Spin off thread: satire versus insult

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Now just look at this poncey statement right here:

"I think it's fair to say that more insulting stuff is far more provocative. And unnecessary, in my view. I think I can get across that I feel someone is wrong without having to resort to base insults and I think that with the proper training, so could others."

There are many ways Scott to get under someone's skin we all know that, what some of us object to is your incessant nitpicking about which words we use to do that. Sciforums is like a market place, an open market offering all kinds of wares and attracting all kinds of people now in a public place I may not be allowed to spray paint the word cunt on private property but by god I can damn well say it. Just because Skin wouldn't allow you to post some inanity no one cares about anyway is no reason for you to turn around and whine that others are allowed to use the word asshole, stupid, demented or what-have-you. Your ranting over this issue is distracting and sucks the air out of discussion. Now I wouldn't want you banned for being a pain in the ass because i think you are precious Scott, so very precious. I would rather have you hanging around with that growing obsession of yours wondering why no one is taking action against the the swear mongers. I can see you now ever on the look out for offenders with pencil in hand drowning in mounds of paper where all the base words are listed like the little worm that you are. This thought pleases me.
Here you are arrogantly going on about what 'proper training' the members need, the regulations that should be employed so that YOU my fairy friend won't feel offended.
In 'my view' (that little phrase you're so enamoured with) people are being too polite with you as it is, they should say fuck every time you enter a thread, highlight it in pink (p for poncey) and add other filthy expletives with illustrations depicting you undergoing various forms of oratory torture. Trouble is no one can smear your jibber jabber with feces.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oh no, oh no, I almost pissed myself. That was hysterical!! I have to go and watch that again.

 

If I can't persuade the proponent of someone you believe to be misinformed but others actually think said person may be on to something, I would focus my efforts on persuading -those- people that the person I believe to be misinformed is, indeed, misinformed. In order to quit using 'believe to be misinformed', perhaps we should have an example where I think we can all agree is someone who is misinformed? A creationist, say?

Why? Only a moderator has the obligation to deal with any posts that he or she finds to be going against the rules. I don't 'stalk' any particular poster, if that's what you're implying, I just see some objectionable posts and I report them. Since I'm not a moderator, I generally don't report the posts of people I get along with, although I have actually done even this once, after said person twice made what I felt was a personal attack against someone else over in a Formal Debates thread, where things are, after all, supposed to be more formal. However, while I've only once reported a post from someone who I generally considered to be one of my allies, I have reprimanded people I consider to be friends more then once (believe me, you don't want to do this too often, it can be hard on the friendship).

To be continued...

 

I think petty and infantile sound better then... some more offensive term.. which may have been specified in a previous post (if so, can you mention it again?). Anyway, as to posts being innofensive and still being censured, I have experience with that; if it's even marginally off topic, it can be labelled as "off topic", get deleted and get a warning to boot. The same mod who did all this can do the same thing and, ofcourse, suffer no repercussions.

Add 20 to that number and you'd be on the mark. Yes, base insults. You know, the type that isn't used in polite company and around children.

By correcting the misinformed and ensuring that others don't fall for their nonsense, yes. But also by doing so in as gentle a way as possible. The misinformed are people too.

Alright, so perhaps he's not always polite. But he has stated previously that he'd like people to be polite. And I know that me and draq aren't alone in wishing that others, atleast, were more polite. I certainly agree that you should practice what you preach, and if he doesn't always do so, I agree that there is some hypocracy there. But that doesn't mean that the wish for more civility is a bad one.

What word are we talking about here? And what -do- you consider a base insult?

To me it's like you cook a good meal only to ruin it by putting in too much hot sauce.

Are you saying you care about the people you're trashing? If so, why not show some consideration for how you speak to them?

 

The term was "obtuse fucking retard", I believe.

Children: agreed.
Now define polite company.
Personally I prefer adult company.
After all, as Billy Connolly said talking about little old ladies being offended the word "fuck", - chances are "they've not only said it, they've done it as well"

And the persistently misinformed?
Who refuse to acknowledge their errors?

What Draq states and what he does himself are two different things.
More civility?
There's a time and place for everything...

I don't consider anything to be a base insult as such - it depends entirely upon when, where and how it's used.

I also happen to be superb cook - and I like my meals spicy...

No, I'm saying I care about the ones who don't know the subject and may be misled by the idiot.

 

Ah ok, thanks, yes, sounds better then that

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

I define polite company as people who refrain from using base insults.

Alright, I've probably said it at some point myself. The point, however, is that I don't consider it to be good form; something to use in a fight or flight type of situation, no more. As to defining a sexual act as a 'fuck', yes you can do it, but there are terms that are generally less offensive (such as sex, for instance).

They are persistently misinformed people who refuse to acknowledge their errors

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

I admit that I haven't dealt all that much with draq, but I think that his wish for others to be civil is genuine enough.

Yes. If you see that your woman friend is about to get hurt by some ex boyfriend and you're too far to intervene physically, you might say, 'hey f***er! over here!", in an effort to redirect his attention from what he was going to do before the interuption. However, this is an internet forum. Unless we're talking something out of a movie where what you type will mean someone gets physically punched or not, I don't think that we run much of those types of situations here.

Great

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. I guess we'll have to settle with what you think shouldn't be used around children. What do you call that? Surely not the ultra long 'not to be said around children words'?

Ok, that's you. But not everyone likes their meals spicy. If you're cooking for company and you don't know how they like their meals, don't you think it'd make sense to keep their meals relatively mild?

I thought that might be it, but wasn't clear from the sentence I was quoting. Alright, well as I said, in that case, I'd just try to persuade those people and forget the person you can't persuade.

 

Poncey ponce eh

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

? As to thought policing; I find the term to be rather vague. However, I will say that this -place- is certainly policed, or moderated; and while I may at times disagree at times on how such control is exerted, I would never suggest that the solution is to allow everyone to do as they please. Are you suggesting that that would be the best approach?

 

Perhaps I could have worded that better

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. What I'm trying to say is that while there are some negative aspects of a romanistic culture, this doesn't mean that we should support those negative aspects, but instead fight against them.

 

Scott: I would never suggest that the solution is to allow everyone to do as they please. Are you suggesting that that would be the best approach?

The best approach is for you to get a grip, give it a rest and stop obssessing about who is naughty and who is nice. Aren't you even remotely nauseated by your own chatter?

 

I simply wanted to have some consistency in which posts are deleted and which ones aren't. As Bells has made clear, for the creative insulter, the sky's the limit when it comes to what can be used. But most people aren't all that creative and tend to stick to a rather short list of oft used insults. Simply writing down such a list and putting it up in the forum rules as a taboo list of terms, unless used in a non personal attack way, could make it easier for people to realize what words not to use when going on the offensive with someone. As I said, it wouldn't be a complete list of personal attacks, but it would atleast stop people from using the usual insults when engaging in attacks on others.

I don't agree with the assertion that it was an 'inanity', but you did get me laughing there

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. Nevertheless, you may which to consider the possibility that perhaps there are double standards here...

Alright, perhaps you frequent forums that don't mind such insults; recently, I've been frequenting the Ethics forum a lot, and there, atleast, all the insults you mentioned above when used against another poster -would- be considered a personal attack; and I'm glad of it.

By all means, don't let me distract you; carry on with your more important tasks...

Yes, that's why this discussion has been going on so long, I'm sure...

The little 'worm' that I am? -That-, in my book, is a personal attack. But you're apparently a woman, so I'll let it pass.

The regulations are already in place. The proper training isn't, however, so the regulations are frequently broken; by members and sometimes even by the mods.

I think I've had enough of your views for one post, thanks...

 

Scott3x...you cant win a war against them all. They are teaming up on you.

 

Everyone always seems to forget that it takes -atleast- 2 to tango when it comes to threads...

 

Not all of them at this point draqon. You're a member and -you're- not against me at this point in time. You may be right regardless, however. But multiple wars can be fought concurrently. As someone once said, there is only one real war; the war within oneself.

 

Unlikely, even if their anger against another poster wasn't that bad

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. However, the idea is that they would have checked it before their angry post.

Again, they may be able to see every time it's updated (a new post added to the proscribed insults thread with one or more new terms, say) and check it then, not when they're upset. The list may not actually get so many terms; the last list I made was perhaps 10 or so terms. Obviously there are more possible personal attacks, but those are the less used types. Anyway, right now the blacklist stands at 6 terms. Aside from some additions, I personally think sheeple should be removed- I find it to be too tame to be on it.

As the list would constitute insult terms that most people know to generally be insult terms, I don't think that the list would help much when someone isn't sure if they're being insulted. The list, therefore, is more for knowing what terms are definitely insults, both so that people don't use them as well as so that people know what personal attacks can definitely be reported.

Actually, no. I think that some people certainly are delusional. However, in the specific case I believe you're referring to, I don't believe that ND was -shown- to be delusional. I don't know how ND defines God and I also don't know what special super powers he claims to have or if he's offered any evidence to prove his case. What I -do- know is that if you can't prove that a person is, indeed, delusional, you should refrain straight out saying that the person is indeed delusional. Asking someone if they're delusional if they make such claims is, in my view, fair enough, although probably too blunt for my tastes.

It was nothing of the sort. But I can see how you might come to that conclusion.

 

One thing it tells me Bells is that he is stone cold crazy. He reminds me a little of Reiku, that other dear heart. Remember when he opened thread upon thread about his post deletions, the mean mods, nasty members and all that? He seems to have calmed down since then.

Scott no single member has ever been able to change this site, we see the back of them before that happens, they get banned or they leave. Obviously if what you percieve as horrible wayard insults were offensive to the MAJORITY of posters it would naturally be the neat little tea party you so hanker for. Truth be known the only person who cares about this list is you. You say you have had enough of my views, well it seems there are those who are also sick of yours when it comes to this particular issue. You say there are double-standards here but double-standards exist practically everywhere. Most mods are consistent in the very nature of what they find over the mark or generally destructive to the community at large, but it wont be the same for each and every one of them, for example James might stamp out what Bells may let pass etc.

Now why don't you give it a rest already. Isn't there some swinging party or something that you can go engage in?

 

What a narrow definition you have.

Good grief!
So when your partner suggests that a good fucking would be appreciated you'd quibble about finding the term offensive?
And again, I query your age, or experience or something, because quite honestly there's a world of difference between "sex" and "fuck" in practise.
Should my partner say "would you like to have sex?" it indicates (to me) that there's an unspoken addendum of "because I don't really fancy it at the moment".
Make love, screw, fuck, bonk are all different from each other in except in general meaning.
Meaning is nuanced.

And should be halted.

That would be why he constantly posts little civilities along the lines of "all American women are immoral sluts who don't care about their children".

Personally my favourite is "I really wouldn't do that, unless you don't consider kneecaps to be a necessary adjunct to an active lifestyle", it's always worked for me...
It's all in the delivery.

What I think shouldn't be said around children is not necessarily what others think.
But I don't try to impose my views on other people (unless it were to be in front of MY children in my own home).
I certainly wouldn't ever consider going into someone else's home (or forum) and try to impose my own ideas of behaviour on others.

If the company were invited specifically I'd cater for their tastes - for that meal.
Should it be some random stranger who had just wandered in and tried to dictate how I should cook then I'd probably say "Please, shut up or go away, you obtuse fucking retard."

Easier said than done when the idiot is still in the thread.