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.

Speaking as a moderator, I can say that the reason why words like cigarette and slow have been banned from the forum is precisely because people usually use them as insults.

I'm not in disagreement with moderation rules either as this is a private Enterprise, just as the group I started this thread about is. It's a philosophical ideal more than anything since control is an illusion. But just as many don't like to be insulted, many do not like to have attempted control placed over their speech. Personally, from my time in the Army not much offends me, except certain things that may be apparent from another thread here. So in my every day talks at work especially dealing with recruits harsh words, language and euphemisms were the norm. In Australia I know witch is the same as saying dude in the USA. I learned this from dealing with Aussies overseas.

So ultimately, from my POV having non discriminatory language banned is akin to the most extreme censorship, and I do not approve. It's like watching starship troopers on network television it sucks.

Edit: Apparently witch is the word for see you next Tuesday.

 Steve steveson wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 feeder wrote:
I'm not sure where the assumption that we can't use 'jig', 'black', and 'retardant' in the proper context from.

We're literally posting on a forum where the word re-tard or re-tarded can't be used regardless of context.

I doubt anyone has every used the term to discuss ignition timing or putting out fires on this forum. But I can bet as an insult it was used thousands of times, especially on YMDC.

I wouldn't say never, but either way re-tard means more than ignition timing and flame prevention.... we have this stuff called paint retarder that re-tards the drying of a paint.

There have definitely been times I've used it and then read my post and realised "stupid language filter, now I have to go back and edit my post because it doesn't make any sense".

Very very few people have a problem with words used in an appropriate context and non pejorative way.

Sure, but feeder questioned the idea that we can't use certain words in their proper context when in fact one of those words is literally wholesale blocked on the very forum we are discussing the topic on

The vast majority of the campaigning to stop the use of offensive terms relates to getting people to stop using terms like the R word as an insult, which should be seen along the lines of the N word.

I don't necessarily agree it should be seen along the lines as the N word to begin with. Using the R word as a pejorative comes from the actual meaning of the word that something shows signs of being impeded (in the pejorative sense, typically mental faculties). That's not necessarily factually incorrect, it's just that it might be hurting some peoples' feelings. Even the dictionaries use words like stupid, imbecile, moron to describe other similar words and the word R word was just a relatively modern failed attempt to introduce another word since those other words were almost always used in the pejorative sense. Sure, we may try and dissuade people from using the R word because it might be offensive to some people, but I struggle to fault people for using it as a shortcut for saying "lacking intellectual acuity to the point of embarrassment". The N word, on the other hand, is used in the pejorative sense by assuming something about a whole race, which is both factually incorrect and *also* offensive.

Sure, but feeder questioned the idea that we can't use certain words in their proper context when in fact one of those words is literally wholesale blocked on the very forum we are discussing the topic on

Which was answered both by me (which you quoted) and a mod.

The use of the R term makes exactly the same assumptions about people with intellectual and learning disabilities, and the same baggage and misuse. You could equally argue that you couldn't find fault with the use of the N word as it comes from a term used as a term for people of central and southern Africa descent. Used with no pejorative intent it is word without any intrinsic negative connotation, and continues to be used in forensic anthropology. It is the years of baggage and history that make it unacceptable. The same with both terms.

 redleger wrote:
So ultimately, from my POV having non discriminatory language banned is akin to the most extreme censorship, and I do not approve.

You have a very strange definition of "most extreme censorship".

As someone with like legit brain mental illnesses, I despise this coddling culture weak people try to impose on me, people who often aren't mentally ill.
Like autism jokes are mean... even if an autistic makes one about himself.

I don't know, I mean their coddling ends right away when they find out I loathe their politics or enjoy dark/offensive humour.
I made a joke about peanut allergies to a girl I... used to like, she got really offended, it was funny.

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:
Yup, better throw history's list of terrible things at my feet because I'm totally responsible for, and endorse, all of the above.

Why do you endorse book burning and religious tests for political offices?

I thought any fething idiot could tell I was not being serious there, but apparently one of them couldn't...

Why doesn't Rule #1 apply to you? Why do you think it is acceptable to call me a “fething idiot”?

 jasper76 wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
If I were to treat women in a negative manner because they are women, I would then be happy to call it "sexism".

Are you… are you saying it's impossible to be sexist against men? Damn that's an interesting development .

I hate to bore you, but no, I am not saying that, nor do I think it.

Well you said that treating women better than men (i.e. treating men worse than woman) was okay and not sexist because it was only sexist the other way around so …

 Galas wrote:
(If you don't count Switzerland)

Why on earth wouldn't you count Switzerland?

 Steve steveson wrote:

Sure, but feeder questioned the idea that we can't use certain words in their proper context when in fact one of those words is literally wholesale blocked on the very forum we are discussing the topic on

Which was answered both by me (which you quoted) and a mod.

And I never made a comment on the validity of banning a word, simply that it is a banned word on this forum thus can't use it even in the proper context.

I didn't need an explanation of why it's banned, the fact it is banned was my whole point

The use of the R term makes exactly the same assumptions about people with intellectual and learning disabilities, and the same baggage and misuse.

It might have baggage and misuse, to a degree (and I'd probably argue what degree that is) but re-tard literally means something which has been impeded, making it factually correct to use a pejorative in certain situations.

You could equally argue that you couldn't find fault with the use of the N word as it comes from a term used as a term for people of central and southern Africa descent. Used with no pejorative intent...

Yeah sure you could argue that, but it wouldn't be an argument against my point because I was very specific in saying I was talking about the pejorative intent of the word. This is what I said... "The N word, on the other hand, is used in the pejorative sense by assuming something about a whole race"

To use the N word in a pejorative sense is assuming something negative/derogatory about the whole race, which is not correct (you could argue that the pejorative sense of the word is talking about cultural aspects attributed to people of that race, but it is still incorrect to do so). To use the R word in the pejorative sense is often correct because the word in and of itself when applied to mental faculties means something negative.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Galas wrote:
(If you don't count Switzerland)

Why on earth wouldn't you count Switzerland?

No good reason really. Only that they have a difficult name and 90% of the Spanish rich people "pay" taxes there instead of in Spain

 amanita wrote:
I find it ironic that the same people hyper-sensitive to vocabulary correctness have no issue with the destruction of certain symbols no matter how inflammatory, such as a religious symbol or a flag. Words are nothing more than linguistic symbols representing the very same things, yet they are sacrosanct.

The hypocrisy is palpable.

Totally agree.

Again, you are mixing things. Attacking ideologies its not the same as offending someone attacking his biological and physical characteristics.

You can choose you religion, ideology, etc... you can't chose your sex, skin colour, disabilities, etc...

Wait, which N word are we discussing here? The one with i and e or the with e and o?
The former is actually intended as a pejorative, while the latter is merely descriptive (and hence should IMO not be censored).

 Galas wrote:
Again, you are mixing things. Attacking ideologies its not the same as offending someone attacking his biological and physical characteristics.

You can choose you religion, ideology, etc... you can't chose your sex, skin colour, disabilities, etc...

You get to choose your country of birth? I see what you are saying, but it's naive to think that symbols don't carry power of their own. Just because you have chosen something doesn't mean others are automatically allowed to treat that with disrespect. I think we all are for open discussion and testing ideas, but people often cross that line. And let's not forget 'offenders' want those symbols to have power or else the desecration of said symbols has no impact.

Well, I think that a ideology/religion/way of life its not a person, so it don't deserves respect. Respect its a right, and rights comes with duties, and those things have no duties. From things like Christianism, Islam, to things like Videoconsoles or Veganism. If someone attack an ideology and other person gets offended, then I put the blame of offension in the one that decides that something its so hard-coded in them that they take it as a personal attack.
Now, attacking people that follow a Ideology, etc... I don't agree with that, because that its a personal attack.

For example: "I think Christianity its bad because blablabla" or even "Christianity sucks! LoL long live Pastafarism!" its different that "All Christians are donkey caves", etc...

I have no problem with the first one, the last I see as an attack and a disrespect. Obviously, all of this is talking about a totally rational point of view. The reality its that people will take attacks to his ideology, religion, form of alimentation, etc... as personal attacks, etc...

But that its a different matter, between how things should be and how they are exist a giant gap. Normally I find the disecration of symbols pretty inmature, but when the fact that if you do a disrespectful hand gesture to a religious state can have you punished by the law (As in my country), then I think a line has crossed.

 Galas wrote:
Well, I think that a ideology/religion/way of life its not a person, so it don't deserves respect. Respect its a right, and rights comes with duties, and those things have no duties. From things like Christianism, Islam, to things like Videoconsoles or Veganism. If someone attack an ideology and other person gets offended, then I put the blame of offension in the one that decides that something its so hard-coded in them that they take it as a personal attack.
Now, attacking people that follow a Ideology, etc... I don't agree with that, because that its a personal attack.

For example: "I think Christianity its bad because blablabla" or even "Christianity sucks! LoL long live Pastafarism!" its different that "All Christians are donkey caves", etc...

I have no problem with the first one, the last I see as an attack and a disrespect. Obviously, all of this is talking about a totally rational point of view. The reality its that people will take attacks to his ideology, religion, form of alimentation, etc... as personal attacks, etc...

But that its a different matter, between how things should be and how they are exist a giant gap. Normally I find the disecration of symbols pretty inmature, but when the fact that if you do a disrespectful hand gesture to a religious state can have you punished by the law (As in my country), then I think a line has crossed.

As an Atheist I want to agree with you but I can't, and here is why. People make choices that can create unforeseen circumstances. Every Service member who joined pre September 11, 2001 probably joined to earn college money. Thats why I joined. Then next thing you know, you are on a plane to the desert, and 16 years later you are being called a war criminal bastard by Aholes. I use this as an example not because I am bothered by it, but because it is an example of things being out of your control once you start down a path. The American Flag holds power to motivate. When vets see it, it is the symbol of not only their country, but of loss and bravery. So then by your logic its still ok to burn, piss, poop, and otherwise desecrate the flag against US Code 4 chapter 8. OK, fine, the supreme court said its ok. We talked a lot about consequences of what you say. I have never said there shouldn't be any, simply that censoring something because it might be used incorrectly is against the whole freedom of speech thing. Obviously private enterprise should reserve that right to make its own rules such as this site, and the one that sparked this thread.

But by your logic, feel free to gak on any ideal simply because its not a person I can not agree with. I don't gak on religion, i simply think it has ceased to be relevant, and in many cases detrimental to humankind. doesn't mean I'm gonna walk in church and tell everyone they have a stupid ideal. I recognize there could be consequences to such action.

TLDR: So basically in short, censorship bad, being an donkey-cave bad.
I

I can totally understand your point. My point of view in this its not something I think its a posibility or how it should be, because I'm a rare case that don't take offense basically... never, about anything.

I was just explaining how I see all this.

But I totally agree with your last point. As I said, I think that just being offensive to people believes (Ideology, religion, veganism... oh I hate veganism ) its pretty inmature and being a total jerk. But many times I have encounter people that shield behind "Don't attack me!" when people do legitmage criticism about X. And even more times I have encounter people that are just total idiots being offensive because they lack empaty. So I can totally see both sides here.

My point its that it shouldn't be censored because ideals have no rights. I think that attacking people (Verbally, etc...) shouldn't be permited.


PD: The flag issue its a tricky one. For one, you are attacking the people that has born in "X", and that its a personal attack against that people. For the other, a flag represent a goverment and a political system (At least, that represent the Spanish flag, it has changed through the years). I think the USA one represent the states and the people, so it should end in the first group... but I'm not really sure.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:

Sure, but feeder questioned the idea that we can't use certain words in their proper context when in fact one of those words is literally wholesale blocked on the very forum we are discussing the topic on

Which was answered both by me (which you quoted) and a mod.

And I never made a comment on the validity of banning a word, simply that it is a banned word on this forum thus can't use it even in the proper context.

I didn't need an explanation of why it's banned, the fact it is banned was my whole point

Retarder, retardant. Not banned.

I've never used R-tard, /ds, /ded in any manner other than derogatory in my life, and I'm pretty old.

 redleger wrote:
I don't gak on religion, i simply think it has ceased to be relevant, and in many cases detrimental to humankind. doesn't mean I'm gonna walk in church and tell everyone they have a stupid ideal.

I'm going to react to this. See, back when I was in basically the equivalent of college, I had a friend who was religious. Actually, super-religious, but I didn't really know that much at the time because what was pretty obvious was that she was super-uncomfortable to talk about it. I'm not known for showing any respect for religions around here, as far as I know, but I would never push the issue around her. I am pretty happy I never did. She is still a friend, and a very good one, but she isn't religious any more. The reason that was uncomfortable about it back then was that she was already doubting, but she came from a pretty hardcore Christian family. Criticizing her directly, or pushing the subject, would have been a total jerk move, and would only have hurt her for no good reason. However criticism in religion in the public sphere, not in any way targeted at her or pushed at her, certainly help her get rid of the very quantifiable negative influence that religion had over her life. So I would say that criticism, even harsh one, of religion is okay. Being a jerk is not. Walking into a church and telling everyone that they are stupid is being a jerk and not okay. Posting this on Facebook, or posting a Quran burning video on youtube, is not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 redleger wrote:
The American Flag holds power to motivate. When vets see it, it is the symbol of not only their country, but of loss and bravery.I

And what about the people who had incredible harm inflicted upon them by the US government/agencies/armies? What about what it represents for them?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 redleger wrote:
I don't gak on religion, i simply think it has ceased to be relevant, and in many cases detrimental to humankind. doesn't mean I'm gonna walk in church and tell everyone they have a stupid ideal.

I'm going to react to this. See, back when I was in basically the equivalent of college, I had a friend who was religious. Actually, super-religious, but I didn't really know that much at the time because what was pretty obvious was that she was super-uncomfortable to talk about it. I'm not known for showing any respect for religions around here, as far as I know, but I would never push the issue around her. I am pretty happy I never did. She is still a friend, and a very good one, but she isn't religious any more. The reason that was uncomfortable about it back then was that she was already doubting, but she came from a pretty hardcore Christian family. Criticizing her directly, or pushing the subject, would have been a total jerk move, and would only have hurt her for no good reason. However criticism in religion in the public sphere, not in any way targeted at her or pushed at her, certainly help her get rid of the very quantifiable negative influence that religion had over her life. So I would say that criticism, even harsh one, of religion is okay. Being a jerk is not. Walking into a church and telling everyone that they are stupid is being a jerk and not okay. Posting this on Facebook, or posting a Quran burning video on youtube, is not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 redleger wrote:
The American Flag holds power to motivate. When vets see it, it is the symbol of not only their country, but of loss and bravery.I

And what about the people who had incredible harm inflicted upon them by the US government/agencies/armies? What about what it represents for them?

It represents what it represents. I am speaking from the POV I know from within the US, not outside. Within the US it is against US code to desecrate, even though it was said to be legal by the supreme court. I have no idea what it represents to them. I know when I see an American burning one it is hurtful because I know what many of us did/suffered/ died for when called upon by America. As service members politics has no place in whether we go where and do what we are told, with the exception of illegal or immoral actions. (no killing the enemy does not fall under those two, killing unarmed civilians does). That is why I say as an ideal burning the American flag holds a palpable real place within our being. (most of us anyway) I can not speak for the feelings of others not within that sphere.

edit, corrected sentence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:
I can totally understand your point. My point of view in this its not something I think its a posibility or how it should be, because I'm a rare case that don't take offense basically... never, about anything.

I was just explaining how I see all this.

But I totally agree with your last point. As I said, I think that just being offensive to people believes (Ideology, religion, veganism... oh I hate veganism ) its pretty inmature and being a total jerk. But many times I have encounter people that shield behind "Don't attack me!" when people do legitmage criticism about X. And even more times I have encounter people that are just total idiots being offensive because they lack empaty. So I can totally see both sides here.

My point its that it shouldn't be censored because ideals have no rights. I think that attacking people (Verbally, etc...) shouldn't be permited.


PD: The flag issue its a tricky one. For one, you are attacking the people that has born in "X", and that its a personal attack against that people. For the other, a flag represent a goverment and a political system (At least, that represent the Spanish flag, it has changed through the years). I think the USA one represent the states and the people, so it should end in the first group... but I'm not really sure.

I agree that ideals as a whole hold no protection, and for that reason I agree with you. But burning a church flag and burning an American flag hold the same weight as far as I am concerned. Neither seems like a legitimate complaint or even discussion, more of a physical act against said group. I absolutely believe in questioning religion, even trying to educate those that hide behind text that is utterly interpretive. But burning a bible in front of one is the same as burning a flag in front of a vet.

Burning things and all that of very very offensive acts enter in the grey realm of... "Criticism... or threat against the people that the symbol represent"

I wasn't talking about things so radical before, but I supose thats the tricky thing of legislate. The point between censure and letting people make things like that.

Edit: delete me, missed a key word there.

 redleger wrote:
It represents what it represents. I am speaking from the POV I know from within the US, not outside.

I didn't say anything about people inside and outside of the US. You inferred that, for some reason.

 redleger wrote:
I know when I see an American burning one it is hurtful because I know what many of us did/suffered/ died for when called upon by America. As service members politics has no place in whether we go where and do what we are told, with the exception of illegal or immoral actions. (no killing the enemy does not fall under those two, killing unarmed civilians does). That is why I say as an ideal burning the American flag holds a palpable real place within our being. (most of us anyway) I can not speak for the feelings of others not within that sphere.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. The US flag isn't specifically about the US army, is it?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 redleger wrote:
It represents what it represents. I am speaking from the POV I know from within the US, not outside.

I didn't say anything about people inside and outside of the US. You inferred that, for some reason.

 redleger wrote:
I know when I see an American burning one it is hurtful because I know what many of us did/suffered/ died for when called upon by America. As service members politics has no place in whether we go where and do what we are told, with the exception of illegal or immoral actions. (no killing the enemy does not fall under those two, killing unarmed civilians does). That is why I say as an ideal burning the American flag holds a palpable real place within our being. (most of us anyway) I can not speak for the feelings of others not within that sphere.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. The US flag isn't specifically about the US army, is it?

And maybe this is where the civilian military divide begins. A vast majority of vets are patriotic. There are many reasons for this but the main attachment to the flag is that it drapes the coffin of fallen Soldiers. Many of us know friends and brothers that flew home with a flag over them. We tell ourselves we suffered for a country that cares about us. That's a lie I now know but the dead friends are not. So, as a veteran when you burn a flag in protest you are against those who wore it home and care not for the sacrifice. May not be true. So as an ideal burning the flag is not a stretch as being an insult.

As to your first point then I don't think I understand what you are talking about then. I have no idea why people burn it, I only know and hope to explain why it may cross the line from attack on an ideal vs attack on a person/group

The proper way to dispose of a flag that has been despoiled is to burn it. The actions of the US despoil the flag and what it stands for some times (Typically when conservatives are in power).

So the proper response is to burn the flag.

 skyth wrote:
The proper way to dispose of a flag that has been despoiled is to burn it. The actions of the US despoil the flag and what it stands for some times (Typically when conservatives are in power).

So the proper response is to burn the flag.

That is your PoV, and although you are not alone this is not the only POV.

A physically despoiled flag is not just to be burned there are definitely guidelines on how to do it and burning is only one.

 redleger wrote:
I have no idea why people burn it, I only know and hope to explain why it may cross the line from attack on an ideal vs attack on a person/group

Have you tried asking them why and listening to their grievances?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 redleger wrote:
I have no idea why people burn it, I only know and hope to explain why it may cross the line from attack on an ideal vs attack on a person/group

Have you tried asking them why and listening to their grievances?

Nope, never seen it in person. I have been chained to military communities till 2 days ago. However this kind of goes back to the OP. I have read the excuses on why people burn it, and honestly I have yet to hear a valid excuse. If I had a grievance, I would not find a symbol and desecrate it, I would work actively. I have issues with being passive then whining about how doing literally nothing resulted in nothing.

1984! The progression of the dictionary: Pretty soon there will be no words in it, because some clown with some chip will be whining about how offended he by it.

In childhood centres in Australia, words such a blackboard, white board, fairy cakes, poufs, and fags are banned. The dictate from high is that you need to replace with the following: chalkboard, removable marker board, cup cakes, footstool, and cigarette. My mother was a carer. When this was announced in a meeting, the man next to her proclaimed: Well look at me, i am a 'redacted', sitting on a 'redacted', eating a 'redacted', and will shorty go outside for a 'redacted'. And yes he was, was, was, and did. He wasn't offended by the words. The the way they are used.

Take a concrete pill!

Dry your eyes princess!

Have a coke and a smile and just STFU.

Theres a huge difference between being courteous, polite, respectful; and lower yourself to cater for every whinging, whining, slack-jawed, 12 sandwich-eating recalcitrant you crosses your path.


With the death of Common Sense several decades ago, Freedom of speak, will follow. I sure humanity will then linger on for a time, but will eventually die of loneliness.

 feeder wrote:
I've never used R-tard, /ds, /ded in any manner other than derogatory in my life, and I'm pretty old.

Because you've just consciously avoided it, or is it not in your vocabulary to use in anything other than a derogatory sense? Being old doesn't have much to do with it, it's actually a pretty modern adaption for it to be used to refer to mentally disabled and even more modern for it to be considered a naughty word. Are you old enough to have driven a carburetted vehicle? Because r-tard is the correct term to use for delaying the ignition timing, and if you have owned a carburetted car it probably predates the use of r-tard as a descriptor of the mentally disabled. It's also the technically correct word for impeding a chemical reaction, the chemical you use to do that is called a retarder but the reason it's called a retarder is because... it r-tards It may have r-tarded, or be r-tarding, or act to r-tard.

Maybe you don't but it's a word that's in my basic vocabulary in a non derogatory sense, and I'm not even all that old

What about the words stupid, imbecile, moron, dumb, simple, slow, special, defective? I've heard all those terms used as pejoratives in the context of the mentally disabled as well.

This is why I find banning the word r-tard as absurd. We have all these other words that are commonly used to describe mental disability, in fact r-tard wasn't even one of them, it was introduced purely because other words were seen as derogatory... and then people started using it as a pejorative and now we have to ban it? Doesn't that just seem a little arse backwards to you? Maybe the problem isn't the words, and maybe the solution isn't trying fruitlessly to control the words


EDIT: Lots of edits because apparently I'm stupid and can't type a message properly the first time.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Well you said that treating women better than men (i.e. treating men worse than woman) was okay and not sexist because it was only sexist the other way around so …

Well, that's a very....ummm.....creative interpretation of what I said, and even though I can appreciate a creative mind, I call BS just the same.