Standards

[finally17]

The fact of the matter is that not only is language constantly growing and evolving, but the speaker's intentions are hardly the only thing that matters. Communication is a two way street, and if your audience will be offended by statement XYZ, no matter how mundane you think it is, you're crossing a line if you use XYZ.

 

Now, since there are always people who take things to extremes, a list of things that are considered unacceptable shouldn't be generated by asking the question "does anyone have a problem with this" but rather something like "do a reasonable percentage (whatever that is) of reasonable people (however we define that) have a problem with this."

 

But all of this debate "i think this is acceptable and here's why" or "i'm offended by this or that because it's A or B or C" isn't going to serve much purpose.

 

I'm still stuck on how several people find post-editing by mods acceptable, and I'm really curious why that part of the discussion hasn't been more of a focus.

[kenberg]

I would strongly resist any attempt to censor ideas. That's where the real test comes. No doubt we should allow (but we need not celebrate) coarse language in the expression of these ideas.

 

Asking a woman how large her tits are doesn't quite qualify as an idea.

 

And now I will take Han's suggestion and stick this thread.

[brianshark]

I believe the actual use of bad language has two distinct aspects (which a lot of people don't seem to distinguish).

 

The first is to set the tone of conversation. The second is when it is used as an insult.

 

Regarding the first one, using more bad language as part of conversation generally indicates a more relaxed or informal tone. You would use it with friends, even with girls you are 'courting' if both parties are comfortable with such a casual conversational tone. You would use a more formal tone in the workplace, or in court, or with people you have just met, etc.

 

Regarding the second one, I believe it is only an insult if it was intended as an insult (or used in a context where it is known that it will insult a substantial amount of people - however you want to define it), so the intention and context are all that's important. I have no patience for people who are just touchy and take offence just because of a poor but unintended choice of words. Nor do I have patience for people who go around saying this or that is offensive and should not be said when it's on behalf of someone else.

 

I believe that bad language when not intended as an insult, but used as part of an expression or used casually in conversation, fits into the first category.

 

Regarding the standards we as a community should set:

 

1. Flame wars and insults that use bad language should be discouraged and potentially deleted (at the moderator's perogative) not because it uses bad language, but because it is a flame war / insult.

 

2. The general tone of the forums should be up to the general formers themselves to set. I believe they do that already and I don't believe there is any problem at present.

 

3. In my opinion no bad language should be censored just because it is "bad language".

[barmar]

These things certainly do depend on context.

 

As an example, there's an American cable TV show called "Dirt", about a Hollywood gossip magazine. The lead character, played by Courtney Cox (Monica from "Friends"), is the editor of the magazine. She's tough, drives her people hard, and is willing to do just about anything to get a story, and demands the same of her underlings. And in her private (i.e. sexual) life, she's also in charge. She's the type of woman who would call herself "ballsy" -- there's hardly any other term that sums up her style so succinctly. The people she's run over to get where she is would agree, although they'd probably be more likely to call her a bitch or cunt; she'd probably not take offense at these, either, because she knows what she did to deserve it.

[onoway]

I think that a large part of the question has to be if the person using the expression is doing so to be offensive, and if someone said to me what size are your tits I WOULD be offended, because the comment at the very least was designed to embarrass and/or offend and when using such gender specific comments has to have sexist overtones BECAUSE it was designed to offend.I cannot imagine anyone other than someone doing a brassiere fitting having any other reason than being an ignorant ass**** to make such a remark.

 

My work involves being around a lot of men, most of whom are not particularly well educated and there are probably few words I have not heard . However, even there, it is generally considered gauche at the least to use most of these words around the women who work there. This is not to say it doesn't happen. But I haven't noticed using such words as adding anything to the conversation and usually conversations studded with them are truly boring. (pun semi-intended)

 

My mother used to say that people who swear a lot are simply showing a lack of a) vocabulary and :D imagination. I agree with that, except that (sometimes) women use them to show how liberated they are and (sometimes) men use them to show off or with intent to offend. Then I tend to react to the intention, not the words as such. I think uday does a great job and has excellent judgement. I would hate to see the forum language deteriorate to the lowest common denominator just because it is not politically correct to have any standards anymore.

[blackshoe]

I knew a Marine drill instructor many years ago who had great facility for making an Officer Candidate feel about one inch tall and very stupid — without swearing, being disrespectful, or raising his voice. He was a Marine, he could cuss if he felt like it, but he didn't need to, so he didn't (at least not when training wannabe officers).

[luke warm]

if i used language, here or in r/l, that someone told me was offensive i'd just not use it around them anymore... i don't *want* to offend (well, usually)

[blackshoe]

Young man, indignantly: "Jubal, you are rude to ladies!"

Jubal: "Anne, have you ever seen me be rude to a lady?"

Anne: "Jubal, I have never seen you be rude to a lady. I have seen you be intentionally rude to a woman."....... Robert Heinlein, Stranger in a Strange Land

[Elianna]

I sometimes wonder if people who think that describing someone as "having balls" isn't sexist also think that saying a female bridge player "plays like a man" isn't sexist, either.

 

I think that one is definitely less obvious than the other, but just because something is less blatant doesn't mean that it's still not sexist.

 

About the original post, I thought that it was a funny way to say "How big are your balls?" from a female point of view (changing balls to breasts). I felt it was an amusing twist when I actually looked at who wrote it.

 

I understand why a moderator deleted the thread title. When I first saw it, I thought a spammer had managed to post something really vulgar. Then I saw the originating poster, and realized that it was probably safe to open. :D

[nat60us]

Agree with Justin.............LOL..........too much time on our hands, do u think?

[TimG]

I think that a large part of the question has to be if the person using the expression is doing so to be offensive, and if someone said to me what size are your tits I WOULD be offended, because the comment at the very least was designed to embarrass and/or offend and when using such gender specific comments has to have sexist overtones BECAUSE it was designed to offend.

"Tits" is gender specific? Take a look around next time you are at a bridge tournament!

[jillybean]

These things certainly do depend on context.

 

As an example, there's an American cable TV show called "Dirt", about a Hollywood gossip magazine.  The lead character, played by Courtney Cox (Monica from "Friends"), is the editor of the magazine.  She's tough, drives her people hard, and is willing to do just about anything to get a story, and demands the same of her underlings.  And in her private (i.e. sexual) life, she's also in charge.  She's the type of woman who would call herself "ballsy" -- there's hardly any other term that sums up her style so succinctly.  The people she's run over to get where she is would agree, although they'd probably be more likely to call her a bitch or cunt; she'd probably not take offense at these, either, because she knows what she did to deserve it.

:D We can always stoop to new lows,. I'd rather stay out of the gutter and keep things civilized.

 

Uday – where are we at? The (overwhelming response) loudest voices say we need few rules, personal attacks are out, including innuendoes? Other than that, anything goes as long as the writer is making a point and not being deliberately offensive. edited: But isnt this why the WC was set up in the first place?

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=12841

 

It seems then with those guidelines on the main forum, the WC should be completely moderator free?

[helene_t]

I sometimes wonder if people who think that describing someone as "having balls" isn't sexist also think that saying a female bridge player "plays like a man" isn't sexist, either.

I don't think it is meaningful to discuss whether an expression is sexist. Modern languages are full of reminiscents from a past when all kind of superstition and archaic ethics were the norm and shaped the language, but modern users are generally not conscious about that. Even when they are conscious about it they may consider it irrelevant.

 

What is meaningful to discuss is whether someone ought to be aware that the use of the expression "you have balls" creates (disturbing) associations to sexism by part of the audience, even if the intended message was not a sexist one. FWIW I don't have strong feelings about that issue either way.

[jillybean]

This is an excerpt not from the main forum but from the WC rules

 

In general, please follow this rule of thumb (which is a good rule I've picked up from another forum): If you aren't comfortable emailing a post to your grandmother/mother/colleague, then it probably shouldn't be posted here.

[han]

Can't believe you are still going on about this Kathryn, that takes some.. ehm.. nerves. :lol:

[sceptic]

Well, having been the author of a few posts that are probably considered objectionable, by some, I found one of Al's posts in bad taste and posted something of my own that I know was in bad taste but, it was not meant to offend just to make a point, my post was removed and Al's stayed ( never had a reason why it was removed)

 

some one made a comment about me being removed from the forums permenately because of it, I got a higher warn level, not everyone was offended and some even had the intelligence to see that I was not serious in my post (probably the moderator showed good judgement).

 

I personally have no issue with some profabities being used on the forums, but I would hate to see some one called a C word, I think that would over stretch the mark, I also find offensive the use of the word Cretin unacceptable as I would Spastic and Retard. some consider the use of at least one of these words acceptable, even though they find bad language offensive. perhaps, I am just sensitive about those particular words.

 

Some people are easily offended, that is not my problem, in fact I think that is thier problem.

 

all in all, I think the mods do a good job, I have over stepped the mark and had my *** kicked probably deservedly so, they give us all leaway to express ourselves, some of us are guilty of bad taste, arrogance, bad language and a multitude of sins, lets not drag the WC down, just because of a few overly sensitive types

 

I think things are ok, obviously not everyone does or Uday would not ask he question

[barmar]

I sometimes wonder if people who think that describing someone as "having balls" isn't sexist also think that saying a female bridge player "plays like a man" isn't sexist, either.

The difference is that one phrase has entered the vernacular, and has an idiomatic meaning, while the other has not.

 

Since, "plays like a man" is not idiomatic, it's interpreted literally, and that has sexist connotation. "Throws like a girl" is similar.

 

On the other hand, we have a phrase like "man up", which is an idiom that means "be strong and fulfill your responsibilities". Obviously it has a gender-based origin, but it's become idiomatic and should not engender sexist complaints.

 

On the other hand, we live in a strange time, when people find offense all over the place. The "PC police" and "feminazis" have made it difficult to use common words and phrases; many male pronouns have for years been also used as the generic, non-specific words, but feminists started to make a big deal about it, so these days one often has to use "they" even when the referent is singular, or the cumbersome "he or she". A few years ago a White House staffer (or some other government official) used the word "niggardly" in public and lost his job, despite the fact that this word bears absolutely no relation to the dreaded N-word. We live in a world where a fatwa was declared over some cartoons depicting Muhammed.

 

So I guess this means one must defer to conservatism.

[finally17]

On the subject of growing balls:

 

I still get very amused when I recall my freshman year of college, standing outside my dorm waiting for some sandwiches to be delivered. Smoking inside the dorms was against the rules, and while you could get around the smoke detectors, some people actually didn't bother. So I'm standing in the cold when three girls come outside to have a smoke. It was quite cold out, and after a couple of minutes one had finished her cigarette and said to the others:

 

"c'mon, let's go inside, i'm freezing my balls off."

[bid_em_up]

The wolf certainly has them...

 

http://photos4.meetupstatic.com/photos/mem...er_3593224.jpeg

 

B)

[helene_t]

It was quite cold out, and after a couple of minutes one had finished her cigarette and said to the others:

 

"c'mon, let's go inside, i'm freezing my balls off."

Yeah, my niece was two years old when she learned to shout "auuw my balls" when she fell.

[jillybean]

lets not drag the WC down, just because of a few overly sensitive types

 

I think things are ok, obviously not everyone does or Uday would not ask he question

Lets be clear here, this is not about the WC, it is about the main forum. I doubt we’d be having this discussion if it had stayed in the WC.

 

I have no problem at all with people using obscenities to “express their view’, attack fellow mankind, sex, religion, politicians, lawyers, you name – if it is done in the WC. I know I will likely be offended by the content and so when I see a post made in the WC, I can make a choice not to open it.

 

When these things spill over into the main forum, you have taken away that choice.

[jdonn]

Jilly I like you and I've never had any problem with you of any kind, but I just don't feel bad at all here. When you get out of bed in the morning and open your eyes, you are bound to see things you wish you hadn't seen. Ultimately that is not a choice unless you lock yourself in a closet for life. The real choice is how you react to them. If you choose to be offended by innocuous comments that weren't intended to be offensive, then the only one who suffers is you.

[jtfanclub]

Jilly I like you and I've never had any problem with you of any kind, but I just don't feel bad at all here. When you get out of bed in the morning and open your eyes, you are bound to see things you wish you hadn't seen. Ultimately that is not a choice unless you lock yourself in a closet for life. The real choice is how you react to them. If you choose to be offended by innocuous comments that weren't intended to be offensive, then the only one who suffers is you.

Let's get things straight here.

 

Han posted a thread.

Jilly posted a one liner saying she considered it offensive.

Han had the title changed.

 

Jilly posted a thread.

A moderator changed the title's thread without her permission.

Said moderator started this thread as a result of her "offensive" title.

 

If what you say is true, why are you going after her? She's not the one who censored somebody. She didn't start this thread. Aren't they a better target?

 

Or is it, if you choose to be offended by "balls", you should get a life, but if you choose to be offended by "tits", you should be censored and have a 70 post thread written about you, most of it rude and condescending?

 

Edited to add: I believe most of the people on this thread agree that "How big are your balls" used to be crude and offensive but has now entered the vernacular. But the reason why it was able to gain general acceptance was because not enough people said they were offended to stop it. If something bothers you, you gotta tell people it bothers you, or you're going to get a whole lot more of it. If somebody is tapping their pen against the table while I'm thinking, they're going to keep right on doing it unless I tell them to stop. That doesn't mean that grabbing the pen from them, breaking it in half, and throwing it across the room is appropriate, but I don't think it's ever wrong to tell somebody to stop doing something that bothers you that's under their control. It's what you do if they won't stop that's the difference between getting on with your life or getting hung up.

[the hog]

If something bothers you, you gotta tell people it bothers you, or you're going to get a whole lot more of it.

snipped

but I don't think it's ever wrong to tell somebody to stop doing something that bothers you that's under their control. It's what you do if they won't stop that's the difference between getting on with your life or getting hung up.

Well JT IF you really mean what you say, "Gotta" really bothers me. There is no such word in the English language. Please don't use it in future. Correct usage is "have to."

:)

[jillybean]

Jilly I like you and I've never had any problem with you of any kind, but I just don't feel bad at all here. When you get out of bed in the morning and open your eyes, you are bound to see things you wish you hadn't seen. Ultimately that is not a choice unless you lock yourself in a closet for life. The real choice is how you react to them. If you choose to be offended by innocuous comments that weren't intended to be offensive, then the only one who suffers is you.

Ditto and its not my intention to make people feel bad.

 

I make choices every day, I chose not to watch certain TV programs, read certain books, listen to certain people. Sometimes I am exposed to things I would rather not see. Some of these things offend me, make me feel sad, shock me, scare me or feel bad. How I feel is not a choice, it is who I am; it is what makes me different from you and every other bag of skin and bones on this planet.

The choice I have is how to react, I can ignore it or try to do something about it.