Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

No, because there's no context in which those words are best used, as opposed to some other term. There are multiple contexts in which slowed is the most appropriate term.

They don't now just as within a generation slow likely won't. I just want to expedite the process to remove the double standard of oxymoronic situational taboos. After that I won't have to deal with it again for another 30 years.

Because all we'd be doing is cutting out the option to use the term properly. As it is the mods are still free to edit posts using the term offensively, and punish those who act on it.

You admitted yourself that they aren't particularly good at that exist act.

Only if you ignore the wide range of manners that have nothing to do with your choice of words. And ignore the wide range of areas of political correctness that have nothing to do with manners. And you ignore the number of people who like to pretend they're resisting some kind of political correctness police when all they're doing is being an ill-mannered jerk.

All of which is doing nothing but stripping meaning away from both concepts.

So political and social correctness are disparate concepts then? I was under the assumption that political correctness encompassed the spectrum of behavior and views as seen within the socio political environment we exist in. How can manners exist if not as an extension of the politics of society? Doesn't separating the two deny them of their inherent traits?

Crablezworth wrote:"The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words." - Philip K. Dick.

An excellent quote.

And utterly inapplicable to the policy on Dakka regarding the use of the terms "slow" and "slowed."

Scythian, Sebster, and Yakface (among others) have well-explained the policy, the reasoning behind it, and the benefits of it and of courtesy and politeness in general.

Anyone still unable to comprehend the concept would be well-advised to step away from the computer for a while and contemplate the subject, maybe re-read those three people's posts in this thread (particularly the site owner's, which as usual is expressed in a detailed, courteous, respectful manner, and explains the benefits to you), and think about them a little more.

If you still don't get it, you may want to reconsider any form of social interaction with strangers. Much less trying to use the Internet.

Bakerofish wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Few words are created with the intention of being insults. Most become such by the process I've described.

exactly and should you really filter all of them as they become insults?

how is one supposed to redeem a word then if it isnt given a chance to be used in the proper context?

Words don't get redeemed, they just become disused and rejuvenated or suppressed and altered.

Crablezworth wrote:"The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words." - Philip K. Dick.

If people have such poor use of the language that they are incapable of describing a foolish decision or clumsy effort without using the word slowed, I'd say that there'd be no need or point to attempting to control them, for they have already made themselves idiots.

But go ahead and fight the power. You ain't gonna be controlled the man.

So we should self censor ourselves because someone out there utilizing the internet may have a child or work with children who have... let me see here.. uh what's a safe word.. uh I guess "special needs"?

Despite it being explained several times, you've completely missed the point that using the word slowed to describe a child that is developmentally slowed is perfectly legitimate use of the term, and the very reason the word is not limited under the word filter.

In future, please read the thread before you unleash your canned opinions.

I think calling someone with special needs or another forum member a slow is horrible and childish, with that said I personally use the word "slowed" all the time. For example "what the republicans just did in wisconsin is slowed".

Ummm, calling certain special needs children slowed is the actual, correct use of the term. Using it as a general term of abuse for stupid actions is not.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Bakerofish wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Few words are created with the intention of being insults. Most become such by the process I've described.

exactly and should you really filter all of them as they become insults?

how is one supposed to redeem a word then if it isnt given a chance to be used in the proper context?

Words don't get redeemed, they just become disused and rejuvenated or suppressed and altered.

so instead of answering my question you just chose to nitpick my vocabulary

great

okay ill play your game

how is one supposed to rejuvenate a word then if it isnt given a chance to be used in the proper context?

"You ain't gonna be controlled the man."

?

Please lecture me some more.

Crablezworth, please follow my advice and re-read Yakface's post. The site owner has taken the time to very patiently and politely explain it to you, for your benefit.

If you still do not get it, please take some time away from the computer to think about it.

ShumaGorath wrote:They don't now just as within a generation slow likely won't. I just want to expedite the process to remove the double standard of oxymoronic situational taboos. After that I won't have to deal with it again for another 30 years.

Then all you do is increase the cycle in which new words are adopted as the old one is surrendered.

Meanwhile there's more people being pointlessly offended. It's not exactly the good fight, is it?

You admitted yourself that they aren't particularly good at that exist act.

And pointed out that the answer isn't to put words with legitimate meanings into the word filter.

So political and social correctness are disparate concepts then? I was under the assumption that political correctness encompassed the spectrum of behavior and views as seen within the socio political environment we exist in. How can manners exist if not as an extension of the politics of society? Doesn't separating the two deny them of their inherent traits?

That has nothing to do with the point I was making.

To give a simple example, a scientific study can be accused of political correctness when it fails to properly consider evidence that goes against popular thinking. For instance, failing to publish or minimising findings that show IQ differences between ethnic groups. This is not manners, and describing it as such makes no sense.

To give an example the other way, looking at someone when they're talking to you is good manners, but has nothing to do with political correctness.

As such, pretending manners and political correctness are interchangeable strips meaning away from both terms.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Crablezworth wrote:Please lecture me some more.

If you keep making posts of the quality of that one above, you're going to keep getting lectured about basic concepts.

If you don't want to get lectured, spend the time to understand a topic properly before posting. Or at least, you know, read the thread.

I've received a warning, I don't recall making a personal attack on anyone, perhaps lecturing isn't viewed as polite discourse but I guess that's for the moderators to decide. I have read John's post and I think it's great to strive for polite discourse but I think there's a difference between flaming each other and expressing an opinion in a less than cromulent fashion. I'm still confused about a few issues so allow me to ask.

#1 If I use the word gay to insinuate I am of the opinion that something is lame will I be reprimanded?

#2 How is insinuating that I am of a lower moral character because of my use of words in anyway resembling the polite discourse that is being encouraged?

#3 How will overly polite discourse not be mistaken for passive agression?

Crablezworth wrote:So we should self censor ourselves because someone out there utilizing the internet may have a child or work with children who have... let me see here.. uh what's a safe word.. uh I guess "special needs"?

Is that really such a crazy idea?

Conforming to the social standard of a community is a very large part of being an accepted member of that community. Yes, that means that you should sometimes consider your potential audience before engaging your mouth. Or your fingers, in this particular case.

It's sad that basic courtesy would be seen as such a silly goal to strive for.

Crablezworth wrote:#1 If I use the word gay to insinuate I am of the opinion that something is lame will I be reprimanded?

Yes, as long as we see it. It's a closely-related thing. Using a term for a group of people as a pejorative, thus equating them with an insult.

Crablezworth wrote:#2 How is insinuating that I am of a lower moral character because of my use of words in anyway resembling the polite discourse that is being encouraged?

If someone insinuated that you are of lower moral character, be sure to hit the Alert Moderator button on that post, so we can deal with it.

Crablezworth wrote:#3 How will overly polite discourse not be mistaken for passive agression?

Did you perceive passive aggression in Yakface's post? I encourage you to follow his example. He normally strives to make his posts an example of the ideal tone.

This whole debate is not something I really need to worry about, as the term 'slowed' is regarded as completely offensive here in the UK. We generally use 'special educational needs' or ' learning difficulties' to describe the various conditions to which 'mentally slowed' could apply. Either that, or we just use the correct clinical term for the condition. That term would never be used in the SEN field over here. I wouldn't have a problem with the word being filtered out - there's literally zero reason to ever use it, unless, of course, you are referring to the word itself for some reason. We don't generally use the word 'handicapped' either - it's a bit old-fashioned and kind of trivialises disability.

If there is broad agreement that a word is unpleasant, why use it? That's the beauty of the English language - it's malleable.

The only thing that does bother me with regard to the word filter is the slang term for homosexual that rhymes with 'bag'. Yeah, that one. It's fairly widely used over here to refer to cigarettes. That reminds me, I must nip outside for a cigarette.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ha! it changed it for me. That's new!

Use the word in regards to something 'stupid' or 'lame' - and hope you are on the Net and not face to face with me.

My brother is a top dude, and can play Basketball like a champion, and I would jump in front of a Bus to save him.

It's as bad as the 'N' word, and beneath contempt when used inappropriately.

And normally, I'm a laid back, easy going guy.

Crablezworth - I've received a warning, I don't recall making a personal attack on anyone, perhaps lecturing isn't viewed as polite discourse but I guess that's for the moderators to decide. I have read John's post and I think it's great to strive for polite discourse but I think there's a difference between flaming each other and expressing an opinion in a less than cromulent fashion. I'm still confused about a few issues so allow me to ask.

#1 If I use the word gay to insinuate I am of the opinion that something is lame will I be reprimanded?

#2 How is insinuating that I am of a lower moral character because of my use of words in anyway resembling the polite discourse that is being encouraged?

#3 How will overly polite discourse not be mistaken for passive agression?

A wee bit OTT here. Stay cool please. Ta.

Why are terms like idiot, jerk, and stupid allowed? They have been used frequently on this thread. If you call some one who is mentally handicapped stupid is that less of an insult than slowed? really?

Politeness is all well and good but it is very selectively enforced on this issue. I'm trying to figure out why. From the answers so far there must be some kind of international PC movement I have been unaware of up until now.

"Ummm, calling certain special needs children slowed is the actual, correct use of the term." - actually this is the very worst way to use is isn't it? it's like using the f word to a homosexual or the n word to a black person.

Idiot is an interesting case, because it's original defintion was actually replaced by slowed, as was (IIRC) moron.

Dakka has a very superficial view of politiness, but it's still Rule #1. Enough people are offended by the term "slow" to make most uses of it impolite, and a violaion of the rule.

Mental Retardation is still a medical term, althouh used less in educaiton and treatement and more for disability. I have, today, read psychologists reports discussing a persons's mental retardation. It's what the government calls it, and it's what doctors that want to help people get benefits call it.

slow, as a term, is generally frowned upon, as part of the "people first" movement in disability. The idea is to not define people by their disability: "person with parapalegia" isntead of "parapalegic" or "cripple."

So, yes, there is an international PC movement you've been unaware of.

Yes I was aware it is bad form to call a slow person a slow, but I was unaware that this somehow was extended to include phrases like "these rules are slowed". I really don't get how someone other than the rules writer can be offended by that. Oh well...

Can we drop the internet tough-guy stuff, akira5665? It's daft.

I'm a daft person and I am offended that you use the term to apply to such behavior.

Really though I feel like the scene from the Shawshank redemption where he says the warden is being obtuse and then is completely mystified when the warden starts going crazy about it. It'd be one thing if the mods were equally policing all offensive words, but there is such an irrational response to the word slow that it's mystifying to me.

OK, I'll use the more politically correct term 'differently sensible'.

Better?

asmith wrote:I'm a daft person and I am offended that you use the term to apply to such behavior.

Really though I feel like the scene from the Shawshank redemption where he says the warden is being obtuse and then is completely mystified when the warden starts going crazy about it. It'd be one thing if the mods were equally policing all offensive words, but there is such an irrational response to the word slow that it's mystifying to me.

A lot of social constructs are mystifying. A lot of people find using the term casuallly and incorrectly offensive. I don't, but it's still polite to respect people's sensibilities.

There are a lot of reasons why it's offensive to people, and I'm sure they can be explained if you're actually curious.

http://www.r-word.org/

I haven't reviewed it, but I'm imagining they'll explain it.

Well this is one way to get slow posted all over the place

Steu wrote:Well this is one way to get slow posted all over the place

Well, it's not the word by itself though. Or even it's usage. Its misuage, particualry as an insult, that people find offensive.

I mean, I'm no fan of the euphamism treadmill myself, but part of being polite is respecting people, and so I do so.

Well this is one way to get slow posted all over the place

It's funny how attitudes change over time isn't it? slow means 'to diminish the velocity of; to render more late' and Retardation is 'the act of retarding; hindrance; delay' - but now everyone equates it to mental illness?
This reminds me of an old book I bought from a charity shop 'The Universal Home Lawyer' - I read and I like old books for some reason. If you'll all humour me I'll quote how they used to class Lunatics, leaving out all the lawful ramifications of how they ought to be treated:

(a) Idiots and imbeciles...
(b) Mental defectives (idiot, imbecile, feeble-minded person or moral imbecile)
(c) Dangerous persons...

Of course this is before psychiatry and before we knew much about mental illness, but it's pretty funny to me how we change and obscure words, distort their original meaning so much the the original meaning becomes void, even forgotten
So next time you want to call someone slow, just say they're "mentally defective".

Are people really that shocked that words have connotations and meanings that surpass original definitions?

warspawned wrote:So next time you want to call someone slow, just say they're "mentally defective".

Not on Dakka. Courtest and politeness, rule 1, is at the heart here. Any insult toward a person on here is usually going to be a violation of the rules.

Enforcement of Rule 1 is not perfect or omnipresent. 585 registered users are logged on right now (I'm not counting 3,772 guests, as they're not posting), and 5 Mods or Admins. We can't see everything. This is part of why the Alert Moderator button is important.

Enforcement can never be 100% consistent on everything we do see, either. The moderators have varying opinions on some stuff. Sometimes we have the time to read an entire thread and get the context of an argument, and sometimes we don't. Some posters may have existing histories which everyone else is likely unaware of which we take into account in adjudicating their disciplinary action. And sometimes we just make mistakes.

There's also a tradition on Dakka of allowing relatively heated debate, including to at least some extent the practice Centurian99 quotes in his sig from Starship Troopers- heaping scorn on an idea, if you don't attack the person. The line between those two can be a bit subjective, though, so opinions will legitimately differ. Most of the time we err on the side of caution.

I think that everyone on the moderator team is making a sincere effort, and that all of us are pretty decent at it, though some are still learning. There's little training. This is largely a pretty informal labor of love for us. But I think overall the results, in terms of the tone of the forum and the openness of discussion, are better than most places.

asmith wrote:I'm a daft person and I am offended that you use the term to apply to such behavior.

Really though I feel like the scene from the Shawshank redemption where he says the warden is being obtuse and then is completely mystified when the warden starts going crazy about it. It'd be one thing if the mods were equally policing all offensive words, but there is such an irrational response to the word slow that it's mystifying to me.

Dude, just accept it. Many of us find it offensive. It's the same with rape.

It is possible to discuss wargames without using the word slow to mean idiot.

Kilkrazy wrote:It is possible to discuss wargames without using the word slow to mean idiot.

Even if the two terms at various points meant the exact same thing. Which is why context matters.

Look at the word lame: it means the same thing as cripple, but nobody cares how you use the word lame, because no person has been called that in quite a while.

they still mean the exact same thing!

Kilkrazy wrote:
Dude, just accept it. Many of us find it offensive. It's the same with rape.

It is possible to discuss wargames without using the word slow to mean idiot.

This is where I am at, I actually find the second word you mention there KK much more offensive when used in a 'light' way, and will never find it acceptable.

Glad to see I'm not alone.

Sorry all, just to clarify my position.

I will never call anyone slowed or a slow, or even stupid (unless I know them really well & they do something that is really stupid). If I think it, I certainly will not type it. I recognise people are easily offended, although I am not (in fact I offend myself more than others do me).

I am not surprised how words lose ther original meaning at all, I just find it odd how it gradually happens and regret how many people might not know the original meaning of the word, for it implies a level of ignorance (I do not mean this as an insult - we are all ignorant of many things).

I was joking when implying you could call somone "mentally deficient" instead, using it in reference to how the Law used to view the mentally ill, which, again, I find funny/odd given to how we have developed our understanding of mental illness.

As a rule, it's best not to take anything I write on here too serously. I apologise but I find forums can't communicate my expression or tone or, most importantly, character.
Perhaps I should be more careful what I write in future?

Anyway I would like to thank the MODS for their labour of love, for it is something I would not have the patience/dedication for, and for giving us wargamers a place to post our thoughts/feelings - as insignificant, humorous, misguided or silly as they are