I've gotten this through enough sources so that it looks like it really is true. We will not be hearing Ann Coulter's voice anywhere (live, anyway) for at least a few weeks).
There are many things I could write about this, but, believe me, many bloggers with darker souls than mine are already weighing in.
quote: Ann Coulter, always polite and respectfulIt's too easy to make a pun about one of the biggest mouths in the conservative movement being silenced. So I'll leave the clever quips about Ann Coulter's broken jaw to the pop blogs. But I do have to admit to some schadenfreude upon hearing that the woman who just can't keep her mouth shut will have to quite literally do so for several weeks, as her jaw is to be wired shut.
Reports have been sketchy as to the reason behind the broken jaw. I'm sure there have been visions of a fist fight with Rosie O'Donnell or just any liberal pundit taking a crack shot at that long face but it seems that it was only a nasty fall that Coulter took about a month back.
Y'all can hunt down the blog partying on your own. Or commence with the predictable comments here. Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Cat got her tongue?
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
Who cares. Loudmouths on both sides make me ill...
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Originally posted by lobo: Who cares. Loudmouths on both sides make me ill...
So any time you get to see any of them wired-shut for a while, shouldn't that be a good thing?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
This was an event scripted by the gods of Schadenfreude.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Our hearts go out to Ms. Coulter and the unfortunate who surely lost their lives trying to hold her down during the procedure.
I laughed out loud at this.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Is this going to interfere with Obama naming her to a cabinet position?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Sweet Irony
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Is this going to interfere with Obama naming her to a cabinet position?
Not at all. As a matter of fact I understand it is a requirement for the offer. It has to STAY wired shut his whole first term. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Normally I might be aghast at the lack shown here of the usual sympathy and understanding that Hatrack shows... but Ann Coulter is bar-none one of the meanest seeming people I've ever seen on TV or heard on radio. I don't wish anyone such an injury, but this one doesn't make me feel too bad.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
I have all her books. One is signed. She's not nearly as good on camera as she is in her writing. She is not for the uninitiated, that's for sure. But go on, keep hating her and thinking of her as something less than human and not deserving of any kind of sympathy.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
You know, Resh, Coulter has said things like she wished McVeigh had blown up the NY Times building instead of the Murrah Federal Building, with the editors and reporters inside.
Does it indicate I'm uninitiated if I find that far more hateful than any of the jokes posted on this thread?
Coulter is really a special case, and it's hard to see how one could take her side in calling for tact.
Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
Yeah, if only she had died instead of just breaking her jaw.
I mean right, see is a special case and all. So it should be okay to wish for her death.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Who wished for her death?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: I have all her books. One is signed. She's not nearly as good on camera as she is in her writing. She is not for the uninitiated, that's for sure. But go on, keep hating her and thinking of her as something less than human and not deserving of any kind of sympathy.
I don't hate her. I think she's ridiculous! And I think that her profit model prays on idiots who like to buy into presupposition and generalized demonization of entire ideological groups.
Like you, Resh!
But I don't hate you either! I'm sympathetic to your shortcomings in the logic department! Plus, whenever you try to argue politics or science, you actively help my cause by representing yours.
please keep buying Ann Coulter books. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
ermm. I'd advocate the pirating of Ann Coulter books, but I'd like her not to make money.
She could always fall into a teaching career at charm school though... now that's an idea for a movie.
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
Sam, you really threw the TOS out the window with that comment. Please edit it.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
If Ms. Coulter can't insult the widows of the 9/11 tragedy and demonize large portions of the country for failing to live up to her levels of hypocrisy and lack of compassion, I can't say I'll weep bitter tears.
As for Coulter "not being for the uninitiated", I must confess that the only inititation that springs to mind involves a lot of dark, hooded garments and blood sacrifices.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick: Sam, you really threw the TOS out the window with that comment. Please edit it.
He's called me an idiot before and nobody made a fuss... including me. And he did it more directly, like "you are an idiot."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick: Sam, you really threw the TOS out the window with that comment. Please edit it.
If I'm not allowed to call someone an idiot on this forum, then neither is Resh.
And if Resh is not allowed to call someone an idiot on this forum, he's been banned about thirty times over.
And if Resh is allowed to call people names and rant and rail on them with as many insults as he has, and I don't get to call him an utter fool for being an Ann Coulter acolyte, then I'm not part of this website. ^_^
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
Your choice. I'd rather not have to involve the moderator, but whatever.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
What's ridiculous about this is that you can omit "Like you, Resh!" from my post and suddenly it's magically TOS-friendly even though it is beyond doubt that I am asserting this condition in relation to Reshpekobiggle and that it is doubtlessly a direct insult to him. Enforcements of 'passive agression' technicality, and all that. merely an opportunity to test double standards and schizophrenic irregularity in the application of TOS judgments.
Because beyond a doubt there is no enforcement of cordiality here, no enforcement saying that I can't imply or eruditely code-word the notion that Resh is dense and impressionable and has vaporized his credibility and ethos over years of bumbling, inept argumentation that has rightfully frustrated the entire community. I'm allowed to impugn people's intelligence here but only so long as I doll it up with 'legal' wording.
Very well, if I'm not allowed to, I won't say that Resh is an idiot. He'll say it for me. Resh once stated that he is pretty sure that he's either speaking unvarnished truths, or he's an idiot and an ass. I am willing to helpfully conclude one of these is indeed true, given his repeated clashings with factual, patient, diligent, and eminently respectful refutations against his patent incorrigibility on any one of a number of subjects, from moral, to political, to scientific. I think I might daresay I know which it is. Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
I'm not taking sides, and I'm not gonna argue with you Sam. You have my opinion, feel free to act as you see fit. Good night.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Sam is an idiot. Ok, thread is even, no one gets yelled at by a moderator (I hope.)
But nice of you to link to one of my more magnificent posts -from a year and a half ago, no less. It's funny, because everything I said in that post is still true! I have yet to see anyone do anything more than completely dodge the main thrust of the argument I was making there, and I don't just mean here on Hatrack. Maybe my argumentation is just too "bumbling and inept" for anyone to provide an accurate and appropriate response.
P.S. I believe I've made the point before about how it appears that Sam has neatly saved and categorized all of my posts. I'd look for it, but I'm pretty sure Sam could find it a lot faster. Could you do me a favor Sam and look in your archives for that post? It's probably tabbed under "Personal Attacks." If you don't see it there, check your "How Could He Have Known?" file.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I believe I've made the point before about how it appears that Sam has neatly saved and categorized all of my posts.
Nope, broheim. I'm just smart enough to know how to use the forum's search function. Try it out. Search for your username using the word 'nazi'
Wow, look at that! Everyone should see that post.
quote:I have yet to see anyone do anything more than completely dodge the main thrust of the argument I was making there
One of the things that I have noticed about you is that you have the relative luxury of assuming that your points have not been adequately addressed because you are simply incapable of understanding the refutations people make against you. It's been noted about you, and you may even figure it out someday: you're in over your head. You see people criticizing you for begging the question, or for specious reasoning, but you really can't yet understand what that means. For the most part, they are just words on the screen to you, words of belittlement, but you cannot parse them, you cannot apply them. You can look them up, read their surface definitions and take away a surface understanding of what the charge is, but you can't apply that sort of skeptical rationalism to your thought processes. This is criticism you literally lack the means to respond to positively and it's due to this fundamental incuriousness that you are already well-known for. Until the day you can catch yourself up to the point where you can incorporate this 'logic' stuff, you won't stop buying into justifications that are inherently fallacious. You don't have the philosophical or the personal maturity yet.
Normally, who cares? But here you have used this to form ultimately intractable positions based on 'truthiness' and shallow axiom, and you think you are way better at arguing than you really are, so you make these epic, careening failures through thread after thread simply unable to understand people's refutations. Naturally, you conclude you simply haven't been refuted.
Exhibit A: you preening over your 'accomplishments' in that thread.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
I am posting in this high-quality thread.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Just kidding! I'm not.
*backs away slowly*
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
*breaks out the Cheetos*
Anyone bring soda?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Does root beer count as soda?
I've got some high-quality root beer here.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Sure. I'll share my Cheetos if you share your root beer. *passes bag to Scott and enjoys the show*
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Ann Coulter is clearly a far-left provocateur. She exists to make conservatives look like idiots. She's a living, breathing, jaw-currently-wired-shut strawman.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Cheetos!
:passes chilled bottle of Virgil's Root Beer to kq:
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Ann Coulter is clearly a far-left provocateur. She exists to make conservatives look like idiots. She's a living, breathing, jaw-currently-wired-shut strawman.
I will admit that I have thought the same thing about certain members of the site, including Lisa, at times.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Is "Bite me" a violation of the TOS? Or would it have to be "Bite me, Rabbit"?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Is "Bite me" a violation of the TOS? Or would it have to be "Bite me, Rabbit"?
See, that is exactly the kind of witty, intelligent and logical response that causes me to hold you in such high regard.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
This thread is in poor taste.
And loaded with high fructose corn syrup.
Like a candy store jawbreaker.
-Bok
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Oh, man. These are like the best Cheetos, EVAR.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Ann Coulter is clearly a far-left provocateur. She exists to make conservatives look like idiots. She's a living, breathing, jaw-currently-wired-shut strawman.
I agree that she is useful, in a way, to the Left. However, I think she is actually a product of the mainstream media, separate from any political motivation. She is provocative and vile in order to garner attention and therefore revenue.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:She is provocative and vile in order to garner attention and therefore revenue.
Like the Doodlebops!
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Like the Doodlebops!
The mere mention of the unspeakable horror that is the Doodlebops should be against the TOS! Great line though!
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Rabbit and Lisa were having so much fun, I thought I'd try insulting a random Jatraquero.
Completely at random. I swear.
Random-- keep that in mind.
Mr. Portiero Head is a bigot and the most socially irresponsible person alive.
WHEEEEEEEEEE!
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
The greatest obstacle to my reading her books is I can't tell if she's trying to be satirical or serious. If she's being satirical, she's terrible at it; if she's serious, it scares the crap out of me.
I think what scifibum said is more correct, she exists only to provoke knee-jerk reactions out of liberals and conservatives. Her articles are often QFT on the Salt Lake Tribune's forum and one of the reasons I don't post there anymore. Once the Coulter quotes start being posted, any chance of logical discussion goes down the proverbial tubes.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Scott R, Lisa and I weren't insulting each other, we were engaging in witty repartee.
Try something like this.
"When compared to Mr. Potiero Head, Anne Coulter is paragon of liberal virtues and social responsibility."
See how much more fun that is.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Or:
I need some editing help. In the sentence "ScottR is a dunderhead whose idiocy is matched only by his repulsive stench", does "dunderhead" need to be hyphenated?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
No. It needs a couple apostrophe's.
Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Rabbit and Lisa were having so much fun, I thought I'd try insulting a random Jatraquero.
Completely at random. I swear.
Random-- keep that in mind.
Mr. Portiero Head is a bigot and the most socially irresponsible person alive.
WHEEEEEEEEEE!
The "R" in ScottR stands for "Randomness".
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Of course you know how to use the search function, Sam. Only, I think it's the search function found in the Windows Start Menu, allowing you to search your hard drive. Probably your specially dedicated back-up drive as well, the one with "I Hate Reshpeckobiggle" etched into one side (and I imagine a Hello Kitty sticker on the other.)
quote:Originally posted by Epictetus: The greatest obstacle to my reading her books is I can't tell if she's trying to be satirical or serious. If she's being satirical, she's terrible at it; if she's serious, it scares the crap out of me.
Her books are actually a clever mix. She doesn't care if her haters are too dense to be able to tell when she switches from satire to serious, or recognizes how serious she is sometimes being with her satire. Like when she makes jokes about abortion. Oh, hahah, that was funny! But it's kind of a laugh because you can't always be crying.
But she's not terrible at satire. She's only terrible if you are a self-important and smug liberal with no sense of humor. Or a prudish conservative. Normal liberals find her disgusting but respect her ability as a writer. It may help you to know that one of her favorite authors is Dave Barry.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
why does her respect as a writer come into play? She's disgusting, one should not be support a disgusting writer when she writes disgusting hate speech.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Resh, I think we all understand that she is good at what she does. We just don't think being a good hatemongerer is worthy of our respect.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Normally I might be aghast at the lack shown here of the usual sympathy and understanding that Hatrack shows... but Ann Coulter is bar-none one of the meanest seeming people I've ever seen on TV or heard on radio. I don't wish anyone such an injury, but this one doesn't make me feel too bad.
This is EXACTLY how I feel. I wouldn't wish it on her....not because she doesn't deserve it, but because I try not to wish anything bad on other people.
But if it HAS to happen to someone...
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Sam is an idiot. Ok, thread is even, no one gets yelled at by a moderator (I hope.)
But nice of you to link to one of my more magnificent posts -from a year and a half ago, no less.
The fact you think it is one of your best posts, and magnificent, proves Sam's point, actually.
It MAY be one fo your best, but that doesn't mean it's correct, or even well thought out.....it just means that being one of your best is setting the bar fairly low in the first place.
He probably doesn't have any of your posts saved, he could pretty much choose ANY of them and make his point.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
When I first read Blinded by the Right, I was especially intrigued by Brock's portrayal of Coulter, with whom he had worked for years (even back in their college days). He depicts her as a woman of no real political agenda, but with a strong sense of personal privilege that drives a deep, visceral, and very real disgust. He suggests that she doesn't actually have any political principles, but is motivated to some extent by a genuine sense of disgust and disdain; she learned early on to exaggerate her expressions of disgust to a near-comical extent, and this has proven profitable for her with people who, like her, are disgusted by things but can't articulate why or even necessarily in what way. She says what such people are thinking: "X should just go away, just die, because they make me sick to my stomach." And her audience perceives this relatively unsophisticated response as bravery, as truth-telling, because they are intuitively aware that such comments would not be well-received in polite society and resent having to submerge their baser impulses.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Tom, I would agree with that just based on what I have read and seen on the shows she has been on. I also think that she has a keen sense of marketability, and is very good at using some of the tactics of the left.
For years, maybe even decades, the left has claimed (with different levels of truthfulness) that the right wing conservatives are trying to interfere with people's freedom of speech.
So Ann comes along, and deliberately says things that rile people up (to put it mildly) and when the left attacks her for it she screams "Look! They don't want freedom, they want to shut me up!".
It isn't particularly effective if you HAVE an agenda, but it sells books.
[ November 26, 2008, 06:32 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I think on a more basic level, Ann Coulter is probably pitiable in some awful way. She seems to e like the victim of some pretty awful abuse as a young person. It isn't normal or healthy to want to evoke the kind of animosity she does from other people. Also, just listening to her voice (after many years of also tuning into loveline) she has what Drew refers to as a "restricted affect," that stilted, restrained and oddly hard mouthed unnatural speaking voice that often denotes a history of emotional detachment that can be caused by trauma.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
So... In summation, she appeals to people who are tired of feeling guilty about hating?
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
Those of you who have, thank you for bringing it back to discussion instead of personal attacks. I'm still catching up on all that went on while I was gone.
All the things that came to mind regarding the personal attacks were snide and sarcastic, so I'm holding those back. Just please stop.
--PJ
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Of course you know how to use the search function, Sam. Only, I think it's the search function found in the Windows Start Menu, allowing you to search your hard drive. Probably your specially dedicated back-up drive as well, the one with "I Hate Reshpeckobiggle" etched into one side (and I imagine a Hello Kitty sticker on the other.)
So, you're basically complimenting my memory vs. yours. I can recall things you've said and .. you proclaim that this couldn't possibly be because of anything short of having a dedicated hard drive.
I'm flattered, really.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: So... In summation, she appeals to people who are tired of feeling guilty about hating?
More like, she appeals to the naughty part of some people's brains that tell them it's fun to listen to someone talk an enormous storm of ****. Every cross section of our society has somebody like this- it isn't exactly surprising. She's kind of like Bill O'Reilly, except he appeals to the part of people's brains that remembers what it felt like to be a bully on the school yard, and like to see a way in which that type of behavior is still permitted in public by an adult.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Flattered... quite a stretch of an interpretation there to find a way to be flattered. Narcissism has strange ways of exhibiting itself. I am obviously amazed at how well you recall my posts when I can't remember what you even said on the previous page of this thread. But trust me, in no way is my amazement the product of your memory being excellent and mine poor.
Orincoro, Coulter actually appeals more to the memory of being bullied, because she makes all the smart-ass remarks that I wish I'd had the courage and wit to say when I was small.
She is not nearly as awful to those who, if not exactly enamored with her tactics or envious of the attention she gets, are yet sympathetic to her opinions. When I read her books, I laugh out loud at her offensive jokes while getting my ego stroked for being shown how much smarter I am than all those brainwashed liberals. And then I put the book down and come back into reality. It's like listening to a comedian like Joe Norton or Louie CK.
She does not take herself nearly so seriously as some of you do, but you know that the last thing she wants is for you to stop doing so because your visceral reaction to her is part of why she sells books. If she had broken her jaw and we didn't hear all the utterly predictable reactions (so clever by the way... "she's has no choice but to keep her mouth shut now lol!" Give yourselves a pat on the back) then you know that would be a sign that she was irrelevant.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Flattered... quite a stretch of an interpretation there to find a way to be flattered. Narcissism has strange ways of exhibiting itself. I am obviously amazed at how well you recall my posts when I can't remember what you even said on the previous page of this thread.
Heh. You know, if I go to some length to talk about how I think you have a problem with reading and logical comprehension, it doesn't exactly make it witty repartee to immediately then talk about how you don't even remember posts relevant to the snit you're making now.
More embarrasing to you is when the issue is that I or anyone else can remember your public record better than you do, and that allows me to press you on these issues. An example:
quote: And then I put the book down and come back into reality. It's like listening to a comedian like Joe Norton or Louie CK.
Given the praise you've given Coulter for being a relevant and effective persuasive commentator on values you believe in, aren't you really just now saying that your values are comedy divorced from reality?
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Who's the one in a snit?
[file under]: One Sentence Retorts [subcategory]: Questions
You're really starting to depress me.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:[file under]: One Sentence Retorts [subcategory]: Questions
I accept your surrender.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Ok, are you just checking the forum every 5 minutes waiting for me to post? Stalk someone else!!!
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: And her audience perceives this relatively unsophisticated response as bravery, as truth-telling, because they are intuitively aware that such comments would not be well-received in polite society and resent having to submerge their baser impulses.
Which, by the way, works very well in the context of the PC backlash.
--j_k
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:Her books are actually a clever mix. She doesn't care if her haters are too dense to be able to tell when she switches from satire to serious,
I've never read anything by Ann Coulter and haven't seen her speak either, but based on what you say I very clearly have met her type before: The sort of demagogues who call for mass genocide, and then pretend it was humour or poetic hyperbole or "merely making a point by analogy" if anyone objects, while winking at those fans of theirs who very clearly don't object that they really do mean it.
It's a cowardly but VERY common technique for the far-right, all over the world.
Thank you, Resh. Up to now I had no opinion on Ann Coulter (since I'd never heard or read anything by her) but your comment very clearly illustrated to me that she almost certainly represents everything that I despise in the Cowardly Far-right.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Ok, are you just checking the forum every 5 minutes waiting for me to post? Stalk someone else!!!
haha NO RELIGIOUS OFFENSE dude. like it's impossible that we're both night owls with a lot of overlap in forum browsing time
for serious: get a grip buddy!
[ November 27, 2008, 07:02 AM: Message edited by: Samprimary ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Sam, That usage of Jesus Christ is highly offensive. You have now seriously overstepped the bounds of this forum.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
oh, daisies. it was a typo, I meant to type 'holy effervescent Xenu'
the letters are like right next to each other
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: oh, daisies. it was a typo, I meant to type 'holy effervescent Xenu'
the letters are like right next to each other
Then edit it out.
I am not particularly sensitive to most curse words, you could post almost anything else and it wouldn't phase me in the least. But I worship Jesus Christ. He is not only my lord and savior but epitomizes to me the great virtues of love, kindness and mercy. Using his name as an expletive is offensive in the extreme. Edit it out now before Papa does it for you.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
oh, snap. I honestly didn't even realize you were being serious, in part because I've said things like that tons of times here.
Am I honestly not allowed to say something like 'jesus, that's crazy' on this forum? Is that actually something that I am not allowed to do? Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Sam, I have no idea whether its official forbidden on this forum or not. I'm telling you that this expression is EXTREMELY offensive to me. I'm explaining why and asking you not to do it.
Your exasperation at my request shows disrespect for me and my profoundly held religious beliefs. I can understand that you didn't know that I and many others found such expressions to be deeply offensive, but now you do so stop it.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:oh, snap. I honestly didn't even realize you were being serious, in part because I've said things like that tons of times here
Evidently, those times haven't been in threads I've been following or I would have objected then. It is languange which is very deeply offensive to me and many other devout Christians. I'm actually shocked that this comes as a surprise to you. Out of respect for me and my beliefs, please don't use that language around me, which means here.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Sam, I have no idea whether its official forbidden on this forum or not. I'm telling you that this expression is EXTREMELY offensive to me. I'm explaining why and asking you not to do it.
Your exasperation at my request shows disrespect for me and my profoundly held religious beliefs. I can understand that you didn't know that I and many others found such expressions to be deeply offensive, but now you do so stop it.
...
Then in all seriousness you should not have framed your post in the form of "you have seriously overstepped the bounds of this forum" and instead told me that it was a personal distaste that you were personally requesting that I amend.
I 'distastefully' hold the view that its incredibly silly that the situation present requires me to cease using jesus christ, especially what with me being in a form of the faith that holds no distaste for the use of Jesus' name in that manner and would not consider it an insult to His name. In my own personal opinion, I find it as silly as being offended when someone says God as a, as you put it, 'expletive.'
That's noted as a matter of course. my exasperation at your request has to do with that, not a disrespect for you. it doesn't have anything to do with whether or not I would abide by a request by you to not say jesus christ because you find it deeply offensive, because I would. I would have pretty much instantly done so. You just confused the crap out of me because you were posing it as though it were a forum rule, a specific censorship, that I would be reprimanded for officially, something which came off so ridiculous to me that I literally thought you were joking.
That's a different issue, because I'd just leave if that were the case.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: It is languange which is very deeply offensive to me and many other devout Christians. I'm actually shocked that this comes as a surprise to you.
It's not a surprise at all. Practically everything is offensive to someone, and there's only so far I or anyone can go to accommodate these distastes, no matter if these distastes are founded in their religious beliefs.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Then in all seriousness you should not have framed your post in the form of "you have seriously overstepped the bounds of this forum" and instead told me that it was a personal distaste that you were personally requesting that I amend.
I have just checked rules and regulations for this board they read
quote:You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this BB to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law
.
The OED defines "profane" as
quote:Of persons, behaviour, etc.: characterized by, exhibiting, or expressive of a disregard or contempt for sacred things (esp., in later use, by the taking of God's name in vain); not respectful of religious practice; irreverent, blasphemous, impious; (hence, more generally) ribald, coarse, indecent. Now the most common sense.
Based on this data, I presumed that your language was not only offensive to me personally but violated the site rules.
If the moderator and site owners do not see that language as profane, then I suppose I was presumptuous.
You seem to be excusing your behavior based on the claim that "Practically everything is offensive to someone." That is hyperbole that is unjustified and actually the sort of thing used by people like Anne Coulter to justify their boorishness.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
How does your sensitive soul function in every day life, Rabbit?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Foust: How does your sensitive soul function in every day life, Rabbit?
Quite well. Thank you for your concern.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I would like to take this opportunity to announce that I find the word "Belgium" to be the rudest word in existence according to my religion and thus I am giving notice that it is no longer to be used by any member of this forum.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Mucus, do you truly not see the difference between that and what Rabbit is talking about?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I see many differences including the fact that one is a satirical restriction created by Douglas Adams and the other is a serious restriction created by parties that are unknown to me. Also the two are spelled differently.
I have no knowledge of what specific difference you find relevant.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Dag (and Rabbit),
I don't know about "most" but I see the difference.
I'm an agnostic, but I am very aware that there are many people on this board - including the owners of the list - who are more than offended by profane comments.
I've never found it difficult to make slight modifications to my language in order to respect those other participants. And, heck, it's nothing compared to the modifications I make in my spoken communication at work (much harder to edit than typing).
To me, it's not so much a matter of self-censoring as respect for others. Not to mention common courtesy.
It's come up here before, just not in a long time.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote: Orincoro, Coulter actually appeals more to the memory of being bullied, because she makes all the smart-ass remarks that I wish I'd had the courage and wit to say when I was small.
Do you get paid to be a party hack? Or are you doing it for free?
quote: Her books are actually a clever mix. She doesn't care if her haters are too dense to be able to tell when she switches from satire to serious,
Whenever I see the words, "so and so doesn't care... if so and so doesn't get it..." I know we're talking about bad writing. You may agree with it, and not want it to be bad writing, but unfortunately that's what it is. If a writer has trouble tracking, for any large group of readers, between seriousness and irony or satire, then the book is missing the mark. I'm kind of amazed you actually think Ann Coulter has a sense of humor at all. I find her dreadfully dull.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by sndrake: Dag (and Rabbit),
I don't know about "most" but I see the difference.
I'm an agnostic, but I am very aware that there are many people on this board - including the owners of the list - who are more than offended by profane comments.
I've never found it difficult to make slight modifications to my language in order to respect those other participants. And, heck, it's nothing compared to the modifications I make in my spoken communication at work (much harder to edit than typing).
To me, it's not so much a matter of self-censoring as respect for others. Not to mention common courtesy.
It's come up here before, just not in a long time.
Thank you sndrake. Your courtesy is appreciated.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
A couple fo things.
Resh, she is irrelevant. I have yet to see any of her suggestions being taken seriously, and any person of influence who said they were taking her seriously would promptly lose the next election 90% of the time. She COULD have been influential, but she chose the easy way out.
I do see what you mean about her snap remarks though. I remember many times where I held back from saying something offensive only to be pushed around verbally by people who were less intelligent that I was, merely because I had tact and cared about other people and they didn't.
I am glad I didn't sink to their level most of the time, but sometimes there is a moment where I did in my mind, and I clearly would have gotten the better of them. We have all done that.
But that doesn't excuse her being a complete ass who is far too impressed with herself for little to no reason.
We had the conversation about using Jesus' name here before, many moons ago. It is NOT a violation f the forum rules. However, while I do say that IRL at times, I personally try to limit it because it does offend other people. Not many, at least IMO, but some, and offending people intentionally is rarely a good thing.
If I offend someone I prefer it to be intentional. Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Sam, I have no idea whether its official forbidden on this forum or not. I'm telling you that this expression is EXTREMELY offensive to me. I'm explaining why and asking you not to do it.
Your exasperation at my request shows disrespect for me and my profoundly held religious beliefs. I can understand that you didn't know that I and many others found such expressions to be deeply offensive, but now you do so stop it.
Oh, Jesus Tap Dancing Christ. Get a grip.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Please Blayne, words which have little to no meaning to you must be taken disproportionately seriously be others, even when you use them.
It gives religious people something to do.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Sam, I have no idea whether its official forbidden on this forum or not. I'm telling you that this expression is EXTREMELY offensive to me. I'm explaining why and asking you not to do it.
Your exasperation at my request shows disrespect for me and my profoundly held religious beliefs. I can understand that you didn't know that I and many others found such expressions to be deeply offensive, but now you do so stop it.
Oh, Jesus Tap Dancing Christ. Get a grip.
Enough already. The fact that I hold somethings sacred does not mean I've lost my grip or that I'm a hypersensitive individual.
If the name is no different to you than "John Smith", then why not say "John Tap Dancing Smith"? You don't because even to those of you who don't hold treat the name of Jesus with reverence know that it isn't just any other name. You don't need a Ph.D. to see that.
Since this has degenerated clearly to the point where people are using profanity just to push my buttons, its time for me to leave.
Good Bye and Good Riddance. I'll return to hatrack when the the juvenile practice of deliberately provoking people for amusement has gone out of fashion.
[ November 27, 2008, 01:04 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Based on this data, I presumed that your language was not only offensive to me personally but violated the site rules.
If I were to base the TOS on your reading, I'm profane, and violating the forum's rules, for talking about working on the sabbath day.
And I'm surprised to realize that the TOS for Hatrack is actually that default lump of text. It's obviously not the rules that this forum is governed by.
quote:You seem to be excusing your behavior based on the claim that "Practically everything is offensive to someone."
That's not my central excuse. My central 'excuse' is that I do not buy into the notion whatsoever that I am automatically required to modify any behaviors so as to prevent my chosen behaviors from greatly offending some people's religious sensitivities, any more so than I'm going to stop buying and eating meat because my (now former) roommate finds that dreadfully offensive. Some people dreadfully offend other people's religions just by not wearing a burqa and speaking even when not spoken to. Doesn't mean they have to care.
It's a matter of compromise and respect, of finding middle ground. I don't post much in terms of open disrespect of other religions, yet at the same time I don't expect to be allowed to dictate the terms of what encompasses open disrespect of other religions, regardless of intent.
quote:We had the conversation about using Jesus' name here before, many moons ago. It is NOT a violation f the forum rules.
Good.
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
Sorry, Kwea, but it is a violation of the forum rules. Just because people break it regularly and it doesn't always get prosecuted doesn't mean it's not a violation (much like speeding, really). I and the Cards just don't have the time to police every post, and so we trust the members here to be considerate of one another and at least for the most part staying within the TOS all on their own.
When it was brought up before, I had to step in despite not wishing to, hoping that people could instead simply figure out how to be courteous for themselves without a law having to be laid down. This continues not to be the case, apparently.
quote:One more thought. I think it's obvious that people have forgotten what the word "profanity" means. If you asked anybody on Hatrack "Is profanity allowed?" I'm sure the answer would be a big "No". But they have forgotten that the original and overwhelming meaning of of the word is anything that is blasphemy, sacrilegious, or involves taking the name of God in vain. Later we've added to that definition things of a sexual or scatalogical nature. But that did not delete the original meaning. Profanity is not allowed on Hatrack. People who persist will be asked to leave.
So stop.
Rabbit, I hope you'll return.
Happy Thanksgiving, folks.
--PJ
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Sorry, Kwea, but it is a violation of the forum rules.
Oh, then your rules are silly, inconsistently moderated, and frequently incoherent in policy.
I'm honored to be repudiated for blasphemy. Vishnu is a hack. Cheers.
[ November 27, 2008, 04:02 PM: Message edited by: Samprimary ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by The Rabbit: [qb] Blah Blah Blah
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: I'll return to hatrack when the the juvenile practice of deliberately provoking people for amusement has gone out of fashion.
What about the ADULT practice of deliberately provoking people?
:ponders:
Your shrubbery needs trimming. I'm telling the HOA.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Sam, I have no idea whether its official forbidden on this forum or not. I'm telling you that this expression is EXTREMELY offensive to me. I'm explaining why and asking you not to do it.
Your exasperation at my request shows disrespect for me and my profoundly held religious beliefs. I can understand that you didn't know that I and many others found such expressions to be deeply offensive, but now you do so stop it.
Oh, (Deleted for tact above that of a 2 year old, which Blayne doesn't have). Get a grip.
'
You are an idiot, and most of the time you are the reason I wish this forum had an ignore function.
Papa, I disagree with that. I am NOT saying you're wrong, but we have had several conversations about it here (including one I remember from before you were a mod), and in none of those have any steps ever been taken to prevent it. I must have missed the one you are talking about. Sorry about taht.
I don't agree with it because half the things posted here are far more offensive to a large number of people on a regular basis. And quite often religion is used to protect those views as being above reproach, and somehow protected.
Keep in mind that I don't use phrases like that here out of respect of others beliefs myself. I think it shows a lack of good faith in conversations most of the time.
I use it IRL, and if it was mentioned to me as offensive politely, as Rabbit did in here, I would (and have in the past) corrected myself and went on with the conversation. However, I have also had people get in my face about it....to which I answer they can always walk away, as I have a right to say it if I feel like it. The person who yells about it is just as offensive to me as a person who ignores the feelings of others when the subject is approached respectfully. (once again, as I feel Rabbit did here)
That being said, I stand corrected. Apparently it is more correct to insult entire categories of people based on their sexual orientation that to use someone else's god's name in vain.
[ November 27, 2008, 09:54 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
This is really stupid. Whose definition of profane are we using? If you want to say "Christians'", and leave it at that, fine, but be upfront about this being a Christain forum. If it's not just Christians' definition of profane that we're using than I'm going to start flagging about every third post here for not respecting strict Muslim or Hindu or Parsi or Pagan or <blank> beliefs. Heck, Scientology alone will probably rule out most discussion about psychology.
If you want to make an argument on common curtsy, that's one thing. Saying that it's against the rules of this forum to say anything profane makes the rules meaningless.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Tashende,
But seriously, you're right. It speaks to some unspoken assumptions about this forum that some say stuff like "original and overwhelming meaning" of profane having anything to do with the Christian god.
For my part, I grew up in a relatively secular neighborhood and the overriding meaning of profanity to me is not anything to do with this alien concept of a deity, but to do with the very real world concepts of a family.
It is reflective of this fact that I can't think of any common religious-based Cantonese swearing despite its rather broad vocabulary. I think Mandarin would be even worse off.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Jhai ...it's no different than anywhere else. The forum owners decide what profane means to them.
I don't agree with it, but I don't have to. It's not my website.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
They're free to decide what they want the forum to be about, but they should be honest & upfront about it.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: This is really stupid. Whose definition of profane are we using? If you want to say "Christians'", and leave it at that, fine, but be upfront about this being a Christain forum. If it's not just Christians' definition of profane that we're using than I'm going to start flagging about every third post here for not respecting strict Muslim or Hindu or Parsi or Pagan or <blank> beliefs. Heck, Scientology alone will probably rule out most discussion about psychology.
If you want to make an argument on common curtsy, that's one thing. Saying that it's against the rules of this forum to say anything profane makes the rules meaningless.
Whats next "Holy Cow!" is banned?
And Kwea, kwea, kwea. You poor soul.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: This is really stupid. Whose definition of profane are we using? If you want to say "Christians'", and leave it at that, fine, but be upfront about this being a Christain forum. If it's not just Christians' definition of profane that we're using than I'm going to start flagging about every third post here for not respecting strict Muslim or Hindu or Parsi or Pagan or <blank> beliefs. Heck, Scientology alone will probably rule out most discussion about psychology.
If you want to make an argument on common curtsy, that's one thing. Saying that it's against the rules of this forum to say anything profane makes the rules meaningless.
Jhai, You are being ridiculously hyperbolic. I live in a country where there are nearly equal numbers of Christians and Hindus and a significant Muslim population. Behaving and speaking in a manner that is respectful to what other people hold sacred is not difficult even in a very diverse multicultural population.
Furthermore, I have many Hindu friends and neighbors and have yet to hear one of them express concern that any expression commonly used in the English language profanes the things they hold sacred.
Face it, the only sacred names and words which have become commonly used profanely in the English language, are Christian words. I've never heard anyone exclaim "Holy Vishnu", or "F**in' Mohammed". "By Buddha". If I did hear such expression and they were offensive to adherents of those religions, I would express the same concern I expressed here.
There is no reason to think this is unduly restrictive on civil discourse.
[ November 28, 2008, 10:06 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:They're free to decide what they want the forum to be about, but they should be honest & upfront about it.
And you have yet to cite ANY evidence that they limit this rule to only things Christians find profane.
quote:Heck, Scientology alone will probably rule out most discussion about psychology.
quote:If I were to base the TOS on your reading, I'm profane, and violating the forum's rules, for talking about working on the sabbath day.
I have a hard time believing either of you actually think this. The counterexamples are so numerous on this board that you simply must know that your statements are nothing but the most shallow form of strawman.
For example, homosexual marriage is regularly discussed here. This is something that we know the board's owners feel to be against their religious precepts as much as Scientologists oppose psychology or Orthodox Jews oppose working on the Sabbath.
So clearly the rule doesn't ban discussion of things merely because those things are opposed by a religion.
The definition speaks of respect and regard. Not agreement. Not being contrary to religious precepts. And you both know this.
quote:I see many differences including the fact that one is a satirical restriction created by Douglas Adams and the other is a serious restriction created by parties that are unknown to me. Also the two are spelled differently.
I have no knowledge of what specific difference you find relevant.
On the off chance you don't honestly see any difference between something avowedly made up and something deeply believed by millions of people, I commend to you sndrake's post for an explanation.
*********
It's amazing to me how much energy people put into wanting to be offensive to others.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:I see many differences including the fact that one is a satirical restriction created by Douglas Adams and the other is a serious restriction created by parties that are unknown to me. Also the two are spelled differently.
I have no knowledge of what specific difference you find relevant.
On the off chance you don't honestly see any difference between something avowedly made up and something deeply believed by millions of people, I commend to you sndrake's post for an explanation.
I think you might want to re-read the very paragraph that you quoted. I explicitly mentioned that I see many differences, so I have no idea why you're going on about me not seeing any difference.
What I didn't know is which particular difference you find *relevant*. Now I know you find popularity relevant, I disagree with that. If I find "Oh, Belgium!" offensive, then my feelings can apparantly be ignored because I'm just one guy. Yet if tommorow millions of people find "Oh, Belgium!" offensive does that mean that there should be rules against it? On the flip-side, does that mean we can do away with these rules if suddenly Christians decide to be more reasonable? The rules on what people can say should not be that arbitrary and subject to the whim of a majority.
(Arguably, thats related to one of the main points of the whole Belgium tangent in Adams' book, that the very expletives that we pick are arbitrary)
On one hand, I fully agree that the owners of the site have the right to make these sorts of arbitrary rules. On the other hand, I disagree with whether they should. I think that this is best handled on a personal one-to-one level between posters than as a global rule.
quote: It's amazing to me how much energy people put into wanting to be offensive to others.
How much energy people put into defending having the choice to be offensive to others. There is a distinction. I don't believe that I've *actually* used religious-based expletives very often on this forum.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
The global rule is there to encourage civilized behavior and a comfortable place to talk. Without it, and the help of other members keeping an eye on the place, online forums swiftly descend into troll-pits.
The speeding analogy is a good one. Police don't catch every speeder, they couldn't possibly. But they can catch the obvious or really reckless ones, and that helps keeps the rest safer and a bit more cautious. Even if they don't see their own speeding as wrong, they'll avoid it if there's a chance they'll be caught, and that's good enough for the rest of the drivers.
Mucus - please note that Douglas Adams brilliantly illustrated his point without actually naming any of the other offended parties, a wonderful bit of satire. He made the point and let others draw their own conclusions. Here, out of context, it's targeting people.
As for Ann Coulter - she's an Internet troll who made it into print. Why should I waste time on her? I don't wish her pain and I do hope she gets through this quickly and without lasting effects.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
That said, I don't agree that the expletives we pick are arbitrary. We're drawn to the extreme ones, the ones that name shameful or hidden acts, or sacred names. Those are the ones with force, that have a greater effect on our own subconscious and on those around us. (Not all of us, obviously; for some people regular profanity becomes punctuation, without any real bite to it)
One of the most annoying things since becoming an apatheist decades ago is trying to break myself of using religion-based epithets. It seems wrong, somehow, to take in vain the name of someone you don't believe in...
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:
One of the most annoying things since becoming an apatheist decades ago is trying to break myself of using religion-based epithets. It seems wrong, somehow, to take in vain the name of someone you don't believe in...
Would you think it wrong to say "Merlin's Ghost" (assuming you neither believe in Merlin, nor ghosts)?
[ November 28, 2008, 02:34 PM: Message edited by: natural_mystic ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: The global rule is there to encourage civilized behavior and a comfortable place to talk. Without it, and the help of other members keeping an eye on the place, online forums swiftly descend into troll-pits.
I can certainly sympathise with the idea but I respectfully disagree*. On the surface, it has a certain amount of common-sense logic, ban the really bad things and the average will get better. Its similar to the argument on rules to do with hate-speech, which seem to make common-sense but have unintended consequences. It is all too easy to exploit the rule as a weapon.
But even as to its immediate goal, I'm not convinced. Samprimary explicitly mentioned that he would be ok to accommodate the Rabbit if they were dealing respectfully as fellow posters. Instead, the rule was used as a crude club and not only did that alienate Samprimary but it provoked Blayne.
Granted, this is just one incident and thus anecdotal. But it seems like the rule is counter-productive.
* At least on Hatrack, for better or worse our membership is small and stable, newcomers are relatively rare compared to many forums. Trolls are quickly identified and recognisable. I can see a certain amount of wisdom of the rule in an environment with a large relatively anonymous population with many newcomers.
quote: The speeding analogy is a good one. Police don't catch every speeder, they couldn't possibly. But they can catch the obvious or really reckless ones, and that helps keeps the rest safer and a bit more cautious. Even if they don't see their own speeding as wrong, they'll avoid it if there's a chance they'll be caught, and that's good enough for the rest of the drivers.
The speeding analogy is a good one. Many people see speeding laws as a joke. People simply identify a "safe" boundary above the speed limit to travel at that maximises speed and produces an acceptable risk of being caught. This creates an environment where disrespect for the law is the norm and thus respect for other laws is eroded. I would greatly favour an increase in the speed limit and then see that limit is *strictly* enforced.
quote: Mucus - please note that Douglas Adams brilliantly illustrated his point without actually naming any of the other offended parties, a wonderful bit of satire. He made the point and let others draw their own conclusions. Here, out of context, it's targeting people.
In the context of humour, you're perfectly right. This particular bit works for that reason. But that doesn't mean that the point is not valid when applied in a more serious context and indeed Adams himself had no qualms about targeting people in that setting. He called himself a "radical atheist" for a reason.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: That said, I don't agree that the expletives we pick are arbitrary. We're drawn to the extreme ones, the ones that name shameful or hidden acts, or sacred names. ...
Expletives are arbitrary, but what you seem to be objecting to is the related but different idea that expletives are random.
I think that expletives are most certainly arbitrary, but they are not random.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:I can certainly sympathise with the idea but I respectfully disagree*. On the surface, it has a certain amount of common-sense logic, ban the really bad things and the average will get better. Its similar to the argument on rules to do with hate-speech, which seem to make common-sense but have unintended consequences. It is all too easy to exploit the rule as a weapon.
It isn't a perfect solution, nothing dealing with human beings ever is. But as someone who had moderated online forums for over 12 years on one site or another, I can guarantee you that NOT maintaining some minimal form of "respect each other" rules will always, always result in the bickering foul-mouthed idiots taking over and the polite people gradually wandering away. Go read the bottom of any AintItCool.com page for an example. There should be some give and take, and one person's opinion over what should be permissible will differ from just about everyone else's, but a consensus can usually be reached.
One of the things I like about Hatrack is the conscious effort of most of the members to respect each other. I assure you, if you truly found the utterance of "B*****m" to be offensive, most folks here would try not to say it when talking to you. Not because they're uberliberal or PC to the point of pain, but because if you're comfortable here, you'll stay and talk. It's one reason why, much more often than at other forums, conversations actually occur here.
quote:I would greatly favour an increase in the speed limit and then see that limit is *strictly* enforced.
I suppose some sort of automatic laser mounted on a radar gun would work, just shoot out the tires when they hit 71 mph. Of course, that doesn't allow any wiggle room for the times when the limit absolutely has to be broken: the woman getting her dying husband to the hospital, the man using a burst of speed to get away from carjackers. But that would require judgment calls, and there simply isn't the manpower to do it. Just as it isn't possible for someone to read every single post on every single thread on this forum to watch for signs of Evil SpeechTM. And this is where the speeding analogy falls apart, because the speed limit is an easily understood number. Speech, thought, opinion is much harder to quantify. You can't scan for it, lest you go to block "adult" language and inadvertently wipe out discussions of breast cancer survival (as reportedly happened at AOL back in the day). Best you can do is to read it and try to discern the intent behind the language. And I am positive PapaJanitor has no intentions of becoming the thought police.
What the rules boil down to is "respect one another." When people argue that they shouldn't have to, I really have to wonder why.
I'm not sure we're using the same definition of "arbitrary," by the way. The overwhelming majority of expletives -- in any language -- deal with sex, voiding wastes, or religion. That's kind of the opposite of arbitrary, isn't it? A clear and easily definable class of terms: when we cuss, we go for the taboo.
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: What the rules boil down to is "respect one another." When people argue that they shouldn't have to, I really have to wonder why.
QFT
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Rawr I be grizzely bear! Do not provoke the bear!
I like how "and it provoked Blayne" sounds so much more.... 'scary'? As if it hushed tones people were fearful of me. Positively amusing.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Or it could be the way you warn your kids not to poke at the poor thing through the bars because it's just cruel.
Or the scary thing, could be that too...
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: One of the things I like about Hatrack is the conscious effort of most of the members to respect each other. I assure you, if you truly found the utterance of "B*****m" to be offensive, most folks here would try not to say it when talking to you. Not because they're uberliberal or PC to the point of pain, but because if you're comfortable here, you'll stay and talk. It's one reason why, much more often than at other forums, conversations actually occur here.
I fully agree with this part of your post and yet I don't think the rules are the reason. Most people probably just click through the TOS just like a EULA. Indeed, Kwea and Samprimary didn't even know about the rule in the first place. I certainly didn't.
No, the reason why Hatrack works in this regard is due to the low membership numbers and limited new members. I bet that if we had the same membership size and new member rate as AINT we'd be exactly in the same pickle, regardless of enforcement and rules.
quote:
quote:I would greatly favour an increase in the speed limit and then see that limit is *strictly* enforced.
I suppose some sort of automatic laser mounted on a radar gun would work, just shoot out the tires when they hit 71 mph.
Yes, that is certainly a reasonable interpretation of "an increase." Please don't misrepresent my position.
quote: What the rules boil down to is "respect one another." When people argue that they shouldn't have to, I really have to wonder why.
This rule doesn't boil down to that. It boils down to "don't post anything that a majority sees as disrespectful." There is a pretty clear distinction. If you think Blayne will respect Rabbit one iota more because Rabbit can ban Blayne from saying anything about deities tap-dancing, then I'd be pretty surprised.
As for speculation about my motives, thats a pretty low and personal blow. I'd appreciate it if you refrained from that.
quote: I'm not sure we're using the same definition of "arbitrary," by the way. The overwhelming majority of expletives -- in any language -- deal with sex, voiding wastes, or religion. That's kind of the opposite of arbitrary, isn't it? A clear and easily definable class of terms: when we cuss, we go for the taboo.
And yet there is no logical reason why sex, voiding wastes, or religion is taboo. In fact, we're explicitly arguing in this thread that religion should not be taboo and I noted that Chinese expletives largely omit religious expletives. Its pretty much by whim that we've decided that sex is taboo and shameful (and only certain kinds of sex). A system that is built upon an arbitrary system is itself arbitrary.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
You're right, I wasn't very clear. "Don't post anything that a majority sees as disrespectful" is more accurate, if only because a TOS that lists "Don't use JC as an expletive because it offends Bill, Mary and Fred, don't invoke Zeus because it really gets up Jake's nose," etc, is unworkable.
So I'll make it more accurate still: the TOS boils down to "Pretend to respect each other."
As for your motives, I apologize for misinterpreting them. I'll state mine: I think an expectation of polite behavior is not too much to ask in a forum, and the benefits of such outweigh the negatives.
There may not be a logical reason why such things are taboo (although it can be argued that there are evolutionary and social reasons) but once they're established as taboo then drawing your expletives from that source is logical and predictable. A system with its own internal consistency, even if built on an arbitrary system, is not itself arbitrary.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
This thread has devolved into a topic that is oddly appropriate...
Kwea, you say she's irrelevant and you gave some pretty decent reasons. But notice: anytime she says something or does something or her jaw breaks, a 3-page (and counting) thread gets started on a website about Orson Scott Card. Doesn't that indicate some degree of relevance?
No one takes her suggestions seriously, but neither would they take some of the suggestions some pop culture comedians make in their acts. She's not a policy maker, she is an entertainer who appeals to a niche market. Her relevance isn't the same variety as that of James Carville or Karl Rove.
Orincoro, she is funny to certain people, and we buy her books. Surely I don't need to explain to you that just because you don't think someone is funny doesn't mean that someone isn't funny.
A good bit of her popularity comes from the reaction she gets from people. Plenty of people hated Andrew Dice Clay, but part of what made him funny was not necessarily how offensive he was, but rather how offended people got. Does that make sense?
[ November 28, 2008, 05:29 PM: Message edited by: Reshpeckobiggle ]
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
A good bit of her popularity comes from the reaction she gets from people. Plenty of people hated Andrew Dice Clay, but part of what made him funny was not necessarily how offensive he was, but rather how offended people got. Does that make sense?
I think Rush Limbaugh has expressly said that this is her feature that he admires.
I would feel a lot better if I knew that no one takes her seriously. But I'm not sure about that. Further, she is given legitimacy by being invited to speak at prominent conservative gatherings.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I have a hard time believing either of you actually think this. The counterexamples are so numerous on this board that you simply must know that your statements are nothing but the most shallow form of strawman.
Not in the least. if I based the TOS on her reading, which is to pull up the dictionary definition of the word and say that since my act applies to a form of the definition of the word, it is an act of that word, thus a violation of the terms.
Since 'not respectful of religious practice' is part of that reading, her reading makes it that way, as well as anyone doing anything which is not respectful of religious practice.
quote:What the rules boil down to is "respect one another." When people argue that they shouldn't have to, I really have to wonder why.
Guess my motive. Honestly. Assume you are in my position, and you have had the honor of being charged with illegal blasphemy on an internet forum for using 'jesus christ' as an exclamation.
Imagine what I might be concerned about, besides the discovery of wildly irregular application of rules.
[ November 28, 2008, 06:57 PM: Message edited by: Samprimary ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Guess my motive. Honestly. Assume you are in my position, and you have had the honor of being charged with illegal blasphemy on an internet forum for using 'jesus christ' as an exclamation.
Your motive seems to be wanting to be able to continue to use that phrase as an expletive knowing that it causes great offense. Why you want to continue this is something of a mystery.
What I don't get is why you made such a shallow statement about the rules prohibiting talking about working on the sabbath, despite there being numerous and obvious counterexamples.
Perhaps I'm wildly overestimating your intelligence. I'd like to think that's not the case.
You and Jhai have both tried to extend the rule far beyond its actual content. Then you've each called your newly absurdly expanded rule ridiculous.
Isn't that one of Coulter's favorite tactics?
quote:Imagine what I might be concerned about, besides the discovery of wildly irregular application of rules.
What "wildly irregular application of the rules"?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Your motive seems to be wanting to be able to continue to use that phrase as an expletive knowing that it causes great offense. Why you want to continue this is something of a mystery.
Haha, what the heck, man. I don't think you could have guessed more wrongly. You should probably go back and read my posts I made in response to rabbit's taking-of-offense, the whole part where I state unequivocally that I can and would immediately cease using that phrase as an exclamation and/or 'expletive' because she takes it disrespectfully, then perhaps give another guess about my motives and intent which fails a little bit less.
quote:What I don't get is why you made such a shallow statement about the rules prohibiting talking about working on the sabbath, despite there being numerous and obvious counterexamples.
If you don't get it, read my contention again. Maybe you're just not seeing it? I know there are numerous and obvious counterexamples. I said that if the forum's rules were determined the way she extrapolated them, then you could say that talking about working on the sabbath was prohibited by the TOS since there happen to be some christians that are greatly offended by that and find it disrespectful of religious beliefs.
obviously the point of my post was that I was saying the forum is not run by applying any and all aspects of the dictionary reading, including 'not respectful of religious practice' Unsurprisingly, I knew the forum proved that.
Yet at the same time, just because people have been regularly doing something and that there are 'numerous and obvious counterexamples' apparently doesn't mean that it is against the rules, since there are numerous and obvious examples of blasphemy being unobjected to and not prosecuted.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic:
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
A good bit of her popularity comes from the reaction she gets from people. Plenty of people hated Andrew Dice Clay, but part of what made him funny was not necessarily how offensive he was, but rather how offended people got. Does that make sense?
I think Rush Limbaugh has expressly said that this is her feature that he admires.
I would feel a lot better if I knew that no one takes her seriously. But I'm not sure about that. Further, she is given legitimacy by being invited to speak at prominent conservative gatherings.
The obvious difference would be that Clay was in the business of amusing and (possibly) enlightening people in some way. I've seen no evidence that Coulter is trying to amuse or enlighten, and I rather think she has no clear motivations. I would say the underlying motivations are probably those of ego, and as I've said before, the acting out of aggression and conflict that is in some way titillating and evocative for her. Few of us can claim never to have been involved with or even having been, such a person.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Haha, what the heck, man.
I find this offensive, derived as it is from "what the Hell". Please apologize.
Related anecdote: a phrase I grew up with in the Caribbean was "Cawblemmah", used when shocked or surprised. My brother used it one day in a class discussion and was promptly given 200 lines. Apparently "Cawblemmah" is derived from "God blind me".
I'm bored and at work.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic:
quote:Haha, what the heck, man.
I find this offensive, derived as it is from "what the Hell". Please apologize.
You're trying to trick me into thinking it's a joke request again, and then you're going to be all like WHAT HOW DARE YOU and I'll be all like D:
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I would also note that, given the chance to explain that she was being ironic or otherwise kidding about some of her more "outrageous" statements, she's flatly said she was serious.
And I rather think her "relevance" is much like the "newsworthiness" of helicopter footage of a high-speed highway chase. Look away, it goes away.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: You're right, I wasn't very clear. "Don't post anything that a majority sees as disrespectful" is more accurate, if only because a TOS that lists "Don't use JC as an expletive because it offends Bill, Mary and Fred, don't invoke Zeus because it really gets up Jake's nose," etc, is unworkable
Ah, I think we have some insight. I fully agree that form of TOS is *unworkable*. However (and I don't want to put words in your mouth), it does seem much more *precise* when it comes to describing whats really going on. Do you agree?
quote: So I'll make it more accurate still: the TOS boils down to "Pretend to respect each other."
I don't want to sound like I'm nitpicking, but that attempt at boiling down really does leave out the core of my objection, a distinction that is captured within "Don't post anything that a majority sees as disrespectful."
Part of it goes to the distinction between respecting a belief and respecting a person. (Kind of the flip side to saying that one should "respect the office of the president, but not necessarily the person that occupies that chair")
For example, a person that greatly respects a fellow poster but does not respect their beliefs is safe under the first rule, but not necessarily the second. For example, right now someone could post a new rendition of "Jesus Christ Superstar." Under their beliefs, they're not targeting a single fellow poster. However, if a majority feels that it is disrespectful *to them* then, bang, its caught under the second rule.
quote:As for your motives, I apologize for misinterpreting them.
Thanks. I appreciate it.
quote:... once they're established as taboo then drawing your expletives from that source is logical and predictable.
Is it? Consider the plight of Captain Kirk who finds out that while "you dumba**" is an insult, "a double dumba** on you" is not. A threatening guy that says, "I'm going fu** you all up" in a club is potentially intimidating, "I'm going to shag you all up" is just kind of odd. Both seem to be verbs for the same activity, yet only one really works as a threat. Mother incest seems to be in roughly the same level of taboo as sister incest. Yet the expletive "mother fu**er" is extremely common, "sister fu**er" is extremely rare and would probably get you odd looks.
There's a level of granularity and nuance here, even in a language like English where insults are relatively simple. Its not enough to know what is taboo, you need to know precisely which words for each taboo can be used and also which taboos can be used.
quote: A system with its own internal consistency, even if built on an arbitrary system, is not itself arbitrary.
I can't say that I see how.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
This is extremely late to the argument, but I just want to point out that in various forms of "fundamentalist Islam" (for lack of a better term), expressing a wish or hope for the future without somehow indicating that it need also be in Allah's plan, is a profane statement. Also, in some forms of Jainism, any expression of ill regard or intention to hurt other beings is a profane statement.
So, no, Rabbit, I wasn't just being excessively hyperbolic. What I am doing is a very common argument in philosophy - push a rule or belief to its limit, and see if it results in an absurd conclusion. The idea that any "profane" statement is not to be allowed, when pushed to its limit, results an absurd conclusion.
Dagonee, I think the fact that no one has ever been called out for the two examples I discussed above suggests that, yes, it is clear that we aren't talking about every religion's profane. If that's true, then it should be clearly stated somewhere in the TOS.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:push a rule or belief to its limit, and see if it results in an absurd conclusion. The idea that any "profane" statement is not to be allowed, when pushed to its limit, results an absurd conclusion.
Do you believe that anyone is advocating pushing a belief to an extreme here?
In reality what is being asked for is a concession that will not harm the person being asked, and will make the requester more comfortable. What is being asked will help maintain respect without necessarily showing favoritism for any one ideology.
What is being asked is to show respect for others' beliefs in a way that does not denigrate, deflect, or interrupt your own.
Lots of us make these types of concessions every day, without resorting to, or even being tempted by, the extreme. Any element taken to the extreme is ridiculous, Jhai-- that's an inherent property of the phrase "extreme" as used in this discussion. That you can show that something can be made ridiculous isn't proof of its invalidity.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Scott, if you'd read my posts more carefully, you would realize that I'm completely in favor of common curtsy, which includes not using language that others' find particularly offense when there is little or no need to do so. I stated that in my first post on this thread, in fact.
What I am against is an official rule that says that it is not allowed to say anything "profane". Because either (A) that rule really only applies to a few select religions' definition of profane or (B) the rule is absurd, since it rules out the vast majority of things we want to discuss.
The first is wrong because this is not, in my understanding, a forum which specifically promotes any religion over another. If it is, then, frankly, I will never post or read here again, because that is not a community I have any interest in contributing to or being a member of. The second is wrong because a discussion board which disallows the vast majority of things its members want to discuss is rather stupid.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
I am also fully in favor of the common curtsy, as the uncommon curtsies often have my girlfriend getting upset with my base reaction. Too much cleavage/undergarments presented in most cases. I really should just stay out of 19th century brothels. Or at least stop bringing my girlfriend...
quote:Orincoro: The obvious difference would be that Clay was in the business of amusing and (possibly) enlightening people in some way. I've seen no evidence that Coulter is trying to amuse or enlighten, and I rather think she has no clear motivations. I would say the underlying motivations are probably those of ego, and as I've said before, the acting out of aggression and conflict that is in some way titillating and evocative for her. Few of us can claim never to have been involved with or even having been, such a person.
Yes, because this person is a construct of your imagination. Barack Obama, however, is one exception that comes to mind.
Few of us can claim to have been involved with such a person? Such a person as you describe in your interpretation of someone you have never met and only know through others' representations, and whom you would never agree with in the first place? No, I've never been nor never known such a person. Good point.
[edit, and a big one] Seriously though, Coulter is also in the business of amusing and possible enlightening people in some way. Not most people, but people like me. Did you know that she was the first person from whom I heard an alternate retelling of the kind of man Joseph McCarthy actually was? My 4th/5th grade textbooks certainly told another story, the one everyone took as common knowledge. Dig in deep today and you will see that no one actually disputes the patriotism and honor of the man, and moreover, the truth of his accusations about the communist threat in America. But the only person who had the courage to speak out about it was -as usual- a comedian.
I've always been a big fan of stand-up comedy, because even though it is oftentimes mundane and of no consequence, when done right it is always entertaining. But when it is entertaining and also brutally and offensively honest, it is one of the few sources of unfiltered truth you can find.
Moreover, some of the times I have laughed the hardest in my life have been while reading books by stand-up comics, and other writers whose business is to be funny. Douglas Adams, Dave Barry, George Carlin, even Paul Reiser, Jerry Seinfeld and Ray Romano have floored me with some of their writings. Ann Coulter does not have the prerequisite skills to do stand-up, nor does Dave Barry.
But her sense of humor is just as sharp, and as any connoisseur of comedy knows, the secret to comedy is the kernel of truth. It may not be something you find to be truthful, but to those of us who do, it is the seed of great entertainment.
So knock her if you want, just realize that for those of us who have been, as I put it, "initiated," when we hear someone say that "she's just not funny," it evokes the same reaction as is found in a Radiohead fan when someone says, "they're different, but I just don't think they're really any good." In a word: Pity for your loss.
[ November 29, 2008, 12:52 AM: Message edited by: Reshpeckobiggle ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:The idea that any "profane" statement is not to be allowed, when pushed to its limit, results an absurd conclusion.
The idea that any "profane" statement is under a blanket ban for anything based on any element of its dictionary definition is already ridiculous without pushing it to any extreme. It's ridiculous up-front. And what is being asserted as the rules will pretty much skirt right up next to that. You couldn't govern literally using that ruling.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Fortunately this place is not governed by what you think are the rules, or much less the manner in which you think the rules ought to be interpreted and implemented. If PJ disagrees with the way you or I or anyone else is behaving on this forum, all he has to do is press the ban-button. Don't like it? Find someplace else to post your blather. Just be happy the country isn't run that way. Because the USA is one of the few places your (the collective "your," "sus" in espanol) idiocy is tolerated.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I also like how Resh's defense of coulter has pretty much degenerated to a bunch of caveats about how she's really a comedian and how what she says really isn't supposed to be serious, which means that his defense of her now actually openly defies Coulter's assertions of how she's actually very serious.
quote:But her sense of humor is just as sharp, and as any connoisseur of comedy knows, the secret to comedy is the kernel of truth. It may not be something you find to be truthful, but to those of us who do, it is the seed of great entertainment.
You're right. It's entertaining when she implies that Al Gore is a 'faggot,' if, down inside, you've always assumed he was. And it's funny when she says that we should discriminate based on race when, deep down, you've always been racist and you vote for Tom Tancredo. It's the kernel of truth, baby!
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I also like how Resh's defense of coulter has pretty much degenerated to a bunch of caveats about how she's really a comedian and how what she says really isn't supposed to be serious, which means that his defense of her now actually openly defies Coulter's assertions of how she's actually very serious.
Of course she's gonna tell you she's serious. You're the guy she's making fun of! And it's only funny so long as you continue to fail at getting the joke. Case in point:
quote:
quote:But her sense of humor is just as sharp, and as any connoisseur of comedy knows, the secret to comedy is the kernel of truth. It may not be something you find to be truthful, but to those of us who do, it is the seed of great entertainment.
You're right. It's entertaining when she implies that Al Gore is a 'faggot,' if, down inside, you've always assumed he was. And it's funny when she says that we should discriminate based on race when, deep down, you've always been racist and you vote for Tom Tancredo. It's the kernel of truth, baby!
Perfect example! Nevermind it was John Edwards she called a faggot, isn't it common knowledge the Al Gore is a flaming queer also? I mean, I'm just going by what you're saying. I hadn't heard that myself, but you seem to know your business...
BUT THAT'S NOT FUNNY!!!! Then why am I laughing? Must be something wrong with me. Because you have proven time and again that there's nothing wrong with your sense of humor. What we really need is someone (I nominate Orincoro) to tell us what is and isn't funny.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: ... What I am doing is a very common argument in philosophy - push a rule or belief to its limit, and see if it results in an absurd conclusion. The idea that any "profane" statement is not to be allowed, when pushed to its limit, results an absurd conclusion.
Thats a pretty wonderful point.
In mathematics, when you're asked to prove or disprove a theorem, the best place to start is with counter-examples at the extremes.
As an application of the mathematics, in computer science, we call this boundary testing. The idea is that a insufficiently rigorous function often has bugs at boundary points, where valid input is close to invalid input.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Perfect example! Nevermind it was John Edwards she called a faggot,
You fail, resh. She also used that slur against al gore. Go ahead and defend her for calling people fags just because it's supposed to be funny. Go ahead. Tell me that it's okay because it's funny.
quote:BUT THAT'S NOT FUNNY!!!! Then why am I laughing? Must be something wrong with me. Because you have proven time and again that there's nothing wrong with your sense of humor.
Cool, you got all three of those statements right.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I was aware of the rule, and follow it. However, I know we had had discussion as to what it relates, specific discussion about this specific word in this (or a very similar ) context, and I was not aware it applied.
That being said, even thinking it WASN'T covered by the rule in question I still make an effort NOT to use it. I don't follow every rule everywhere I go...but I also don't need a rule anywhere to tell me not to be rude to someone or offend their religious beliefs.
If I choose to do be rude (and I have in the past) I am aware of what I am doing and have a point, and am willing to accept the fallout for doing so. But as long as someone is being respectful of my beliefs (not agreeing with me, but being respectful of my beliefs....there is a difference there as well) I try to be respectful of theirs.
There have been a few times where by the very nature of the discussion it was inevitable that someone would be offended....and if the positives outweighed the rude factor I was cool with it. In this case, what would have been lost by substituting some other words there? Was in central to your point?
It DID make for an interesting discussion, though.
Resh....relevant in what way? As a pop culture book selling person of interest? Sure. I guess. As a person I would like to discuss actual policy (or even meet on the street) with, or someone I consider well informed?
Not even close.
I went though a phase like that in JR High...I knew I was smart, and I used cynicism and sarcasm to make my points. I reduced my enemies...because that was how I viewed debates, as war.....to tears on more than one occasion, and I was rude as a matter of fact, on a regular basis, even when it wasn't necessary or called for. It was my default setting for about 6 months.
I have an excuse. I was 15.
What's hers?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: ... In reality what is being asked for is a concession that will not harm the person being asked, and will make the requester more comfortable.
Your language betrays you. That is a pretty awful word to use in this sort of discussion and I even double-checked via Google that my connotations are decently common (i.e. the first match, your results may vary).
The first connotations that come to my mind with the word "concession" is this:
quote: ... a concession is a territory within a country that is administered by another entity than the state which holds sovereignty over it. This is usually a colonizing power, or at least mandated by one ... Usually, it is conceded, that is, allowed or even surrendered by a weaker state to a stronger power. For example, the politically weak and militarily helpless Qing China in the 19th century was forced to sign several so-called Unequal Treaties ...
That reflects pretty badly on the problem at hand. Concession could be a pretty apt word to describe whats going on here, a weaker group (as decided by numbers) has to give up something of theirs to a stronger group. The stronger group gets to decide within this concession what rules, what laws, and what definitions are valid.
If I wasn't looking at your intent (or rather, your lack of it), the connotation of a Westerner asking this of me, a Chinese person, really would get me steamed.
Luckily, I do look at intent and thus I merely have the following suggestion, what you seek is a compromise. A compromise is an agreement between equals. A concession is something given by an inferior, a loser.
(Alternatively, we Canadians use the term "reasonable accommodation." As in you are asking for reasonable accommodation of your beliefs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_accommodation )
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
In all honesty though Coulter is just .. falling off the map. She kind of stuck herself in an accelerating position, too, where she would lose attention, then try to compensate for that by making more hideous attacks and ridiculous statements in her political column (the attacks on Gore/Edwards, for example) and this would drive away plenty of people who formerly were supporters of her work. She ended up just being a representative of a callous, extreme, and unthinking right, and she started dropping out of the sphere of political discourse and political news.
Now, she's a pox.
Honestly if this jaw accident had happened just a year ago it would have garnered tons more attention.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
You can concede a point in an argument without being a sovereign country, so at this pint you are merely nitpicking IMO.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Main Entry: con·ces·sion Listen to the pronunciation of concession Pronunciation: \kən-ˈse-shən\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle English concessyon, from Anglo-French concessioun, from Latin concession-, concessio, from concedere to concede Date: 15th century
1 a: the act or an instance of conceding b: the admitting of a point claimed in argument
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
You've got to be kidding me. You're using dictionary definitions to tell me what I may or may not find offensive? Shall we see if Christ is listed as offensive?
What I find offensive is my determination, I've given my reasons. You can ignore my feelings on the matter ignoring that I'm only ok with Scott's use of the word because I knew he intended no grief. You'll probably get away with it too.
Or you can reasonably accommodate me by just using a different word. No harm, no foul. Its your call.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Mucus:
You don't know that I intended no grief.
As you've outlined it, you're using an extreme perspective of the word profane.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:What I am doing is a very common argument in philosophy - push a rule or belief to its limit, and see if it results in an absurd conclusion.
Yes, it's common in philosophy as a way to examine fundamental principles. When examining rules that actually apply in the real world, however, other disciplines are more useful.
For example, it's very common in legal analysis to examine different interpretations of rules and to discard the interpretations that lead to absurd results. So pointing out an extreme reading of a rule that leads to an absurd result is NOT sufficient to demonstrate the absurdity of the rule.
quote:Dagonee, I think the fact that no one has ever been called out for the two examples I discussed above suggests that, yes, it is clear that we aren't talking about every religion's profane.
The fact that certain things haven't been "called out" would only make it "clear" that we aren't talking about other religions' profanity if we had some reason to believe that everything that violates the rules gets called out. That's simply not true.
quote: I just want to point out that in various forms of "fundamentalist Islam" (for lack of a better term), expressing a wish or hope for the future without somehow indicating that it need also be in Allah's plan, is a profane statement. Also, in some forms of Jainism, any expression of ill regard or intention to hurt other beings is a profane statement.
I don't know any Jainists, but I know two muslims who believe that it is wrong to make a statement about the future without referencing Allah's will. Neither consider it profane for non-Muslims to do so (although they do consider it wrong for non-Muslims to do so), just as Jews don't consider it profane (or wrong) for non-Jews to eat pork. Given your previous example about scientology and psychology, I'm not going to take your word that this falls under the definition of a "fundamentalist Muslim" definition of "profane." You haven't demonstrated to me that you understand the concept.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Dagonee, I think she understands the concept just fine.
Your quibble that non-Muslims can't profane under a particular Islamic rule doesn't play out. Would you support moderation that prevented Muslim members that subscribed to that rule from making profane statements of hope for the future? In my opinion it's still absurd.
quote:The fact that certain things haven't been "called out" would only make it "clear" that we aren't talking about other religions' profanity if we had some reason to believe that everything that violates the rules gets called out. That's simply not true.
I doubt that the point is to say that the rule cannot be interpreted to ban profane statements, and that the existence of certain forms of profanity that go unchallenged proves this. I think the point is that is an absurd rule.
When most or all of a forum's membership share similar traditions and understanding of what kinds of profanity are offensive and not allowed, it functions just fine as a rule. The fact that profanity isn't what's banned, but whatever is considered profane by a large enough subset of the membership, is understood.
However, a better rule would be to show respect and refrain from causing needless offense. It would be highly subjective but at least it would be transparently so. People would rightly understand that they need to be aware of the subjective collective opinion on what is OK and what is not. Banning "profanity" is a shortcut to something that is effectively the same but is also mislabeling the true intent and application of the rule.
It's also easier for some people to accede to requests for courtesy than to submit to religious rules they personally disagree with. Banning profanity is enforcing religious rules; if the intent of the ban is to ensure courtesy then the rule should require courtesy, period.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Somehow, Dag, I doubt you know any so-called fundamentalist Muslims (by "so-called" I mean to imply that exactly how to define them is difficult, but that "fundamentalist" gives a good general idea of the sect), given that they wouldn't associate with your Christian self. These are the type of people who think it's perfectly acceptable to kill non-Muslim and that Salman Rushdie should die a very painful death, soon.
I don't have a source for that fact, since I heard about it in a lecture of my Radical Islam class, and then again in some lecture at Georgetown I attended. I can ask around from some of my Muslim friends or friends studying Islam to see if they know of a printed or Internet source.
To address your first point, my argument is completely based on the dictionary definition that Rabbit pulled out to get people to stop oppressing her. Based on a dictionary definition, I'm led to the conclusion I discussed above. Of course, I doubt that the dictionary definition of profane is the one the TOS references - I doubt the TOS rule means, in essence, much more than "don't say shitty things to each other." But Rabbit threw the terms of the argument into dictionary definitions, which is where I get my absurd conclusion. Basically, I'm just calling her argument stupid. Like someone (Sam?) said, she should have just appealed to common curtsy, rather than trying to throw a rule book around by brute force. Sucks to her assmar.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: As you've outlined it, you're using an extreme perspective of the word profane.
Why is it extreme? What is your definition of extreme?
I'm not being glib because I could certainly choose to get genuinely quite offended over the use of the word concession both as a student of history and as a person who has heard stories from family who lived in concessions.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
And what I just did is take YOUR example to the absurd. You used the wrong definition of the word, or at least the least common definition, and tried to prove someone was wrong when they used it in common context.
It had nothing to do with being or not being offended. It was simply a way to make a point. D
Also, it is a far less insulting word in the English language....in common usage...than using a religious figures name as an explicative, which is what started this whole tangent.
It is possible to use the word YOU object to completely in context, and correctly, without ever intending or realizing it's negative connotations.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: It had nothing to do with being or not being offended. It was simply a way to make a point.
This is quite plainly wrong. I can choose to be quite offended *as well* as making a point. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
quote: Also, it is a far less insulting word in the English language....in common usage...than using a religious figures name as an explicative, which is what started this whole tangent.
It is far less insulting in your perspective. Not mine. In mine, I find references to colonialism which affected real actual people far more insulting than insults directed to fictional entities.
Your dictionary definitions aren't helpful, consider a phrase like "I'm not a racist. I have a black friend." Even though that is very offensive, it is not obvious by simple definitions. The connotations are very important.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: What we really need is someone (I nominate Orincoro) to tell us what is and isn't funny.
I accept. My first act as decider of funniness (DOF) is to inform you that you are not funny. Moreover, you do not have a good sense of humor, and so it is my judgment, as DOF, that you may not dictate the terms of funniness, nor make claims as to the funniness of others. This judgment may only, and even then in but rare cases, be appealed through a witty quip or a humorous turn of phrase. Failure to properly, and humorously, structure your response will result in a hilariously scathing denial of your appeal.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: It had nothing to do with being or not being offended. It was simply a way to make a point.
This is quite plainly wrong. I can choose to be quite offended *as well* as making a point. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
quote: Also, it is a far less insulting word in the English language....in common usage...than using a religious figures name as an explicative, which is what started this whole tangent.
It is far less insulting in your perspective. Not mine. In mine, I find references to colonialism which affected real actual people far more insulting than insults directed to fictional entities.
No, it's isn't. I am NOT a racist...and I have a black friend. More than one. It is a logical fallacy to say that if I have a friend who is black I can't be a racist. Anything more than that is your problem, not mine.
Of course, that is hardly the ONLY point I could make. Anyone calling me a racist obviously has little to no grasp of reality, and has probably never met me in person.
It is far more obvious when a person says Jesus' name (or any deity, substitute that at will, it doesn't matter to the point I am making) as an exclamation...because the entire POINT of using it exclamatory is to startle and get a reaction. It it wasn't you would just yell YOUR name in the middle of an unrelated conversation.
The point I was making...I wasn't referring any point you had tried to make, you just assumed I was....was that it is highly ironic that you don;t see why someone would be offended by other first example, yet you are so highly offended by the use of another word which IS correct, factual, and holds no derogatory connotations to 99.9% of people who use it.
It is FAR more likely that the word concession, used in this context is not intended insult someone, or deride their beliefs, than it is when a deity's name is used "in vain". It wouldn't be used for shock value, it wouldn't be offensive to a LARGE majority of English speakers (most of whom would be completely ignorant of the history of the word, and there fore couldn't INTEND it to be insulting), and actually refers to the point under discussion.
Talk about reductio ad absurdum.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
Why is it a logical fallacy to say that if I have a friend who is black I can't be a racist?
Not disagreeing, I just can't think of good reasons.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I accept. My first act as decider of funniness (DOF) is to inform you that you are not funny. Moreover, you do not have a good sense of humor, and so it is my judgment, as DOF, that you may not dictate the terms of funniness, nor make claims as to the funniness of others. This judgment may only, and even then in but rare cases, be appealed through a witty quip or a humorous turn of phrase. Failure to properly, and humorously, structure your response will result in a hilariously scathing denial of your appeal.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
You could believe that all black people are stupid compared to white people, but still have on as a friend 'cause you genuinely like not-bright people.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: No, it's isn't. I am NOT a racist ...
Ok, the only reason I noted that phrase was to point out an example that has been proven to be deeply offensive to many but is not obvious using the dictionary. I appreciate your eagerness to point out that you're not a racist, but its not actually relevant to the point.
quote:It is far more obvious when a person says Jesus' name (or any deity, substitute that at will, it doesn't matter to the point I am making) as an exclamation...because the entire POINT of using it exclamatory is to startle and get a reaction.
Really? The entire POINT, you say. Of course the liberal use of capitalized words in your posts is terribly convincing, but I must disagree.
Consider the whole reason for our discussion. Samprimary from context said something like "haha holy Yehsou* dude. like it's impossible that we're both night owls with a lot of overlap in forum browsing time"
* Cantonese word for Christ, if we must censor ourselves
Was Samprimary using it to startle and to get a reaction, or simply to express his own exasperation? It is not clear to me. Especially since he noted that he would be fine with "holy Xenu" which seems to indicate that the deity is arbitrary.
Also consider someone that stubs their toe, "Jesus Christ!" to themselves or someone that finds out they failed a test, "For Heaven's sake...", or a medical doctor that gets an unreasonable request, "God damnit Jim! I'm a doctor, not a..."
Exasperation not intended to startle is a clear alternative to any intended "shock value".
quote: ... yet you are so highly offended by the use of another word which IS correct, factual, and holds no derogatory connotations to 99.9% of people who use it.
Ah numbers. So a word that holds no derogatory connotations to 99.9% of English speakers but is derogatory to 0.1% is acceptable. Ok, what about a 90% to 10% split? What about a 50.1% to 49.9% split?
What is your cut-off for the proportion of English speakers that have to find it offensive in order for it to be banned?
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmer's Glue: Why is it a logical fallacy to say that if I have a friend who is black I can't be a racist?
Not disagreeing, I just can't think of good reasons.
Because friendship is based on observations about an individual, whereas racism is based on generalizations about an entire group.
A person can hold prejudices toward a group which have nothing to do with whether or not he will befriend individual members of the group.
--j_k
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Yes...shock is why exclamations are used, for emphasis. People DON'T use their own name in than manner because it doesn't have any impact.
As far as the racism pint..I know, I was just refuting the point you made specifically using the same example. similar logic can be used in similar situations.
One of the points i feel has been overlooked is the mechanism that this site uses to let someone know iif something is considered profane by them, and therefore a violation of the TOC.
They tell us, then expect us to believe them and act accordingly.
No one is banned, no scarlet letter is placed next to their name. No one ignores then solely based on that because the forum mod tells them too.
They tell us.
I don't have to agree with everything, but I do try and follow most of the rules most of the time. I think I have gotten ONE email in 8 years asking me to tone it down...and the letter mad it clear that while I was not in the wrong, it would be better to back the situation down than escalate it.
In a normal conversatio with you, if you told me you had a problem wiht that word, I'd probably use anohter. But we were in a discussion about WHY words offend, and I was talking inn context wiht that, which is why I pointed out a few things I noticed. I don;t care about being PC, per se. I don't ALWAYS even care about being polite, if I feel teh other person isn't extending em the same courtesy.
But IRL I would have disagreed with your interpretation, and explained what i MEANT by using it. If you decided to continue to be offended, I'd be fine with it. If we were extending each other consideration (and I bet we would) we'd both move on to other topics....maybe even the history of the word and the historical facts behind why it means different things to you than to me.
There isn't a specific number or percent that makes the determination, at least for me. However, there IS the fact that common usage usually prevails in common conversation.
You can't please everyone...but when simply refraining from a specific word makes conversation more pleasant, I usually go with it. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I'd only quibble with that to say that I grew up with a father who used the word "Christ," as an exclamation, and at least in that context, not a public one, the intention was not to be offensive or evocative of anything, because the family did not have a particularly religious or Jesus-centered life. What other meanings could be attached to it in other circumstances were not meaningful to me as a child, and to a certain extent, though I appreciate the meaning of the word to others *intellectually* it doesn't register to me, and so I still use it casually amongst my family, or people I know. I've never given much thought to it.
Now here, I might have used it once or twice, I can't be sure, but I have probably adapted to the comfort of others in this forum, and adopted an attitude to the word similar to that of others for the sake of communication. I think we as a group (and especially long-term regulars) fall into a pattern of communication that is, in its way, unique to this community; and in doing so, we adopt certain conventions of language that are not dependent upon the significance of the words, but rather on the need to communicate. That is why, I think, we can know the "line" when we cross it, and so we can use that line as effectively as we use less aggressive aspects of our common communicative tools. Now, I don't expect anyone here to follow an arbitrary and prohibitive set of rules, simply because I don't think we have such a working system (although we do have a TOS). Though the TOS is there, I think the "rules" we follow are naturally developed patterns that work for us (and sometimes don't work). As such, I don't say the same things here that I say in other circumstances, and I expect that others will follow these same conventions, because that has been my experience.
In all of that, I still have no deep respect for the power of the words or their meanings, but I do have respect for the communicative conventions of the forum, my awareness of which has grown over time. If any of us could look back on the way we posted when we first started posting, I think we'd see a marked difference in not only our language, but our ability to communicate. I find this particularly true in my case, and I think Blayne is an even more obvious example.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:So, no, Rabbit, I wasn't just being excessively hyperbolic. What I am doing is a very common argument in philosophy - push a rule or belief to its limit, and see if it results in an absurd conclusion. The idea that any "profane" statement is not to be allowed, when pushed to its limit, results an absurd conclusion.
There are at least two serious logical fallacies in your arguments. The reductio ad absurdum is only valid as a logical test is if the reduction does not significantly alter the intent of the original statement. What you have done is to build a strawman argument and show that it leads to irrational conclusions.
quote:To address your first point, my argument is completely based on the dictionary definition that Rabbit pulled out to get people to stop oppressing her.
My intent in posting a dictionary definition of "profane" was only to show that "the taking of God's name in vane" (as emphasized by the esp. in that definition) was in fact commonly understood to be "profane" and not some extremist notion that I had just introduced. I was not introducing a definition to be used as the starting point for a logical debate nor did I imply such a thing. My argument is quite simple. 1. The TOS specifically prohibits the use of profane language and 2. In the English language, using the name of Christ as an expletive is commonly understood to be profane.
And I never claimed any one was "oppressing" me. Offending, yes. In using the word "oppressing" you are building another strawman, exaggerating both my words and my intent in order to make them easier to criticize.
quote:Based on a dictionary definition, I'm led to the conclusion I discussed above. Of course, I doubt that the dictionary definition of profane is the one the TOS references - I doubt the TOS rule means, in essence, much more than "don't say shitty things to each other."
Once again you are building a strawman. I never claimed that the TOS was using this specific definition of profane, in fact I said that explicitly in my post. I produced it as an example which among other things says that profane is especially used in later times to refer to taking of God's name in vain. In other words, the phrase contained in Sam's post is commonly understood and profane in the English language. I never intended more than that when I posted the dictionary definition.
quote:But Rabbit threw the terms of the argument into dictionary definitions, which is where I get my absurd conclusion. Basically, I'm just calling her argument stupid. Like someone (Sam?) said, she should have just appealed to common curtsy, rather than trying to throw a rule book around by brute force. Sucks to her assmar.
No, basically, you are making up an argument that I never posted, assigning it to me so that you can justify the boorishness of those who insulted me and add a few more insults of your own. As Papa confirmed, I was not incorrect in my assumption that this violated the TOS.
I didn't try to "throw a rule book around" nor could anything I've said or done be considered "brute force". I politely pointed out that what he said was in violation of the rules. I was correct, it is in violation of the rules. When that comment was met with mockery, I politely pointed out that Sam was showing disrespect for something I personal consider to be sacred. Several members of this forum have agreed that my posts were polite.
Finally I will add that in your original argument, you are presenting a false dicotomy. You have implied that the site's rule prohibiting "profanity" is either "a specific Christian prohibition" or it must prohibit all things that might be viewed as offensive to any religious person. There is a reasonable middle ground interpretation of this rule and no reason to conclude that it has a specific Christian bias.
If members of the forum have expressed contempt for things that non-Christian members of this forum hold sacred, I hope that they would also be chastised for breaking the forum rules. I can't see that as unduly restrictive on civil discourse.
[ December 01, 2008, 02:32 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
And Rabbit, I can name several specific instances when someone DID step in from this site to defend a non-christian's right to post where under the same type of protection.
I agree with you, even though the words used like that don;t offend me personally. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I didn't try to "throw a rule book around"
You kind of did exactly that. You even told me a mod was going to change my post if I didn't, immediately afterward.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Sam,
Be polite and curb your words. It's the grown up thing to do.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)