Standards

[cherdano]

Jilly, I don't think the right way to deal with phrases that some might (reasonably) find sexist is to censor them. We should not put our moderators in the position where we expect them to deal with everything that "we" (which will always just be some of us) find unacceptable.

[kenberg]

“How big are your tits/ surely you couldn’t have seen your cards” I guess is suggesting that the only explanation for a play is that the person's tits were so large that their view of the hand was obscured. So how much worse is this than "Did you choose your play randomly? Only a moron would choose it intentionally."

 

What I am getting at is that however you feel about the precise wording, the person is rude. Probably he also thinks himself to be wonderfully witty, but his basic action is rude whether he chooses the first phrasing or the second. Teaching him to not say tits won't really improve matters that much. If my partner calls me an idiot we are already done, regardless of his comments about my balls. Although I might ask him why he has such an interest in knowing the size of my balls.

 

Uday, if this doesn't embarrass him, seems to me to be an anomaly among people who have a role in censorship in that he prefers not to censor but sometimes reluctantly does so. There are many problems with censorship but certainly one of them is that the typical censor is both eager and stupid. I don't really have a problem with a moderator saying "Hey look folks, it's a bridge forum, so please go a little easy on the T&A stuff".

[luke warm]

2. Some people, it seems to me, are professional offense-takers. They will take offense at the slightest hint of something irregular.

hence the new group i recently joined, POOP

 

People Offended by Offended People

[jdonn]

Literally yes, but of course no one would have ever even thought to take the expression literally in the context it was used. Figuratively I think it clearly means how brave are you, not how masculine are you. The urban-dictionary website confirms this, mentioning both meanings but the brave one far more prominently than the masculine one, which is hardly mentioned at all.

Either way, figuratively or literally, brave or masculine, there is a sexist implication.

Would you think it should be removed if I just typed "men are braver than women"? That alone would be ridiculous. Now what if I typed something else that implies that but that was clearly not what I meant, should that be removed? It is beyond ridiculous.

 

I didn't mean to get involved even this deeply since honestly I also don't care that much. If stuff like that gets censored I will just say to myself 'this is dumb' and move on with life. But that just goes to my point that I don't understand why someone would waste precious minutes of their ever-shortening life worrying about something like this.

 

I also commend Uday for bothering to care what we all think.

[TimG]

Literally yes, but of course no one would have ever even thought to take the expression literally in the context it was used. Figuratively I think it clearly means how brave are you, not how masculine are you. The urban-dictionary website confirms this, mentioning both meanings but the brave one far more prominently than the masculine one, which is hardly mentioned at all.

Either way, figuratively or literally, brave or masculine, there is a sexist implication.

Would you think it should be removed if I just typed "men are braver than women"? That alone would be ridiculous. Now what if I typed something else that implies that but that was clearly not what I meant, should that be removed? It is beyond ridiculous.

I don't think I have offered any opinion about whether the original subject line should have been changed.

 

I don't think intent is the only criteria. For that, see my reference to the use of "gay" or "ghay".

 

I do agree it can be taken to absurd extremes. I live in Maine where "squaw" has recently been removed from all place names. Turns out that, to the natives, "squaw" is the rough equivalent of "whore". That's not what it meant to those who named the places decades or centuries ago. Nor, I suspect, did a vast majority of those who told their friends they had skied at Big Squaw Mountain know what a member of the Penobscot Nation might have thought had they overheard. But, well, "squaw" has disappeared from all signs and maps.

[barmar]

Either way, figuratively or literally, brave or masculine, there is a sexist implication. The fact that it has become so common to have dulled our perception of it, should not matter.

Actually, it should. How many people think about the connotation of saying "God bless you" when someone sneezes? I can't be the only atheist who says it, totally ignoring the literal meaning.

 

This is how language evolves. Words and phrases get adopted into new contexts. The idiom is based on metaphor, but once the new use becomes widespread the original connotation fades away.

 

"Balls" is still a recent enough convert that we can have this debate about it. We can also have a discussion about whether "gay" means "homosexual" or "stupid". Yet the previous meaning "happy" has been totally usurped already; any writing using this sense would be considered archaic, and no one would even think of trying to use it in a contemporary setting.

 

BTW, I think a female executive would consider it a compliment to be told that she "has balls". She's in a traditionally male-dominated profession, and this would be a mark that she's accepted into that community. Feminists might not like the fact that the idiom for this is based on a male-centered world, but it's a simple, historical fact.

[Guest Jlall]

I was thinking maybe his next growth spurt would be to stop discussing stupid *****ing ***** with young women he was trying to impress.

WOW, and I thought the moral of your story was going to be "I realized how the language has changed and evolved, and how things that were taboo 100 years ago when I was a kid no longer have the same meaning/impact."

 

What is wrong with talking about stupid *****ing ***** in an unoffensive/unattacking manner with someone? Why should that offend them? It's so much different to say "dumb stuff"? Doing dumb stuff does not have the same emphasis and thus probably doesnt convey his point as well. Perhaps he should say REALLY dumb stuff! I think it says a lot about how we have come along as a society that the intent of words are far more offensive than the words themselves. Certainly if I were to say "***** you" that should offend you, but if I say "sorry that was a *****ing retarded play i made" that should not offend you. If it does offend you that is from an irrational bias against the word *****.

 

And if you think it is ok to use the word ***** in front of your guy friends but not in front of a woman you are trying to court, I'm sorry but I think THAT is really a sexist and antiquated idea. Believe it or not women can handle the words ***** and ***** now, and it is not even considered unladylike to use them!

 

To be honest after reading this thread I think the problem is really there are many generations of people reading these forums. Nobody who is oldschool is going to be convinced by anything I say, and I think the reverse is true also.

[Guest Jlall]

Either way, figuratively or literally, brave or masculine, there is a sexist implication.  The fact that it has become so common to have dulled our perception of it, should not matter.

Actually, it should. How many people think about the connotation of saying "God bless you" when someone sneezes? I can't be the only atheist who says it, totally ignoring the literal meaning.

 

This is how language evolves. Words and phrases get adopted into new contexts. The idiom is based on metaphor, but once the new use becomes widespread the original connotation fades away.

very very well said

[TimG]

I was thinking maybe his next growth spurt would be to stop discussing stupid *****ing ***** with young women he was trying to impress.

WOW, and I thought the moral of your story was going to be "I realized how the language has changed and evolved, and how things that were taboo 100 years ago when I was a kid no longer have the same meaning/impact."

I thought the moral of the story was that if he wanted to impress her, he should have tried articulating his thoughts in a better way than "stupid *****ing *****" over and over again.

[TimG]

Either way, figuratively or literally, brave or masculine, there is a sexist implication.  The fact that it has become so common to have dulled our perception of it, should not matter.

Actually, it should. How many people think about the connotation of saying "God bless you" when someone sneezes? I can't be the only atheist who says it, totally ignoring the literal meaning.

 

This is how language evolves. Words and phrases get adopted into new contexts. The idiom is based on metaphor, but once the new use becomes widespread the original connotation fades away.

So, it's OK to offend over and over again because the offensive nature will eventually be forgotten or overlooked?

[Guest Jlall]

I was thinking maybe his next growth spurt would be to stop discussing stupid *****ing ***** with young women he was trying to impress.

WOW, and I thought the moral of your story was going to be "I realized how the language has changed and evolved, and how things that were taboo 100 years ago when I was a kid no longer have the same meaning/impact."

I thought the moral of the story was that if he wanted to impress her, he should have tried articulating his thoughts in a better way than "stupid *****ing *****" over and over again.

Yes because going into detail on all the stupid ***** you did in high school that you are no longer doing is necessary/useful/attractive. Perhaps he was very intelligent and just wanted to say that he did generic stupid ***** and he has entered a phase in his life where he has stopped doing it. He has grown up. The specifics are not really important, it's more the overall idea of change. It's not hard to think of what said stupid ***** might be. It doesn't matter. So maybe he articulated that point very well, and as well as he wanted to?

 

This is my point, stupid *****ing ***** can be an articulate/efficient way of saying something. It is not offensive at all because it has no offensive intent, it is just trying to convey a point.

[helene_t]

So, it's OK to offend over and over again because the offensive nature will eventually be forgotten or overlooked?

No but if it is obvious to anyone that the intend was not offensive then it's pretty silly to complain about the fact that the word would have been offensive if used by a member of another culture.

 

Reminds me of a story about the queen of UK visiting Denmark and the hosts removed the lift LCD displays saying "I fart" (which means "occupied") to not offend the guest.

 

Edit: Justin's post above is better than this one.

[Al_U_Card]

2. Some people, it seems to me, are professional offense-takers. They will take offense at the slightest hint of something irregular.

hence the new group i recently joined, POOP

 

People Offended by Offended People

I joined

 

Friends Uttering Completely Knowledgeable Opinions For Free....

 

Do I have to spell it out for you? :) ;)

 

(but i do appreciate the palindromic aspect of yours too :) )

[Finch]

BTW, I think a female executive would consider it a compliment to be told that she "has balls". She's in a traditionally male-dominated profession, and this would be a mark that she's accepted into that community. Feminists might not like the fact that the idiom for this is based on a male-centered world, but it's a simple, historical fact.

I would not. I would consider it insulting.

[irdoz]

I belong to A.W.A.R.E (acronym without a reasonable excuse) and we are aware of this thread.

[helene_t]

BTW, I think a female executive would consider it a compliment to be told that she "has balls".  She's in a traditionally male-dominated profession, and this would be a mark that she's accepted into that community.  Feminists might not like the fact that the idiom for this is based on a male-centered world, but it's a simple, historical fact.

I would not. I would consider it insulting.

If it was meant as a compliment I would take it as such but I think it's a silly expression.

[kenberg]

I was thinking maybe his next growth spurt would be to stop discussing stupid *****ing ***** with young women he was trying to impress.

WOW, and I thought the moral of your story was going to be "I realized how the language has changed and evolved, and how things that were taboo 100 years ago when I was a kid no longer have the same meaning/impact."

 

What is wrong with talking about stupid *****ing ***** in an unoffensive/unattacking manner with someone? Why should that offend them? It's so much different to say "dumb stuff"? Doing dumb stuff does not have the same emphasis and thus probably doesnt convey his point as well. Perhaps he should say REALLY dumb stuff! I think it says a lot about how we have come along as a society that the intent of words are far more offensive than the words themselves. Certainly if I were to say "***** you" that should offend you, but if I say "sorry that was a *****ing retarded play i made" that should not offend you. If it does offend you that is from an irrational bias against the word *****.

 

And if you think it is ok to use the word ***** in front of your guy friends but not in front of a woman you are trying to court, I'm sorry but I think THAT is really a sexist and antiquated idea. Believe it or not women can handle the words ***** and ***** now, and it is not even considered unladylike to use them!

 

To be honest after reading this thread I think the problem is really there are many generations of people reading these forums. Nobody who is oldschool is going to be convinced by anything I say, and I think the reverse is true also.

I am not sure I had a point, maybe just an observation, hopefully reasonably on topic.

 

It is, as you say, partly generational. Here is a variant from a few years back. I was in Denny's eating breakfast and at a nearby table a lawyer was discussing a divorce case with his client, rather loudly. It went something like *****, we will show her if she wants to ***** with us we'll ***** her, *****ing right. I sat for this for a while and then leaned towards them and suggested that if they wanted to discuss *****ing they should get a private room. A bit later after they had left ( to go where and do what I didn't ask) an older lady came to my table and thanked me. She was there having breakfast with her granddaughter, age 10 or so, and had not been much enjoying it. Sure the guy was being obnoxious enough just by his loudness, but I might have let that go.

 

But then a story on the flip side:

I was at a stupid *****ing dinner at a stupid *****ing conference sitting at a table with people I didn't know. I finished my dinner, made some polite talk for what I thought was long enough, and started to get up to leave. Just as I got out of my chair there was the familiar tapping of fork on glass announcing after dinner talks. "Oh *****!" I spontaneously said, and sat back down. With that as a starter we all quickly became friends and escaped soon after to the local bar. My comment was taken by all as an accurate assessment of the situation.

 

It's not all generational though. I have a fifteen year old granddaughter and I can't imagine her walking along quietly listening to a guy talking at length about stupid *****ing ***** that he used to do, no longer does, blah blah blah. Maybe it's genetic. I like to think so.

 

I seriously doubt I have a point. That doesn't stop others.

[pclayton]

And if you think it is ok to use the word ***** in front of your guy friends but not in front of a woman you are trying to court, I'm sorry but I think THAT is really a sexist and antiquated idea.

No this is called being a gentleman (or at least an element thereof).

[pclayton]

I sat for this for a while and then leaned towards them and suggested that if they wanted to discuss *****ing they should get a private room. A bit later after they had left ( to go where and do what I didn't ask) an older lady came to my table and thanked me. She was there having breakfast with her granddaughter, age 10 or so, and had not been much enjoying it.  Sure the guy was being obnoxious enough just by his loudness, but I might have let that go.

I was at a supermarket with Kimi a few weeks ago and some guy (roughly my age) in front of us in line was having it out with the cashier.

 

He just kept going off on her, and I finally said, "dude - having a bad day aren't you".

 

He thought he found a sympathetic ear in me so he starts in about how she did *****ing did this, and *****ing did that...

 

I said, "I don't care about your problem and WATCH YOUR LANGUAGE".

 

I think he was more embarrassed about his language than the fact he was having a public argument.

[Guest Jlall]

And if you think it is ok to use the word ***** in front of your guy friends but not in front of a woman you are trying to court, I'm sorry but I think THAT is really a sexist and antiquated idea.

No this is called being a gentleman (or at least an element thereof).

LOL. LOL. LOL.

 

Ok I'm done, hopefully those who read my posts understand why this is such an LOL as a response to my post :)

 

Just one last thing. I am playing as we speak against a young woman about my own age, and during an auction she said "***** it" and bid a slam. I doubt she would have considered it insulting if I had said "that took balls", or that she would consider someone "not a gentleman" for using the same word that she used casually. That is how the language is used today.

 

Concepts like "being a gentleman" and what is/is not a good thing to say when trying to attract a woman and what is/isnt articulate are always changing. They are not some constant.

 

I cannot win this point though, especially not to this crowd, so I'm not going to try.

[helene_t]

I doubt she would have considered it insulting if I had said "that took balls", or that she would consider someone "not a gentleman" for using the same word that she used casually.

Indeed, but she did say you scared her, I think she was referring to the fact that you alerted a 4♣ bid as "Gerber".

[kenrexford]

I am truly enjoying this debate. I am waiting to see how incredibly vulgar people can be in the context of arguing the offensiveness of vulgarity, in a purely scientific discussion. There are several vulgar words not yet tried out.

 

For example, no one has yet discussed whether one could use the term "cunt" in a way that would not be offensive. Apparently, the origin of the word has something to do with a hollow place, and it was not originally offensive. One might, then, note how a person did not open 1NT because the person had a cunt. The causal observer might assume that this meant that only women don't open 1NT because of a suit that is not stopped, whereas the meaning of the speaker might be to note that a "hollow place," a suit without any stopper, was a concern. A "cunt" suit, if you will.

 

Or, consider if someone were to comment that his opponent was quite a dick. This, of course, might be a compliment, noting his detecting skills in analyzing the hand. A big dick might be someone known to many in the bridge world as quite the hand analyzer.

[irdoz]

I dont think this argument about standards necessarily reflects an evolving language which divides people along generational lines.

 

Im in my early 30s and know when I was 21 I regarded censorship of language as something stupid older people do, sometimes political correctness and an impingment on my freedom to express myself the way I wanted to.

 

As I got older and spent much more time with people mainly older than me I came to view the sort of language I used to use all the time as not always appropriate depending on context.

 

In the last 10 years I dont think language has evolved that much or standards changed - and my brother who is 10 years younger than me is having exactly the same arguments I did - but not because standards have changed dramatically in 10 years.

 

I don't think 'non-offensive' intent is the yardstick either. For example if the young man referred to before said to the women he was with 'I was a stupid f-word c-word' then a significant number of people would regard that as both sexist and vulgar - independent of intent.

 

'You've got balls' is certainly not something I'd say to any woman I worked with because in that context there are so many other ways to say the same thing.

 

Somehow I think arguments about standards and where the line is and how the line got to be there are ongoing - and the way you decide where the line is at any moment is by having discussions like this.

[fifee]

It is remarkable to see that the moderator edited a post because he figured it would offend some people en thereby has now offended others. As a good sport he has opened a thread to discuss his decision.

 

It is very hard to do the right thing here, therefore you should try to do nothing for as long as possible.

But being a moderator you have to draw a line sometimes and be subject to criticism.

 

I think that this is a very pleasant forum and heve never had any problem here with the language or the messages. Is this really a problem?

here here.

[han]

Could somebody sticky this thread?