quote: I seriously doubt most people cry out the Lord's name in anger expecting a resounding "What?" from heaven....
It hasn't happened yet. But that doesn't mean I won't keep trying.
I do know that if that ever happens, the words coming out of my mouth at that moment "Holy..." well, I can't type here what I'd say. If that happened, I think I'd gain a true understanding of what "awesome" really is.
But the thing is...if someone is praying, do they pray each time so they hear a voice from the heavens? Some people might, some people might not.
I dunno. If I have a friend pull off an incredible stunt and I say "JESUS CHRIST!" in astonishment and have Jesus say, "Yeah, I couldn't believe that EITHER!" thatd be pretty cool.
I've noticed that swearing on the East Coast is much more prevalent than say, the west (not the west COAST) and the midwest. That my watching Napoleon Dynamite and thinking the language wasn't realistic was a matter of where I grew up. Garden State held more realism for me, and part of that realism was contained in the language. In some ways, swearing here doesn't carry the same gravity. Or does. I don't know. A swear can be some twisted form of a term of endearment for a friend OR something that's meant to hurt. Versatility of language, I suppose.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Swearing is a lot more prevalent in the east. I grew up there and I used to argue with my friends a lot about whether not swearing was a matter of simply being well-mannered. Some of them thought it was a way to assert their feminine power, to not act ladylike. I thought it was a matter of being articulate and not speaking from the limbic node.
I pray out of respect and gratitude the majority of the time. I haven't had much in the way of voices from heaven, but I do look for a general feeling of peacefulness. I may not pray expecting those things, but it's nice to get them anyway. In real life, straight lines between two points seldom apply.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
1. Actually, writing out "God" does make me a little uncomfortable, probably for the same reasons it is supposed to bother Jews. That's why I usually refer to the Lord. The OT does it - that's the best I can do. Unless I start calling him Snuffles.
2.
quote:Hey, I hid those pictures because I was giving kat impure thoughts.
Dagnabbit Frisco, where is this coming from? I don't think I was there for any of these conversations. As far as I know, my official, consistently-expressed stance is that I have no idea what pictures you are referring to.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Katie, you could always start referring to Him as The Name -- that's a literal translation of Hashem, which is how most Orthodox Jews would refer to him most of the time.
posted
Hmm...nah. I'm almost afraid to say it because it could be taken badly, but in my head, that sounds like He Who Must Not Be Named, which means Voldemort.
I do sort of like Snuffles, though. Probably won't use it - not terribly respectful.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's also the most common appellation among Yiddish speakers: the Aibishter. Literally, the Boss. As elaborated upon in this book.
And thanks, Katie. You know every time I mention Hashem for the next couple days I will have to suppress a silly little grin? Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, that's the best idea I've ever heard. It should spice up my prayers too.
"Dear Sky Captain, please bless this food so my body is nourished, and please destroy those giant robots attacking my neighbor's house."
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: . Actually, writing out "God" does make me a little uncomfortable, probably for the same reasons it is supposed to bother Jews. That's why I usually refer to the Lord. The OT does it - that's the best I can do. Unless I start calling him Snuffles.
Kat made a funny. Go, Kat, go! Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you doing that thing where you single out and pull the hair of the girl you like again, Stormy?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seriously, Stormy - in a board full of half-serious amateur jesters, is there any reason you are running around after me?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't tell if you're serious, Kat, so I don't know if I should be snarky in a kind of, jeez, what is this girl smoking way, which is what my reply to your post would be if you are serious, or flippant, which is what my reply would be if it's not. So, please create the kind of reply in your mind which is most likely to result in a harmonious conclusion to the thread.
And people say I can't be diplomatic. Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
p.s. I am posting on very little sleep, so underhanded, subtle humour pretty much not going to register with me.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I had this toy, playful penguins. I could watch it for hours on end. the sound effects were a detriment to my mother's sanity. The pengins were plastic mounted on ball bearings and the mechanism hopped them up this series of steps and when they got to the top there was this windy slide down, and then they'd do it all over again.
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
man... its absurd how PC we are all getting.
oh, i wanted to tell you all, I'm part of a little known religion called "anti-the-ism". in my religion, it is considered a sin, and a great offense to use the word "the". i would appreciate it if you would all stop using the word in question. it pains me to even have to write this, as i have had to use the "T" word several times. i'll be back shortly, after i finish the ritual cleaning proceedure that must be followed after uttering the unholy "the".
so according to the user agreement, you guys can't say "the" anymore
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, I have an idea! Let's make up nonsensical crap that's completely out of proportion to the original request and pretend we've made a substantive argument!
Look, she asked that we stop using certain swear words because a lot of people are offended by them. That's it. That's all. How this got to be such a thing is completely beyond me. There are already numerous swear words we're not allowed to say here, such as a certain monosyllable having to do with the sex act. Does the fact that we can't say it here reflect anyone's attitude toward sex? No; it's just that the word is offensive, so out of respect for the people who are offended by it, we're not supposed to use it.
It was a very simple request, and until an official rule is made about it, you are free to comply with or ignore the request at your discretion. Reductio ad absurdum never got anyone anywhere, so give it up. All that ends up actually looking absurd is yourself. The difference between watching your language because it offends a lot of people and banning everything because someone wants to be pissy is a vast and unbridgable chasm.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You may also notice that quidscribis has not posted since the 8th/9th (it was just after midnight Hatrack time), in this thread.
Thanks ever so much to those who felt the need to make this an issue. You've driven off one my favorite posters -- and I don't think just mine.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Verily the Younger: Hey, I have an idea! Let's make up nonsensical crap that's completely out of proportion to the original request and pretend we've made a substantive argument!
Look, she asked that we stop using certain swear words because a lot of people are offended by them. That's it. That's all. How this got to be such a thing is completely beyond me. There are already numerous swear words we're not allowed to say here, such as a certain monosyllable having to do with the sex act. Does the fact that we can't say it here reflect anyone's attitude toward sex? No; it's just that the word is offensive, so out of respect for the people who are offended by it, we're not supposed to use it.
It was a very simple request, and until an official rule is made about it, you are free to comply with or ignore the request at your discretion. Reductio ad absurdum never got anyone anywhere, so give it up. All that ends up actually looking absurd is yourself. The difference between watching your language because it offends a lot of people and banning everything because someone wants to be pissy is a vast and unbridgable chasm.
i dont think you understood the point of the example. for people like me, using the word God, in the context of "oh my god", or "god, i forgot to do this!", etc. carries just as much value as the word "the". it had nothing to do with any specific diety, it is merely a term that we have picked up due to its prevalent use in our culture.
i agree that even thought i might not find something like God Dammit, or Jesus Christ! offensive, some people do, because in that case, it is used in a context that lends it self to be offensive, where as the others do not AT ALL. so for things like JC and GD, i have no problem not using them if some people are offended, but when people start to complain about the mear presence of the word God in any non-religious context, and claim that that is swearing and offensive, it becomes ridiculous.
people just need to relax a little, that is all im saying. i know my post stank of slippery slope, but thats how i see it (somewhat).
EDIT: the reason this post got heated is because people felt that for someone to ask another person to not use a common and innofensive figure of speach, just beacuse they are super sentitive to such things, was ludicrous. and then when that got even further to an actual moderator commenting on the use of "oh my gawd", it got stupid.
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:for people like me, using the word God, in the context of "oh my god", or "god, i forgot to do this!", etc. carries just as much value as the word "the".
You mean you have absolutely no other way to express surprise, in the same way that there is no substitute for the definite article of the English language?
I think you don't understand either the point of the objection or the inadequacy of your example.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:for people like me, using the word God, in the context of "oh my god", or "god, i forgot to do this!", etc. carries just as much value as the word "the".
You mean you have absolutely no other way to express surprise, in the same way that there is no substitute for the definite article of the English language?
I think you don't understand either the point of the objection or the inadequacy of your example.
no, i mean that the word "god" is no more value loaded than the word "the", as in i do not find the word god more or less offensive or controversial then the word the. with that in mind, it is just as weird for someone to ask us to stop using the word "god" in non-religious innofensive contexts than for the word "the". its just an example, i could have used any word, but i thought it made the post more humorous to use "the". cool?
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, I think that some people honestly don't know how else to express surprise. And perhaps for them, this request seriously cramps their style.
Angio, then your point would be better made by chosing a word that can easily be substituted. "The" doesn't fit the bill.
As I said in my post several pages ago, the request was made, and if it is a change that you can easily make in the way you talk, it is a courteous thing to do. If it is too much effort to be worth the bother, then for you it is an unreasonable request. That's all there is to it.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:as in i do not find the word god more or less offensive or controversial then the word the
Good. But controversy is not about how you view something. It inherently involves the fact that you view things differently than someone else.
A person asked, as a favor, that you modify your language. She didn't ask that you be tarred and feathered. She didn't ask that you be banned. She simply asked that a certain word not be used in a certain way. Considering this is not only typed content but editable, there's really no excuse other than flat out not caring about her feelings to act as you have here.
Good. That tells me a lot more about you than it does about Quid.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Considering this is not only typed content but editable, there's really no excuse other than flat out not caring about her feelings to act as you have here.
This line of thinking is probably not productive, since accusations can be made in either direction about whether feelings are being cared for. For instance, while I care about Quid's feelings, I also have an ideal of an open, heterogenous society that I feel strongly about. Is anyone who doesn't feel as I do disregarding my feelings? Maybe. Or maybe they just have different principles than I do. If I ask that people tolerate how I speak, and they don't, aren't they disregarding my feelings? Maybe. Or maybe they just believe differently than I do and disagree with me in that one instance, but otherwise care about my feelings.
I only mention this because your particular belief, that people who don't do as Quid asks don't care about her or her feelings, has been stated several times in this thread. I've tried to reply several times to it, but just didn't want to get involved in the whole argument of which feeling is more important or whether feeling one way or another was really warranted. As PJ said several pages back, we'd just be talking past each other.
I think a good compromise solution for her and I would have been that I just not use the word 'God' when I was speaking directly to Quid, but otherwise would have used that word when speaking in general or to someone else.
Unfortunately, if I am reading PJ correctly, I believe that choice is no longer available unless I want to risk official sanction. Since I don't, I guess I'll just have to go along.
As I stated earlier, I do like Quid and I do hope she doesn't leave because of this thread, which I think has been enlightening, thought provoking, and basically free of animus for all concerned.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Considering this is not only typed content but editable, there's really no excuse other than flat out not caring about her feelings to act as you have here.
This presupposes that there aren't other concerns besides quid's upset feelings active here. It's entirely possible to do something that upsets someone else, that you knew would upset them, and still care about their feelings. A large part of the protest here is about the enshrining of people (and especially just the Christian people) being upset as an overwhelming reason not to do something.
I don't think that this is a healthy social idea to have and I'm worried that it has now in part been made an official part of the rules. If there has been an official endorsement of this idea or of the somewhat pervasive one that Christianity (and to a lesser extent Judaism and Islam) are the only real religions, I don't know that Hatrack is going to remain a place where I feel comfortable.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:as in i do not find the word god more or less offensive or controversial then the word the
Good. But controversy is not about how you view something. It inherently involves the fact that you view things differently than someone else.
A person asked, as a favor, that you modify your language. She didn't ask that you be tarred and feathered. She didn't ask that you be banned. She simply asked that a certain word not be used in a certain way. Considering this is not only typed content but editable, there's really no excuse other than flat out not caring about her feelings to act as you have here.
Good. That tells me a lot more about you than it does about Quid.
i believe that the point is that it's an unreasonable request, akin to someone asking Ang to stop using the word "the", not because there are substitutes for the figure of speach "oh my god", or "god, im so late", and not for "the", but because both of those terms have absolutely no offensive content whatsoever in the contexts mentioned. some words we can agree are universally offensive, like the ones that are banned in this forum, but others, such as God, used in specifically non offensive contexts, are not offensive in any way. for someone to say that they are personally offended by these uses of the word God, and ask that we all stop using the word is extremely selfish and self-centered. This person believes that just because they find offense in something that isnt intended as offense in the least bit, nor is regarded as offensive, due to its prevalent use in daily discourse between millions of people (believers and non-believers alike), that they have the right to demand others to change their ways. This opinion actually speaks much more about the person defending it, rather than those attacking it, for it shows that said person feels they are above all others, that their beliefs (however ridiculous they are) are worth more, and that we should all adjust our behavior to conform to their beliefs.
that is why people see a "slippery slope" as mentined before, because if people start getting offended by completely mundane words and demanding that we stop saying them, things could get out of hand
Posts: 46 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Considering this is not only typed content but editable, there's really no excuse other than flat out not caring about her feelings to act as you have here.
I only mention this because your particular belief, that people who don't do as Quid asks don't care about her or her feelings, has been stated several times in this thread.
quote:This presupposes that there aren't other concerns besides quid's upset feelings active here. It's entirely possible to do something that upsets someone else, that you knew would upset them, and still care about their feelings.
And anyone who makes the case that this is the equivalent of banning the word "the" is clearly not operating from that perspective, Squick and Storm. He purposefully took a word for which no functional replacement exists and equated it to interjections which are, generally, surprised out of people. That is not caring about their feelings; it's not even understanding their feelings.
Come on, guys, the portion you quoted is actually directed at a specific person and his specific actions in this thread. If you want to attack what I say as an overgeneralization, you need to do a better job of taking what I say out of context.
quote: such as God, used in specifically non offensive contexts
Have you missed the part where a large portion of the board does not consider this non-offensive?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
A while ago Lalo started a thread called "Good G**, OSC!" or something along those lines, with the word "god" written out in allcaps. The thread title was edited by KHJ to "Good ..., OSC!" since lots of people were offended by it. I think that's fine, and Pop is being even less hands-on here.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
of course it's in a non-offensive context. if i was saying, "oh my god! look at that large bird!", there is absolutely NOTHING offensive about the *context*. there might be something offensive about the actual word to certain people, but not one person could present a cogent argument supporting that the actual context was offensive.
it boils down to people being extremely oversensitive and self-centered, demanding that other people completely change their behaviors and lives (im making a more general statement here, which im telling you guys for the sake of avoiding retorts on this specific aspect of my post) just to make certain childish people happy. its unecessary, and stupid. if i said that the word God in general, used in ANY context, even when talking about the xian God was offensice to me because im an atheist and i consider any mention whatsoever of god to be offensive and hurtful to my sense of rationlism, you would all laugh at me.
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:but because both of those terms have absolutely no offensive content whatsoever in the contexts mentioned.
Just because you personally are not offended by it, that makes it universally and absolutely inoffensive? I would say it's entirely a matter of perspective. The salient point here is that it doesn't matter who is not offended by it. I myself am not offended by it; I myself use such constructions all the time in my real life--unless I am within earshot of someone known to be offended by it, at which point I watch my language out of respect for them.
The fact that you and I and a host of other people are not offended by these phrases is more or less irrelevant. The fact is, a lot of people are offended by it. Legitimately offended, not fake pissy-offended like some people are acting. And if you doubt that anyone is offended by it, then I strongly urge you to read this thread. You'll see from the very first post that the inoffensiveness of the phrases is not an absolute.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:it boils down to people being extremely oversensitive and self-centered, demanding that other people completely change their behaviors and lives (im making a more general statement here, which im telling you guys for the sake of avoiding retorts on this specific aspect of my post) just to make certain childish people happy.
You want to know what I consider childish and self-centered? Pretending to be offended by the word "the" just so you can mock a person who has made a simple request that people try to be more careful about which obscenities they choose. As I said before, no official ruling has been made, and you're perfectly free to ignore the request. But attacking quid over and over like this and reducing her argument into absurdity just to make her look like a buffoon because you personally are not offended by a word that does offend her, is childish and self-centered.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Angiomorphism, you're making me annoyed that I am on the same side of the neutral zone of this issue as you are.
I remain uncomfortable and uncertain about this entire issue because of the arbitrary enforcement (moderator action requires either shrieking thread titles or individuals being offended enough to complain), and the exclusion implied by making the word used in exclamation as obscene. If the word G-d when used as an exclamation or emphasis or other non-religious discussion, then by definition I believe atheists and agnostics are being excluded and infringed upon, to some extent.
Not that it's used very often, but suppose I were to call someone a g-dless heathen? Obviously that's an insult and could've come under moderator scrutiny before just for being such a direct personal attack, but would it now come under additional scrutiny because it suggests the lack of belief in G-d is a personality flaw?
As far as profanity is concerned, I get uncomfortable when people tell other people what to say beyond 'secular' obscenities. You know, Carlin's seven words, that sort of thing. Perhaps due to decades of areligiousness, I have an instint of not fitting in when such things happen. It's not major, it's very mild. Disconcerting, sometimes.
The discomfort also comes from the fact that I am no longer supposed to use the deity as profanity, for religious reasons. It's a habit I've cut down drastically, but I still do it on occassion.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't imagine that anyone was bothered by the request. I think if this thread was just "FYI - the word "god", when used in a non-religious context, offends me and I would appreciate it if everyone would monitor how they use it in deference to the religious people on the board", everyone would be fine with that.
It's someone asking you a favor to moderate your language, and if they ask nicely, most people will probably do it.
It was when we got into whether or not "god" was a swear word, and thus, inappropriate re: user agreement that things took a turn. That's a totally separate discussion.
I will happily make sure I never use the phrase "oh my god!" on hatrack (if I ever have) because I know it makes some people cringe. But when it's said that there is something wrong with using the word "god" in that context, that makes me crazy. Because that's a judgement, and a subjective one. It may be wrong to some people, and not to others.
And I understand that, but I also understand that how you refer to "god" is no one's business but yours. This board is slightly different than a face to face conversation, because everyone in a thread "talks" to everyone else, thus making it harder to avoid people/language that offends you.
But the argument isn't with the request, it's with the judgement applied to whether or not the common usage is "taking the lord's name in vain".
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
you guys dont get it. the reason i used such a ludrcrous example was so that i could portray my feelings at such a request. for ME (i never claimed to be speaking for anyone else), someone asking me to say something that is totally innofensive in CONTEXT (not the actual word, but the CONTEXT!), is just as dumb as me asking you not to use the word "the". its an example (and an extreme one) to express my feelings towards this type of request. you might want to think that i am against this type of thing becasue i dont respect others feelings, or have some issue with religious people, but that simply isnt the case. its a matter of principle. this request is an example of someone else trying to enforce their beliefs on me, as well as others, becaus the only reason the poster is offended by the use of the word God (and common, do we really need to write G*d) is because he/she holds certain religious beliefs that lend him/her to be offended. saying "oh my god" is in NO context meant to be (or in my opinion, in general) offensive. it is a figure of speach that has evolved over many years to be included in the english language (as well as in french (mon dieu!) and many others), and it is not going away any time soon. it is simply a way to express surprise, and there is no reason for somenoe to demand (or ask) that we stop using it, because to be offended by it (again, i really dnot see why i have to continue to add that this is MY opinion..when i talk, im always talking for myself, so people who respond my saying, well thats what you think, are just wasting their energy) is juvenile, and whats more, to ask people to stop using it beacuse of said childish offense is just frustrating.
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The fact that you continue to refer to it as "childish offense" means that you don't respect others' feelings. It's really that simple. Quid is a grownup. She has these feelings. You call them childish. Is that respect?
By the way, here are some capital letters. You seem to have only a sporadic supply.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
