CentralTexas
Member
Civility here? Oh Yeah??? Yo Momma! 
CT
CT
Verbal terms causing personal offense
- Thread starter Hook686
- Start date
- Status
Folks,
The reason religion is verboten on THR has nothing to do with whether we might hurt a god's feelings by talking about him, her, or it. It's simply that religion is not part of our core mission here, and that it is divisive. Since talking about religion is both unnecessary and divisive, we've chosen not to discuss it here.
We do talk about politics here, because it is part of our core mission even when it's divisive.
Unfortunately, it isn't possible to talk politics these days without using words. The problem is, words have meanings -- emotional ones as well as definitive ones. But without words, we can't have a discussion.
That's why the rule is, "Attack the argument, not the arguer." Which is a far cry indeed from saying "Certain arguments aren't allowed." You can propound any sort of nonsense on THR you want, and everyone else can tell you how much nonsense it is ... as long as they do it politely.
I don't see what's so difficult about this.
pax
We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart. -- H. L. Mencken
The reason religion is verboten on THR has nothing to do with whether we might hurt a god's feelings by talking about him, her, or it. It's simply that religion is not part of our core mission here, and that it is divisive. Since talking about religion is both unnecessary and divisive, we've chosen not to discuss it here.
We do talk about politics here, because it is part of our core mission even when it's divisive.
Unfortunately, it isn't possible to talk politics these days without using words. The problem is, words have meanings -- emotional ones as well as definitive ones. But without words, we can't have a discussion.
That's why the rule is, "Attack the argument, not the arguer." Which is a far cry indeed from saying "Certain arguments aren't allowed." You can propound any sort of nonsense on THR you want, and everyone else can tell you how much nonsense it is ... as long as they do it politely.
I don't see what's so difficult about this.
pax
We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart. -- H. L. Mencken
Could someone remind me why I should give a sh** what anyone on this board thinks of me and my beliefs? As PopEye would say"I yam what I yam, and that's all that I yam." Please feel free to insult me or my beliefs. This is America.
I can be quite respectful of you for having your beliefs, yet I do not need to tolerate those beliefs to respect you. I can try all in my power to tear them down and discredit them, to show you what I believe to be the error of your ways (and what greater respect could there be than for me honestly to try to help you improve your ideals). If I believe them wrong, or immoral (and I am not looking at this from a religious standpoint at all because I am far from religious) it would be disrespectful of me to ignore you if you believed in them because I would be in effect allowing you (at least as i would see it) to just keep on going wrong. However, because I show you respect when I do this, or try to do it, does not mean I have to respect your ideas if I think they stink. Tolerance is apparently one of those liberal standards I cannot stomach because it only works when liberals want others to be tolerant of liberal views and not when those others want liberals to be tolerant of conservative views.
Best regards,
Glenn B
griz
Member
Just so we're clear, are you offended because of people disagreeing with you or insulted by their terminology?
If the former, well kitchens are hot you know. If the later, which term would be less offensive to you? I'm not trying to be caviler here, and if I am missing your point please straighten me out.
Thanks, Griz, who is pretty much libertarian minded and thinks labels get in the way of meaning.
dmallind
Member
Well you're not doing a good job of keeping them to yourself MechAg. Where exactly are the accusations of hatefulness? Where exactly are the smugly superior aspects of my posts? I made no pejorative comments whatsoever about Christians.
Isn't the idea on THR that you are supposed to discuss the idea not the person?
I think I did that.
And Pax I find your response disingenuous. All manner of topics not remotely part of the THR raison d'etre are thoroughly discussed without official admonitions to avoid hurting the sensibilities of what is after all the vast majority.
Isn't the idea on THR that you are supposed to discuss the idea not the person?
I think I did that.
And Pax I find your response disingenuous. All manner of topics not remotely part of the THR raison d'etre are thoroughly discussed without official admonitions to avoid hurting the sensibilities of what is after all the vast majority.
Gordy Wesen
Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2003
- Messages
- 422
in truth, being a Liberal means never having to say you're sorry... not sorry to take your guns, your land or your life support.
Feanaro
Member
A number of people have said, more or less, "tough cookies". I, personally, agree with this idea. I am offended by many things, I keep it to myself. But if our liberal friends should have to "tough it out", why can't the religious members tough out my use of "Jesus Christ!" in consternation? Why can't I cook their Sacred Cow to make my hamburgers? Because THR is built on civil discussion. I hope we all remember that regardless of the issue.
Now if the reason we aren't allowed to abuse the name of God is because it easily starts narsty discussions, that's fine with me. If it is a double standard, that's fine too. It is Oleg's site, he is free to demand that while we post we all dance nude to "It's Raining Men", whilst rubbing our head and patting our stomach.
Now if the reason we aren't allowed to abuse the name of God is because it easily starts narsty discussions, that's fine with me. If it is a double standard, that's fine too. It is Oleg's site, he is free to demand that while we post we all dance nude to "It's Raining Men", whilst rubbing our head and patting our stomach.
Cesiumsponge
Member
In regards to Feanaro's post.
I think the "respect God" thread caters to the beliefs shared by the majority of members here and when you start offending the majority, you're going to get a lot more fire than offending at the minority.
I would fathom the same applies to guns, political affiliation, and heterosexuals. It might be stereotype, but I would be willing to bet a large majority of those here are conservative Republican straight Christians. In establishing that, someone offending the majority is going to cause a lot more backlash than somone poking at a gay liberal Democratic Hindu getting little support in result.
Its just a mob mentality and unavoidable given the gathering of many like-minded people. Given my political and religious beliefs are different than the typical here, I still find myself doing just fine here. Everyone is going to feel offended now and then, especially when people are passionately arguing their viewpoints against yours. You can either back out, continue on, or complain about it.
I don't run around making personal insults (or at least attempt not to). I'll usually feel free to attack ideas and hope that people can discern the difference between attacking an idea and making a personal attack. If I feel it is going to hit a wall or it will continue indefinitely with no headway, I'll back out and save my breath. If there is good discussion, I'll continue on. I'll only complain when discussion turns into personal attacks.
I think the "respect God" thread caters to the beliefs shared by the majority of members here and when you start offending the majority, you're going to get a lot more fire than offending at the minority.
I would fathom the same applies to guns, political affiliation, and heterosexuals. It might be stereotype, but I would be willing to bet a large majority of those here are conservative Republican straight Christians. In establishing that, someone offending the majority is going to cause a lot more backlash than somone poking at a gay liberal Democratic Hindu getting little support in result.
Its just a mob mentality and unavoidable given the gathering of many like-minded people. Given my political and religious beliefs are different than the typical here, I still find myself doing just fine here. Everyone is going to feel offended now and then, especially when people are passionately arguing their viewpoints against yours. You can either back out, continue on, or complain about it.
I don't run around making personal insults (or at least attempt not to). I'll usually feel free to attack ideas and hope that people can discern the difference between attacking an idea and making a personal attack. If I feel it is going to hit a wall or it will continue indefinitely with no headway, I'll back out and save my breath. If there is good discussion, I'll continue on. I'll only complain when discussion turns into personal attacks.
Legionnaire
Contributing Member
"A gentleman never insults anyone unintentionally." -Oscar Wilde
Yesterday, 11:13 PM #80
griz
Senior Member
Hello Griz ... my comments were from reading the thread that ended with what I viewed as restrictions on expressing oneself using religous verbage, as it offends some members. My point was simply, as a liberal minded individual, I am offended by anyone slamming anyone, or their personal belief, or opinion. In other words, I was asking everyone to be nice to each other. If you do not like this opinion, you can express your attitudes without being negative about my chosen path, beliefs, or way of life, it is arduous enough as it is. So maybe you are right, it is more the terminology being used in such an absolute manner ... like I'm right, and you are wrong, you stupid dip***t Democrat ... such absolute judgements send shivers down my back, Democrats sometimes are right.
Namasté
Hook686
griz
Senior Member
Hello Griz ... my comments were from reading the thread that ended with what I viewed as restrictions on expressing oneself using religous verbage, as it offends some members. My point was simply, as a liberal minded individual, I am offended by anyone slamming anyone, or their personal belief, or opinion. In other words, I was asking everyone to be nice to each other. If you do not like this opinion, you can express your attitudes without being negative about my chosen path, beliefs, or way of life, it is arduous enough as it is. So maybe you are right, it is more the terminology being used in such an absolute manner ... like I'm right, and you are wrong, you stupid dip***t Democrat ... such absolute judgements send shivers down my back, Democrats sometimes are right.
Namasté
Hook686
jefnvk
Member
Just because someone chooses to offend me because I don't agree with them, I am still going to try and show them some couertosy, while attacking their argument. To degenerate into name calling and insults shows your argument doesn't hold very well. I don't buy into this 'he did it, so I can too' thing.
As for the basic terms, as with everything, they change meaning over time. You may well consider yourself a Jeffersonian Liberal, and I may know what you mean by it. But since the term liberal does not mean today what it once meant, due to change in its poular usage. By telling people you are a liberal, they are going to have a much different connotation of you, than if you would have told them that 100 years ago.
As for the basic terms, as with everything, they change meaning over time. You may well consider yourself a Jeffersonian Liberal, and I may know what you mean by it. But since the term liberal does not mean today what it once meant, due to change in its poular usage. By telling people you are a liberal, they are going to have a much different connotation of you, than if you would have told them that 100 years ago.
Two responses to one statement - take your pick.
You mean like that?
Or this...
Well - in the grand scheme of things even a broken clock is right twice a day. On the other hand when it comes to socialists (Democrats) trying to influence the culture of what was founded as a free nation of individuals bound and determined to fend for themselves and be free of government interference as much as possible it is laughable to even consider that socialist principles that place the collective ahead of the individual are right even half the time. It belies logic that such is even considered seriously.
The first statement says the same thing as the 2nd with a whole lot less words and saves bandwidth in the process.
I suppose the first statement could be considered a personal attack if one is sensitive but it really isn't. It would probably be considered most rude by many (not me). It derides the idea that Democrats (socialists, nanny staters etc) are right - sometimes.
On the other hand it is obvious that the 2nd statement is definitely aimed at just the idea.
I'm just lazy I guess - I prefer statement one.
Please - Stop... ROFLMFAO.... no more... you're killing me here.
You mean like that?
Or this...
Well - in the grand scheme of things even a broken clock is right twice a day. On the other hand when it comes to socialists (Democrats) trying to influence the culture of what was founded as a free nation of individuals bound and determined to fend for themselves and be free of government interference as much as possible it is laughable to even consider that socialist principles that place the collective ahead of the individual are right even half the time. It belies logic that such is even considered seriously.
The first statement says the same thing as the 2nd with a whole lot less words and saves bandwidth in the process.
I suppose the first statement could be considered a personal attack if one is sensitive but it really isn't. It would probably be considered most rude by many (not me). It derides the idea that Democrats (socialists, nanny staters etc) are right - sometimes.
On the other hand it is obvious that the 2nd statement is definitely aimed at just the idea.
I'm just lazy I guess - I prefer statement one.
A good friend of mine is a registered Democrat and he's way more conservative about a lot of things than I am and I'm a registered Republican. Funny how that works out.
He even voted for the Shrub and I didn't because I think he's a tax and spend freedom nabber. Hey, maybe that's why he voted for him!
He even voted for the Shrub and I didn't because I think he's a tax and spend freedom nabber. Hey, maybe that's why he voted for him!
I named this forum.
Okay, okay-- Oleg named his forum, but he took my suggestion.
We were Staff at www.TheFiringLine.com together, and Rich Lucibella had decided to shut it down. Oleg wanted to see that many of those who had come together there had a place to go to. Not the same forum. Not TFL II, but a place where those Members would feel comfortable. We had a powwow, and EVERYONE involved agreed that the principles of personal dignity that Rich Lucibella brought to TFL should be carried on at the new site. Oleg asked for suggestions for names for the new site. I suggested that we use (or paraphrase) the unofficial (but heavily-adhered-to) policy of TheFiringLine: "Take and follow The High Road." I suggested "thehighroad.com" and found that it was already taken, and promptly re-suggested "thehighroad.org". Oleg liked it, and here we are.
The High Road, friends, is not just a concept. It's certainly not a place. It's what you do. It's making each interaction with another person a choice to remain above the stupid degeneration that is everywhere. Having fun? Oh yes. Snooty? Not at all. But we can be irreverent without being rude at the expense of the dignity of others. Does that sound (horrors!) "PC"? I don't really give a damn.
Okay, okay-- Oleg named his forum, but he took my suggestion.
We were Staff at www.TheFiringLine.com together, and Rich Lucibella had decided to shut it down. Oleg wanted to see that many of those who had come together there had a place to go to. Not the same forum. Not TFL II, but a place where those Members would feel comfortable. We had a powwow, and EVERYONE involved agreed that the principles of personal dignity that Rich Lucibella brought to TFL should be carried on at the new site. Oleg asked for suggestions for names for the new site. I suggested that we use (or paraphrase) the unofficial (but heavily-adhered-to) policy of TheFiringLine: "Take and follow The High Road." I suggested "thehighroad.com" and found that it was already taken, and promptly re-suggested "thehighroad.org". Oleg liked it, and here we are.
The High Road, friends, is not just a concept. It's certainly not a place. It's what you do. It's making each interaction with another person a choice to remain above the stupid degeneration that is everywhere. Having fun? Oh yes. Snooty? Not at all. But we can be irreverent without being rude at the expense of the dignity of others. Does that sound (horrors!) "PC"? I don't really give a damn.
coyote Mak
member
Hook686
Man you need to grow some Kahunas,balls,tits or what ever it is you need to survive in the world. if your going to come on a board and start aTROLL!! war over something as stupid as name calling then you have some serious mental problems.
Life is a bitch, suck it up and live with it, or else someday you are going to tell someone the wrong thing at the wrong time and you are going to end up a pile of dog dodo on the floor.
basically,GROW UP!
Man you need to grow some Kahunas,balls,tits or what ever it is you need to survive in the world. if your going to come on a board and start aTROLL!! war over something as stupid as name calling then you have some serious mental problems.
Life is a bitch, suck it up and live with it, or else someday you are going to tell someone the wrong thing at the wrong time and you are going to end up a pile of dog dodo on the floor.
basically,GROW UP!
coyote Mak
member
Oh buy the way I think you nothing more then a TROLL!!!!
P95Carry
Moderator Emeritus
Please NO personal attacks!
coyote Mak
member
Well someone has to say it like it is and tell this dude what he or she is. 2+ pages of pussy footing around and basically nothing has been said to the fact that the subject matter was silly to start with. Its starting to sound like a church debate. Basically its starting to sound like a bunch of girly men!!!
No_Brakes23
Member
Oh, very High Road, there...
The fact that anyone would even utter this statement, (which contradicts itself) is part of the problem...
Yet another statement devoid of logic. If it is not tolerant, it is therefore not liberal, no matter how much Diane Feinstein and Ann Coulter want it to be.
This one kills me. The "sorry" part is from out of nowhere, and there is that whole "liberals remove liberties" argument again.
True, due to their own intellectual laziness.
Well, it IS, actually, but the PC is relative, and it is called Art's Grammaw. I love the first sentence, "right to not be offended," because that is exactly what some people think they have. I am beginning to see just how one-way the "High Road" is.
Another big part of the problem, "self proclaimed" liberals. They lie about their stance on liberty, and instead of calling them on it, we validate their position by using liberal as an epithet. Just like the self-proclaimed "safety" advocates who want to take our guns away. And yet, I don't see anyone disparaging the word safe.
Yes, it is called perspective.
Holy Mother Church has frequently supported arms control throughout history.
It would certainly appear that way, based on the surplus of oxymoronic statements in this thread.
Perhaps for you. I on the other hand value my personal freedoms, (such as RKBA,) more than I value your religous freedom. Are you suggesting that slurring my beliefs is okay, but it is not okay to even make casual use of a paticular deity's name? Because that is what the current policy amounts to.
I agree. That's why I usually confine my objection to the oxymoronic use of liberal to my sig.
You know, I enjoy the fact that the mods jump on flamefests, but I don't want to see stricter rules concerning slander of beliefs. (After all what kind of liberal would I be if I wanted more limitations?) I do think hook was right to an extant that there is a double standard here. I bet things would be different if there was a concerted effort to portray members of the political right as knuckle-dragging cretins. I bet policies would change abruptly if the word conservative was used synonymously with Nazi, Fascist or Communist. People who use liberal as an epithet don't like to be reminded of famous "conservatives" like Ayatollah Khomeni, Saddam Hussien, Joseph Stalin, and Adolph Hitler. If the label conservative were used as loosely, sloppily, and incorrectly as the term liberal, then people would be singing a different tune.
But in the end,
, and it beats the hell out of GlockTalk anyday...
Last edited:
No_Brakes23
Member
Oh yeah, coyote Mak, large point font, personal attacks, only 17 posts, three of them to attack hook...
...who's the troll here?
...who's the troll here?
BluesBear
member
Because the leftists who desire to erase our 2nd amandment liberties started calling THEMSELVES "Liberal".No_Brakes23 said:
What the heck are you doing then? I have pizzed off an huge amount of people here. I am probably on more ignore lists than anyone here. (I'm also sure I have the most names on my ignore list as well.)Yet the number of times I have been taken to task by a moderator is still (just barely) in the single digits.
I can't believe I waded through four pages of this rubbish.
This thread couldn't be any more doltish if the subject had been, "Which Model Glock would G_D use?"
Looking at the names of those posting here I see many people with high post counts that I rarely see ever discussing firearms.
Some I have never seen at all.
Perhaps I should pay more attention to these Urinals At Twenty Paces threads.
Yeah right.--------------------------------
And I further reserve the right to call a grandstanding microcephalic moron with delusions of adequacy and an advanced case of the stupids exactly what he is.
And, despite your opinion to the contrary, I can do that without impugning on the Second Amendment. Or any other right, for that matter. (Lawdog THR October 26th, 2003)
Sorry but I really don't care about or have time for stupid folks. Folks got a right to be wrong, stupid or both. (sm THR 05-06-04)
Some theories are neat, plausible and wrong. (Grump THR 06-16-04)
It would appear that for some, no explanation is required... for others, no explanation will do. (Baba Louie THR 09/29/03)
"If you don't have some anxiety, you're not in touch with reality." Newt Gingrich
No_Brakes23
Member
So if Jane Fonda called herself a "patriot", you would use patriot as a term of derision?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
