Member Opinions: Are all "insults" the same?

I thought perhaps to turn to the membership in this. One of my fellow moderators has advised that calling someone a coward is equally as grave an offense as calling someone an asshole.

Are all "insults" the same?

I put the word in quotes there for a purpose. I disagree with my colleague's assessment. Such a standard, I feel, limits discussion insofar as it restricts people from identifying inappropriate or undignified behavior.

Certain insults, as such, are intended solely to offend, and involve words generally regarded as profane:

• Asshole, fucker, bitch, cunt, faggot, nigger, &c.​

Other "insults" describe conduct, and while those words are not necessarily warm and fuzzy, they are what they are:

• Coward, bigot, liar, &c.​

How do you prove someone is an asshole or a cunt? Obviously, we cannot go with a literal application, as few and far between are the recta and vaginas that can type. I mean, really, that's one talented clitoris pounding out sixty words a minute.

To the other, though, accusing someone of being a coward, bigot, or liar, is arguable and can be demonstrated.

If a member runs from an apparent contradiction in his or her own posts, and slings insults instead of resolving the conflict, one might suggest cowardice in such behavior. But you should not tell a coward that he is a coward, because that is just as insulting as calling him an asshole; or so the principle goes.

If you catch a member lying—especially repeatedly—is it wrong to call that person a liar? After all, if you can demonstrate the truth of the accusation, you can demonstrate the truth of the accusation.

But how do you demonstrate that someone is an asshole? There are certainly cases in which most of us would agree someone is an asshole, but what is the point in that? Was Ted Bundy an asshole? If people really want to call him that, I don't see any reason to object. But neither do I see any real purpose in it other than finding a way to feel better about oneself by abusing someone else. There are plenty of things we can call Ted Bundy that do not make him out to be a nice guy, but are words like rapist, murderer, or psychopath really so insufficient?

In the end, the only thing one can prove about an asshole is that someone thinks someone else is an asshole.

The problem, as I see it, is that if we make words that accurately describe behavior anathema because anything a member doesn't like being said about them can be labeled as an insult. For instance, some people call me a Marxist as if there is something disdainful about it. Do I really want to go back to the time when Marxist was a dire denunciation? Hardly. Other folks might, because it will make it easier for them to dodge substantive discussion like a coward really agile person who wants to avoid the issue he raises, but I don't see the point. (Note that despite other sympathies of my outlook, nobody ever attempts to make a pejorative context out of Anarchist, Freudian, or Camusite.)

So my take is that if a liar feels slighted or insulted by being called a liar, that's his own problem. I mean, most people don't like being called a wanker, but if you're a chronic masturbator, the word kind of applies.

Personally, I find it absurd to propose that words that describe conduct are equally offensive to profane words intended specifically to offend. However, as we all know, I am hardly definitive about anything, so I thought to inquire with the membership.

I am, in fact, willing to advocate the outcomes of this poll as a policy proposal.

Thus, two questions:

Poll Questions:

(1) Should words describing conduct (e.g., coward, bigot, &c.) be held as equally grave offenses as profane words intended solely to insult (e.g., asshole, bitch, &c.)?

(2) Should a member making a personal accusation be prepared to demonstrate that accusation if demanded?​

The available poll answers will be divided into two accommodating sections, with no "Other" option; any "other" comments, or clarifications regarding one's vote are welcome as part of the discussion.

Poll responses will be publicly listed.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

could a mod change my vote for the second question from no to yes

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Will the mods arbritate whether the demonstration was accurate/ correct?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't know about anyone else, but I get more annoyed if someone calls me a liar/bigot than I do when I'm called an asshole. I think that's because the first set of terms actually have meaning.

 

who is this "fellow moderators", tiassa?

 

Can one person really call another a "coward", "bigot", "liar" etc. in a tone or intention different than when calling someone an "asshole", "fucker", "bitch" etc.?
I don't think so.

Secondly, if someone really is a coward etc., then what good will calling them on it do?

I think it's important to keep in mind that this is primarily a discussion forum, not a private/personal situation. Therefore, different guidelines apply.

The primary aim of a discussion forum is to facilitate discussion about a topic, not to provide opportunity for meaningful social interaction, the way relationships between family members and friends do.

Certainly, there can be social interaction and fraternizing on discussion forums as well, but this is not the aim of discussion forums.

At discussion forums, what primarily matters is what is being said, not who says it.

Therefore, all personal insults, accusations, ad homs are off limits. But if someone does use them, they are to be seen as discussion strategies of said poster, a kind of sophistry.

I think that what we have here on discussion forums is an artificially induced sense of socialness and interpersonal responsibility, while there are no actual private/personal relationships on which this socialness and responsibility would be based. This can be confusing, especially for those members who use discussion forums as a source of social interactions.


All in all, in discussion forums, I think all insults are essentially the same.

 

No.
Because, as you stated, the former is a comment on behavior which the person so accused has demonstrated. The specific terms might be abused, but if so, it should be made evident by... ...errr... ...well - a lack of evidence.

Yes.
Because presumably one would not make such an accusation "in good faith", if you will, without being prompted by examples of the accused individual's statements/evasions/etc, and should therefore be able to provide them to support the accusation.

 

The membership ought to be able to say what ever they please about each other, it's called the law of allowance. Just as children need room to grow and explore, and room to make mistakes; freedom of expression needs to be allowed so that each may know who each is by the nature of the clothing they wear and the deeds they do. There are "ignore" buttons for those faint of heart, are there not?

The words members use, or the type of judgments they make, it matters not, in the end, it is still just their judgment, and they are still one with who they judge. Their judgments will reveal more about themselves than about who they judge. It is rare, if ever you will see a post of mine with a judgment, unless it includes ME in that judgment, as in a judgment of the forum as a whole. Because, in the end, that is the only way to judge this group, by it's character as a whole. The behavior of individuals in this forum is spurred on by the mood and atmosphere of the board. Certainly, all of you would behave differently if you were posting on a different board, on a different site. None of you is an island, disengaged from the rest.

 

Yes... equaly "grave/profane" an equaly enjoyed/offended or ignored as the readers see fit.!!!

People shud be able to demand anythang they want... lol... but i thank ther woud be mor discusson of real issues if "insults" wernt made into issues by the "insult-police".!!!

To you moderaters... give you'rself a brake... ignore "insults".!!!

 

I think that all members should refrain from calling others names . It does not matter if you call a person a liar , a coward or a foggot ......etc . Members should go after ideas according to logic and common sense .
Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, an 18Th-century English writer and aristocrat once said :" Civility costs nothing and buys everything " .

 

I thank its alredy aganst the rules to call others "names"???... an if so... are you suggestin that the rules be enforced.???

If civility costs nuthin an buys everthang... do you thank ther shud be a rule agans bein "rude" to other members.???

 

civility only gains you with those that respect people regardless of their beliefs. Those that confer respect sole based on how people match their ideology civility gains you naught.

I adhere to the school of thought is you do not wish to be described in such a manner do not act in a way that lends such a descriptor to be applied to you.

 

It really all depends on the circumstances but at the end it is just common sense . Respecting one's self and others is a virtue and should not be legislated .

 

Originaly posted by cluelusshusbund
If civility costs nuthin an buys everthang... do you thank ther shud be a rule agans bein "rude" to other members.???

Under what circumstance do you thank rudness to other members shud be allowed.???

 

When they are being a poop face.

 

if someone goes out of their way to be a dick towards you they have no right to be treated with respect by you.

 

no.
it's the intent that defines an insult.

i personally do not ascribe to "cunt" being profane.

by their posting history.

no.
it wouldn't be wrong to permaban them either.

does ted bundy post here?

if you are having a hard time with cuss words then ban their use outright.
edit them out of the posts once or twice with bans for subsequent occurances.

yes.

 

Shud moderaters get involved an determin whos bein a "dik" an doesnt deserve respect... or do you want to determin such thangs for you'rself.???

 

i say!
bravo!!!!

 

Because ....

I have deliberately omitted that information for a couple of reasons. First, there is the manner of transmission; were this a publicly-posted comment, I would simply direct people to it.

Also, I prefer to leave it to my colleague to either affirm, deny, or modify the general proposition, or simply observe the discussion, according to inclination.

I might enjoy the gazebo, but there's no reason to tack anyone to the cross.