strange thing is we have self censored so that Paul won't be able to us. On another forum, we weren't allowed to snigger for sort of obvious reasons.

But human beings can be a little strange.

Thoughts?

[PaulS]

3 hours ago, romansh said:

Thoughts?

I think there is a difference between being offended, and meaning to offend. Hitchens is quite right in saying 'being offended' is no argument.  But I also think we all generally agree to abide by certain cultural norms in a manner that helps us all get along a little bit better.  Perhaps you might not be offended (or let offence bother you) if I were to call you a f'ing c&$t, but clearly I would be demonstrating preparedness to insult antagonize you.

[romansh]

Hmmn? ... OK? At an Aussie rules match, I presume it is similar to a real football match (I'm rattlin' the chain here) do opposition fans sing derogatory songs about one another? Or is it banter?

[PaulS]

On 1/4/2023 at 9:36 AM, romansh said:

Hmmn? ... OK? At an Aussie rules match, I presume it is similar to a real football match (I'm rattlin' the chain here) do opposition fans sing derogatory songs about one another? Or is it banter?

No mate, in real football we don't sing songs (except maybe the National Anthem on special occasions, but that's more like mumbling and miming something like the words), but rather we cheer and jeer for our team!   

There is plenty of banter and smart alec remarks.  Truly derogatory or racist remarks are frowned upon though and I've seen spectators tell others to dial it down. Racism will get you kicked out and banned.

[romansh]

Here's an interesting article on offence. Though it seems it's gone beyond offence to harm

And the harmful picture is:

Mohammed_receiving_revelation_from_the_angel_Gabriel.jpg (720×542) (whyevolutionistrue.com)

[PaulS]

6 hours ago, romansh said:

Here's an interesting article on offence. Though it seems it's gone beyond offence to harm

And the harmful picture is:

Mohammed_receiving_revelation_from_the_angel_Gabriel.jpg (720×542) (whyevolutionistrue.com)

So going back to your share concerning Hitchens....I agree with him that being offended is not an argument.

But what do you think about actions where people seek to offend as a deliberate provocation?  Do you think it is sometimes in the community's best interests that people don't set out to antagonise, or do you think it should be open slather and be damned those who are 'offended'?

[romansh]

There is seeking to antagonize, being indifferent to antagonizing, and inadvertently antagonizing. I suppose similarly we can have a similar set to being antagonized. Speaking personally, I don't intentionally antagonize (often), but I do find myself reflecting the tone I perceive in someone's interaction. The latter is not intentional, but I can become aware of it.

But I suppose horses for courses, but generally, I don't think being antagonistic works, but then does an emotionless logical argument work? Depends.

[PaulS]

1 hour ago, romansh said:

There is seeking to antagonize, being indifferent to antagonizing, and inadvertently antagonizing. I suppose similarly we can have a similar set to being antagonized. Speaking personally, I don't intentionally antagonize (often), but I do find myself reflecting the tone I perceive in someone's interaction. The latter is not intentional, but I can become aware of it.

But I suppose horses for courses, but generally, I don't think being antagonistic works, but then does an emotionless logical argument work? Depends.

So do you think some censorship here, may be appropriate when it comes to managing the Forum, hence the list of 'offensive' words?

[romansh]

11 hours ago, PaulS said:

So do you think some censorship here, may be appropriate when it comes to managing the Forum, hence the list of 'offensive' words?

Tricky ... what's your objective Paul?

Mark Twain in Tom Sawyer used a derogatory word. Does it mean we should not use derogatory words under any circumstances? What you are trying to do here (I think) is manipulate intent. There was recently a case where a teacher was censured for telling off a student for using the n-word. But I suspect we give the n-word power by cowering before it. Is this our intent?

Do you think dictionaries should censor words? Or should we enter an Orwellian realm where we can have no thought crime?

Quote

A literary lady expressing to Dr. J. her approbation of his Dictionary and, in particular, her satisfaction at his not having admitted into it any improper words; “No, Madam,” replied he, “I hope I have not daubed my fingers. I find, however that you have been looking for them.”

I think my short answer is "No".

I remember in high school, in English Lit. coming across the term "Spade" for a black person. I had a moment of cognitive dissonance when the expression "call a spade a spade" popped into my mind.

 

Edited January 10, 2023 by romansh

[romansh]

Here's a case in point:
 

5 hours ago, tariki said:

But this guy loved the water, offering more freedom of movement, and he insisted on taking a dip. Put in he cried out:- "Cor, its f*****g cold!" which made everyone burst out laughing.

Is this forum somehow better for asterisks?

Edited January 10, 2023 by romansh

[tariki]

1 hour ago, romansh said:

Here's a case in point:
 

Is this forum somehow better for asterisks?

Ah ha! In fact the asterisks are my own! The forum on which I posted the original actually allows all cocks and fuckings et al. 

😊

[romansh]

26 minutes ago, tariki said:

Ah ha! In fact the asterisks are my own! The forum on which I posted the original actually allows all cocks and fuckings et al. 

😊

Ahh self-censored.

[PaulS]

4 hours ago, romansh said:

Tricky ... what's your objective Paul?

Probably just to limit senseless insults which do nothing to contribute and only cause ill-will.

4 hours ago, romansh said:

Mark Twain in Tom Sawyer used a derogatory word. Does it mean we should not use derogatory words under any circumstances? What you are trying to do here (I think) is manipulate intent. There was recently a case where a teacher was censured for telling off a student for using the n-word. But I suspect we give the n-word power by cowering before it. Is this our intent?

I think the intent for this site would simply to be to maintain some amount of civility and not to descend into name calling.  It would seem to me that certain words are regarded by society as more 'severe' in their insult.  of course they are only words, but still, that tends to be how society operates.

4 hours ago, romansh said:

Do you think dictionaries should censor words? Or should we enter an Orwellian realm where we can have no thought crime?

I think there is a difference between the recognised existence of a word and the intent in using it.  So I think a dictionary listing say the word 'cunt' is different to me calling you a cunt. What does it matter?  Probably not much in the grand scheme of things, but I do imagine that if there was unlimited use of 'obscenities' the forum would descend into a relatively useless place to hold a reasonable discussion.

 

[PaulS]

2 hours ago, romansh said:

Ahh self-censored.

The current list for this Forum which will automatically instigate asterisks instead of letters include:

[romansh]

22 minutes ago, PaulS said:

Probably just to limit senseless insults which do nothing to contribute and only cause ill-will.

I don't think this would happen unless we were infected by a troll, and that would be dealt with in the normal course of events. I also don't think we need expletives to descend into senseless insults ... we can be far more eloquent than that.
 

29 minutes ago, PaulS said:

regarded by society as more 'severe' in their insult.

And this is by convention, and here we reinforce that convention. To me, it seems ridiculous that I could not quote certain passages from Mark Twain verbatim because of some cultural taboo. Cnut is still verboten but pussy got promoted to the ranks of respectable? You say a line needs to be drawn and you draw that line. Fair enough. But the world, never mind this forum, did not collapse with Derek's expletives. I would argue in the context and intent they were used all is in order.

44 minutes ago, PaulS said:

I think there is a difference between the recognised existence of a word and the intent in using it.

So ultimately, we are policing intent rather than word use, are we not? 

I am not saying don't censor word use, but be aware of what is really being censored.

And back to Hitchens' argument being offended is not one.

 

[PaulS]

13 minutes ago, romansh said:

I don't think this would happen unless we were infected by a troll, and that would be dealt with in the normal course of events. I also don't think we need expletives to descend into senseless insults ... we can be far more eloquent than that.

I think many of us can be, but I think there are others that will get 'turned off' from reading or participating here if swearing is standard in posts.

13 minutes ago, romansh said:

And this is by convention, and here we reinforce that convention. To me, it seems ridiculous that I could not quote certain passages from Mark Twain verbatim because of some cultural taboo. Cnut is still verboten but pussy got promoted to the ranks of respectable? You say a line needs to be drawn and you draw that line. Fair enough. But the world, never mind this forum, did not collapse with Derek's expletives. I would argue in the context and intent they were used all is in order.

Certainly the world won't collapse in any way, shape or form, but I think certain expletives do risk turning away those that may otherwise get something out of this forum.  Maybe it's a case of baby steps for the world.

13 minutes ago, romansh said:

So ultimately, we are policing intent rather than word use, are we not? 

I am not saying don't censor word use, but be aware of what is really being censored.

And back to Hitchens' argument being offended is not one.

For me, what is being censored is somebody's intent to communicate on a civil level.  Using the word 'cnut' can be different to calling somebody a 'cnut'.  I think that's a reasonable societal understanding of how to participate in civil discourse.  To me it's less about one being offended and more about why one would choose to offend.

But it's by no means perfect, and this silly cnut is under no illusions they have all the answers!

[romansh]

There's a lot going on here. There was nothing wrong with Derek's use of expletives recently. Was there any need to censor them? I think not. Would some hypothetical person be put off this forum possibly? Would some passer-by be put off if Derek was censored and possibly censured for using the expletives, possibly?

Campbell quote coming up: 
You yourself are participating in evil, or you are not alive. Whatever you do is evil to someone. This is one of the ironies of creation.

In this case, you are the arbiter of what is civil.

45 minutes ago, PaulS said:

and more about why one would choose to offend.

So was the lecturer or I choosing to offend when we linked to the Islamic art depicting Mohamed? At some point, people might realize, or more like wake up, and choose not to be offended regardless of the others' intent. I understand it is not a free choice. 

[PaulS]

7 minutes ago, romansh said:

At some point, people might realize, or more like wake up, and choose not to be offended regardless of the others' intent. I understand it is not a free choice. 

A world where people aren't offended or riled by words!  But what would religion do then!

[romansh]

2 hours ago, PaulS said:

But what would religion do then!

I don't know about religion itself, but I hope the practitioners might take the word religion a bit more literally and understand all is connected.