Qhimm.com Forums
Off-topic forums => Completely Unrelated => Topic started by: sl1982 on 2011-04-08 17:34:20
-
Thinking about a previous conversation about the swear filter got me thinking. Perhaps some people are right and the swear filter is somewhat pointless. But instead of turning it off outright I have made it so people can turn off the filter in their own profiles. The filter will still be enabled by default.
Side Note: Massive vulgarity, racism, etc still not allowed.
Fuck, go have fun!
-
fuck yeah.
-
.
-
What could? This was just to inform people that they could turn off the filter if they wish.
-
Fucking thank you! =]
-
Side Note: Massive vulgarity, racism, etc still not allowed.
Define "massive vulgarity". It sounds quite subjective to me.
Sorry, I meant to say
What the cunting fuck shit is massive vulgarity?
-
fucking A
-
Define "massive vulgarity". It sounds quite subjective to me.
Sorry, I meant to say
What the female genitaliaing f*ck sh*t is massive vulgarity?
I guess what I meant to say is lots of swearing directed at a person. eg (Kudistos you fucking cocksucker why dont you go eat shit and die!) That sort of thing. The following was just an example, kudistos should not go eat shit. I hear it tastes bad.
-
I guess what I meant to say is lots of swearing directed at a person.
But that's already covered by rules on general abuse and flaming, n'est-ce pas?
kudistos should not go eat shit. I hear it tastes bad.
You hear from whom? :|
The following was just an example
NANI??!??!??!??!?? ::)
-
General concensus. Everyone seems to thing sh*t tastes bad so I am assuming it does. 'Tastes like sh*t' would have not come to be a popular saying if sh*t did not taste bad.
But that's already covered by rules on general abuse and flaming, n'est-ce pas?
Hence the still not allowed.
-
To elaborate on the rules: swearing is a little like smilies. Add them when you feel they emphasise a point, or add something to your post. But if you overuse strings of them, your posts are disruptive, and will be treated as such.
Define "massive vulgarity". It sounds quite subjective to me.
It is, and it has to be. There's no cast iron rule that says 'X vulgar words across Y sentences makes for excess' - it all depends on context, and posts need to be judged on a one by one basis. Yes, that means that if you choose to swear, you court a theoretical risk that your 'harmless outburst' gets moderated. But it's either this, G-rated threads or a free-for-all.
-
so where do I turn it off. I looked everywhere :o
-
so where do I turn it off. I looked everywhere :o
You didn't look everywhere. (http://forums.qhimm.com/index.php?action=profile;area=theme)
-
I did look here I just look over it. Thanks :-D
-
Very well, I'm turning off my filter! Not that it makes a huge difference, because I don't swear that much. imo, swearing is fucking pointless :P
-
This is the one feature I was praying for, yes I can finally be free! LOL
-
This is the one feature I was praying for, yes I can finally be free! LOL
Is this sarcasm? You've prolly got the cleanest mouth of anyone here.
-
Mako is horrible. She needs to put soap in her mouth.... It's a disgrace. 8)
-
Mako is horrible. She needs to put soap in her mouth.... It's a disgrace.
Do I get supper tonight? LOL
Is this sarcasm? You've prolly got the cleanest mouth of anyone here.
Yes, I don't like swearing. It sets a hostile tone, and can make people not wan't to open up to you if you start swearing all over the place. Though I can see why people do it...I just don't agree :-[.
Though lately I have been using pretty questionable short hand!!! Like: LMAO and over use of the word "damn". Although tame to some it is not my style, I think its rubbing off from you guys :P, Personally I blame Dan! LOL
-
Do I get supper tonight? LOL
Yes, I don't like swearing. It sets a hostile tone, and can make people not wan't to open up to you if you star swearing all over the place. Though I can see why people do it...I just don't agree :-[.
Though lately I have been using pretty questionable short hand!!! Like: LMAO and over use of the word "damn". Although tame to some it is not my style, I think its rubbing off from you guys :P, Personally I blame Dan! LOL
I, for one, fucking agree, that it was that cocksucker Dan, who is leaving a motherfucking impression on you, causing you to fucking curse left and right
-
Massive vulgarity
Isn't that basically this entire thread?
I personally swear a whole lot! I can't stop swearing! I swear for breakfast, lunch, and dinner ;)
I agree with Mako's point. I have seen situations on here where people are angrily posting at others, and have censored words in their posts. I wonder if that will seem more insulting with the censors off. Guess everyone has thick enough skin to handle it.
-
I, for one, f*cking agree, that it was that c*cksucker Dan, who is leaving a motherf*cking impression on you, causing you to f*cking curse left and right
Heh, I guess you figured out pretty quick who is really reasonable for my recent behavior. ROFL
-
I agree with Mako's point. I have seen situations on here where people are angrily posting at others, and have censored words in their posts. I wonder if that will seem more insulting with the censors off. Guess everyone has thick enough skin to handle it.
Explicit or not, anything I judge as 'abuse' in Completely Unrelated will be dealt with accordingly.
Now is also a good time to explain that I don't like people using 'gay' to mean 'lame, effeminate, silly'. I prefer it if people don't do it.
-
Now is also a good time to explain that I don't like people using 'gay' to mean 'lame, effeminate, silly'. So don't do it.
I don't like that usage, but not for any reasons of offense, but simply because it's stupid and confusing. It can lead to misunderstandings when used in this form: if you call a person "gay" meaning anything but homosexual, somebody's gonna misinterpret it for sure. Clarity is always a good thing in written language.
ex:
"president bush is gay"
"what? He's happily married"
"no, i just meant he's a bad president"
and then the first person comes across sounding like an idiot.
As for this thread being "Massive vulgarity", since it's in completely unrelated and being confined to this thread I strongly doubt anybody's gonna have a problem with it. It's not like anybody's cursing out Aali in his custom driver thread for not having a new release soon enough or anything.
-
gay means happy. Stop hijacking words.. A man can't even use the word "come" these days. :-D
-
Now is also a good time to explain that I don't like people using 'gay' to mean 'lame, effeminate, silly'. So don't do it.
So you're going to use your mod power to push your linguistic prescriptivist views on everyone else? Naughty! :mrgreen:
I don't like that usage, but not for any reasons of offense, but simply because it's stupid and confusing. It can lead to misunderstandings when used in this form: if you call a person "gay" meaning anything but homosexual, somebody's gonna misinterpret it for sure. Clarity is always a good thing in written language.
As a general rule, when "gay" is used in that way, it's referring to inanimate objects and abstract concepts, so such confusions is rare. Example:
This thread is gay
The meaning is clear.
Now, as for "faggot", there we can leave ourselves open to confusion. If I say "OP is a faggot", it really could mean two different things.
gay means happy
No (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy).
The English language, and the meanings of the words therein, has been changing at a frightening pace ever since Hengest and Horsa were first spotted at the Kentish shore.if you argue that "gay" means happy, then you're committed to asserting that all kinds of words are being used completely wrongly.
-
The meaning is clear.
Now, as for "faggot", there we can leave ourselves open to confusion. If I say "OP is a faggot", it really could mean two different things.
Been battling a 4chan user for quite some time on my site, he uses these words!? What does "OP" stand for? I am pretty sure I know what f****t means :/
Such a strange culture, but very distinctive...You can tell they are from 4chan just by reading one of their posts.
-
original post or poster.
-
original post or poster.
This doesn't make sense!? One time I got "OP f-- here you are a --- and a a------" or something of the sort! Is the person referring to himself/herself as a f--?
Why would they do this? I think it stands for something else right?
EDIT: Looked it up you are correct...
-
This doesn't make sense!? One time I got "OP f-- here you are a --- and a a------" or something of the sort! Is the person referring to himself/herself as a f--?
Why would they do this? I think it stands for something else right?
EDIT: Looked it up you are correct...
Yes, it's common to use the word "fag" (usually as a suffix) to refer to oneself on *chan sites. This is particularly common when talking about one's nationality: Britfag, Ausfag, Amerifag etc.
Although I don't recall ever seeing anyone call themselves OPfag. That's unusual.
-
OP has different meanings depending on context. For example, if someone says "Knights of the Round is OP", they probably mean overpowered.
-
"Knights of the Round is OP"
Ahh this makes sense, as I do not remember the exact context word for word...heh
-
I think this isn't too bad of an idea, as not everybody uses swearing for insults.
Example, on other forums for something really cool I might go:
" :o That shit is fucking amazing"
Of course I'm not saying we should all excessively curse, but I think It's a good idea to have a filter that's toggleable. After all, It's not like we have a swearing filter embedded in our ears.
-
Gay
2 dated light-hearted and carefree:Nan had a gay disposition and a very pretty face
3 dated brightly coloured; showy:a gay profusion of purple and pink sweet peas
Oxford dictionary. It is more of an authority on spelling and meaning than you kud ;) Gay means exactly what is above and did originally, but can also mean a homosexual person or
4 informal not impressive, stylish, or attractive:he thinks the obsession with celebrity is totally gay
----------
It depends on context nowadays but the word was hijacked. It still retains its original meaning in context, or the flintstones is wrong. The flintstones is too cool to be wrong, so am I and so is the oxford dictionary.
-
Notice how the word "dated" comes before the definitions. It may as well mean that those definitions no longer apply, unless the context of the word takes place in a time when it did apply.
It's not a good idea to use the word "gay" for its original meanings as they has been phased out in favor of the newer, more unfortunate meanings.
I'm feeling very gay today. I'm feeling very happy today.
-
It still applies. Words have multiple meanings.
-
But what does it matter, if no one uses it for that context?
-
Well that is just my point. It has been hijacked. But the bottom line is, it can still mean what it did originally and is OK for use in that context. If people have a problem with that they should make a new word up and use that for "to be a homosexual".
-
They should, but they won't. People suck. They never do what they should do. They just follow whatever appears to be the norm :-\
EDIT: When I say "people suck", please don't take me too seriously.
-
I agree.
-
Oxford dictionary. It is more of an authority on spelling and meaning than you kud
Good thing that it agrees with me. As The Seer of Shadows said, it is marked as dated and therefore inappropriate in normal speech. In contemporary, standard English, gay means one thing and one thing only, and that thing is "homosexual". It has meant this and only this since before you were born. Its change of meaning is an example of natural semantic change and not some hijacking. If you were to complain about hijacking, you'd be better off complaining about its use as an insult, but even then you'd be like Cnut giving orders to the sea. Don't try to fight against language change. I wish it were possible to do so, but it is not.
It still retains its original meaning in context, or the flintstones is wrong. The flintstones is too cool to be wrong, so am I and so is the oxford dictionary.
This Flintstones was made in a different time, when there was still some ambiguity as to the word's meaning. I also imagine that they were trying to get a laugh out of whatever innuendo was there, a la Are You Being Served? and Mrs Slocombe's wet pussy. You might therefore be glad to hear that neither the Flintstones nor the OED are wrong ;D
-
Well so we all know, that once again, you are right and the experts are wrong. I'll have to throw my oxford dictionary out it seems, and get the one from kudford.
:mrgreen:
-
Well so we all know, that once again, you are right and the experts are wrong. I'll have to throw my oxford dictionary out it seems, and get the one from kudford.
:mrgreen:
^What this fuckin' guy said
-
Well so we all know, that once again, you are right and the experts are wrong. I'll have to throw my oxford dictionary out it seems, and get the one from kudford.
:mrgreen:
Except I agree with the experts. They say that the use of "gay" to mean "happy" is dated, i.e. inappropriate in modern speech and thus should only be used when one is seeking an old-timey feel. I also say that he use of "gay" to mean "happy" is dated, i.e. inappropriate in modern speech and thus should only be used when one is seeking an old-timey feel. You don't need to throw away that dictionary just yet, it says the same thing that I say!
BTW, I'd rather you used facts and evidence than sarcasm in your replies. It's very uncivil.
-
Bosola's comment - Really sorry, I modified rather than quoted! The buttons are right next to each other! You might want to edit this back to its original content
nah it is OK, I do that all the time on my own forum. :mrgreen:
Well I supplied my evidence, it was the dictionary stating multiple meanings for the word Gay. You simply stated it wasn't true and because the word is outdated in that context, it is not allowed to be used as such in modern usage.
Which is, I am afraid, false. You can spin that any way you like... but you are wrong Yet again though, I am arguing with you over something that is a blatant fact and just for the sake of you wanting an argument, so I will stop here and let you show us all the proof that gay no longer means what is quoted in my previous post, which was taken directly from the Oxford Dictionary. Also show us proof that it can no longer be used as such... I would like to see "This can no longer be used" or words to that effect, if you can't find such evidence in the Oxford dictionary then you have to concede you are wrong.
You won't but oh well.
-
Well I supplied my evidence, it was the dictionary stating multiple meanings for the word Gay. You simply stated it wasn't true and because the word is outdated in that context, it is not allowed to be used as such in modern usage.
I said nothing about it not being allowed. I described it's usage, not prescribed it. I don't have the OED's glossary of terms at hand, but when a word is described as dated it usually indicates that it is only likely to be used by old people and that the linguistic community in general considers it to be obsolete.
Which is, I am afraid, false. You can spin that any way you like... but you are wrong :) Yet again though, I am arguing with you over something that is a blatant fact and just for the sake of you wanting an argument, so I will stop here and let you show us all the proof that gay no longer means what is quoted in my previous post, which was taken directly from the Oxford Dictionary. Also show us proof that it can no longer be used as such... I would like to see "This can no longer be used" or words to that effect, if you can't find such evidence in the Oxford dictionary then you have to concede you are wrong.
You won't but oh well.
Oh look it's the "I can't prove Kudistos wrong so I'll say he's trolling and his opinion can be ignored" argument again!
I don't need to provide evidence: you've provided it for me! You quoted the OED as saying that the meaning is dated and therefore considered wrong by people not of pensionable age. The last time I checked, you were not in this category. PROTIP: dated refers to words like negro to describe black people. The term will be heard from some people, but it will sound very, very wrong to modern ears. A dated word is obsolete to all intents and purposes; it's only used by the people who have yet to get the memo.
-
I tend to agree with Kudistos on this one. While the dictionary term is still a valid use, if you try to use it in speech you will find that what you said and what people think you mean are two vastly different things.
-
Words only exist through dint of consensus. And human beings change these words for good reasons - because they need to express things in new ways.
If we're really going to stick to etymologies, are we going to revert back to the 14th century meaning of 'sad' (meaning 'firm' or 'steady')?
-
ITT: People being trolled by DLPB
-
If we're really going to stick to etymologies, are we going to revert back to the 14th century meaning of 'sad' (meaning 'firm' or 'steady')?
The word sad has been hijacked by militant bi-polar activists!
ITT: People being trolled by DLPB
Poe's law.
Anyway, shouldn't you be threatening him with your mod powers if he's trolling?
-
If it creates disruption, yes.
-
If it creates disruption, yes.
That would probably be how I'd deal with it too.
One of the reasons why there was a scene the last time I disagreed with Seifer is because everyone felt the need to "help" to stop anything escalating. Sometimes interference in arguments cause the escalation it seeks to prevent.
-
Kudi, here's the problem. Whether or not that definition is dated or not, isn't the issue. There is no debate that it's dated. This still doesn't change the fact that it is an equally valid definition, while it may sound out of place, using the vernacular of our times, it is still 100% valid, according to OED anyway.
-
If you want legitimate definitions for words use urban dictionary.
/thread
-
Kudi, here's the problem. Whether or not that definition is dated or not, isn't the issue. There is no debate that it's dated. This still doesn't change the fact that it is an equally valid definition, while it may sound out of place, using the vernacular of our times, it is still 100% valid, according to OED anyway.
The OED doesn't deal with validity, nor, if it did, would inclusion in the OED imply validity. ♥ is in the OED, but that doesn't mean it's a "valid" word in standard English. The OED contains a lot of words that aren't used or aren't meant to be used or aren't appropriate in certain contexts. If an entry is market as dated, it means that the definition is considered obsolete and, yes, wrong, by most people, insofar as a word can be "wrong".
-
The OED doesn't deal with validity, nor, if it did, would inclusion in the OED imply validity. ♥ is in the OED, but that doesn't mean it's a "valid" word in standard English. The OED contains a lot of words that aren't used or aren't meant to be used or aren't appropriate in certain contexts. If an entry is market as dated, it means that the definition is considered obsolete and, yes, wrong, by most people, insofar as a word can be "wrong".
The OED does deal with validity though, it's the very basis for what is and isn't a word in the English language. If it isn't in the OED it generally isn't accepted as a word. Beyond that, ANY English dictionary has the dated (or invalid, by your standards), definition of the word gay. So even if you don't agree with the OED, it is still valid under most any other dictionary you look in. If I were to say that someone seemed awful gay today, you can't say that my use of the word to mean happy is incorrect. Strange in our vernacular, yes, incorrect, no. How do you not grasp this concept?
-
In my view, meanings are marked as "dated", rather than being outright excluded, so that if we encounter that word in some form of ancient literature, the context of which took place at a time when the meaning wasn't dated, then we have a meaning to apply to it. Does that make sense? It's probably just my childish way of looking at the world 8)
I think I'll retire from this thread now.
-
The OED does deal with validity though, it's the very basis for what is and isn't a word in the English language. If it isn't in the OED it generally isn't accepted as a word. Beyond that, ANY English dictionary has the dated (or invalid, by your standards), definition of the word gay. So even if you don't agree with the OED, it is still valid under most any other dictionary you look in. If I were to say that someone seemed awful gay today, you can't say that my use of the word to mean happy is incorrect. Strange in our vernacular, yes, incorrect, no. How do you not grasp this concept?
How do you not grasp the concept of not affirming the consequent? Even if we assumed it were true (it isn't) that words aren't valid if they're not in the dictionary, it doesn't follow that they are valid if they are in it. If all cats are four-legged animals and my dog is a four-legged animal, does that mean that my dog is a cat?
The OED simply records words that are used in the English language. Many of those words might no longer be used or might only be used in certain dialects or registers. This is one of those words. If the linguistic community does not accept that "gay" means "happy", then it does not mean "happy". If it seems strange, that means it's not being used in a way that people consider acceptable.
In my view, meanings are marked as "dated", rather than being outright excluded, so that if we encounter that word in some form of ancient literature, the context of which took place at a time when the meaning wasn't dated, then we have a meaning to apply to it. Does that make sense? It's probably just my childish way of looking at the world 8)
You more or less have the right idea.
-
:cry: <-- That's dedicated to the forum and this thread in particular.
-
Do we have anything more to say about the swear filter? This linguistics stuff is at risk of commandeering the whole thread.
-
Actually this thread didn't go off topic...Breakdown Time:
Someone: The word "gay" is stupid to use on here and offensive.
DLBP: No its not! it means happy!
Kudi: Not it doesn't it means you are a "buttpirate" <---Added my own colorful spin
DLBP: Its still valid!
Kudi: Not it is not this [insert link here] said it isn't
DLBP: Blah
Kudi: Blah
---------------------------------------------
Now to add my 2 pennies: Its a word and it's offensive here. Case closed for you keeping track at home that's me siding with Kudi. Long live team Kudi!
Tune in next week where our next debate will be over "French Fries" vs "Chips" till then this is your host Mako see you next time on...
The Nerd Olympics :P.
-
It became less about the policy on 'gay' (which isn't a rule, it's just a preference of mine), and more about etymologies and what makes a word a word. Whilst that's very interesting, I think this thread is better used as an opportunity to discuss forum 'censorship'.
On that note, how do we feel about hyperlinks to 'controversial' or adult material? Leave it so long as there's an (NSFW) tag and the link text is clear about where the user is going? Purge them altogether? Or let the reader beware whenever they leave Qhimm.com?
-
for you keeping track at home that's me siding with Kudi. Long live team Kudi!
Mako, I am disappoint
-
offense can only be taken on the side of the receiver. There is nothing in itself which is ultimately offensive, only when one receives those words as offensive does it become so. Therefore your both right so...
YAY! no more fucking arguing :mrgreen:
-
YAY! no more fucking arguing :mrgreen:
Who said there was no more fucking arguing? I sure as hell didn't... Those sound like arguin' words, come to think of it.
-
I just translated "You cum guzzling douche bag" into Japanese and got this.
あなたががぶ飲み潅水袋を兼。
And it flipped the sentence.
So now it says "Cum guzzling douche bag you are."
What a disgusting thing to say :-( What does that have to do with the debate going on here? Weird...
-
NSFW links: Allowed with caveats. Posting to content that actually has some sort of content on it that is not pornographic is allowed (ie sanaku). Must have a NSFW notice posted with it. Posting links to pornographic or other questionable content not allowed. Basically if the content you wish to link is not questionable but other things on the site such as advertisements are then use a NSFW tag.
-
What a disgusting thing to say :-( What does that have to do with the debate going on here? Weird...
I was testing out the filter duh! >.>
-
I was testing out the filter duh! >.>
It has now been tested. Be careful as you are on a short leash as it is.
-
It has now been tested. Be careful as you are on a short leash as it is.
Yeah I just remembered that. Sorry.
-
Who said there was no more fucking arguing? I sure as hell didn't... Those sound like arguin' words, come to think of it.
nope just sarcasm ;D
-
NSFW links: Allowed with caveats. Posting to content that actually has some sort of content on it that is not pornographic is allowed (ie sanaku). Must have a NSFW notice posted with it. Posting links to pornographic or other questionable content not allowed. Basically if the content you wish to link is not questionable but other things on the site such as advertisements are then use a NSFW tag.
In any case, we should probably announce somewhere that we aren't responsible for the contents of other sites. Just because a site is SFW today doesn't mean it will be tomorrow.
On a similar matter, I think it's also appropriate that posters are responsible for the contents of any image they embed. I'm thinking about anti-hotlinking htaccess traps, where an image is replaced with an offensive alternative when it's embedded into a forum post.
-
Has this really ever been a problem? Outside of the purposeful spamming of the forum, the worst I can think of are the rare occasions kudistos links to that site he gets his news from. And even then he always announces it's probably nsfw.
-
I guess not, I just thought I'd be a good time to properly discuss it.
-
If I can just weigh in here, I'd like to agree with Bosola and say I also don't like use of the word "gay" as an insult. I fucking despise the word "faggot", but having read Encyclopedia Dramatica to the point where I can't breathe from laughter/ am immune to all things; have come to understand the internet lingo of "macfag", "britfag" etc. (Thanks to you Kudistos :P). This is an example of a shift in perception from my point of view.
I use the word fag to describe cigarettes - that's a British thing. If an American were to use the word fag in speech it would mean something entirely different.
Just my opinion. I've stated my distaste and offence for use of the words "gay" and "faggot" in derogatory context many times before (at least 5) and I'm glad that for the first time in the 10 years I've been browsing this board, someone else has said something about it.
-
If I can just weigh in here, I'd like to agree with Bosola and say I also don't like use of the word "gay" as an insult. I fucking despise the word "faggot", but having read Encyclopedia Dramatica to the point where I can't breathe from laughter/ am immune to all things; have come to understand the internet lingo of "macfag", "britfag" etc. (Thanks to you Kudistos :P). This is an example of a shift in perception from my point of view.
I use the word fag to describe cigarettes - that's a British thing. If an American were to use the word fag in speech it would mean something entirely different.
Just my opinion. I've stated my distaste and offence for use of the words "gay" and "faggot" in derogatory context many times before (at least 5) and I'm glad that for the first time in the 10 years I've been browsing this board, someone else has said something about it.
I use the words "gay" and "faggot" to describe homosexual people all the time, but never mean offense by it, oddly enough
-
I use the words "gay" and "faggot" to describe homosexual people all the time, but never mean offense by it, oddly enough
I find it offensive.
-
If we're talking about etymology - the f word as a cigarette stems from its literal meaning, and makes sense in its use. Its application to homosexuals is ridiculously offense if you know the reasoning behind it.
-
I use the words "gay" and "faggot" to describe homosexual people all the time, but never mean offense by it, oddly enough
I thought we agreed: Stop>Think>Type>Done.
Guess we still need much work on the second step...:P
-
What a disgusting thing to say :-( What does that have to do with the debate going on here? Weird...
Yeah some of you need to realise there are girls around here too, and people who don't want to hear things like that. Have a little bit of respect :) eh ;)
-
How's about you stop talking like us Canadians, eh?
-
:evil:
-
It's aboot time someone brought that up.
-
I use the words "gay" and "faggot" to describe homosexual people all the time, but never mean offense by it, oddly enough
I find it offensive as well.
I saw this on TV the other day.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEpBYKOs3ys
-
I'm just trying to say that I don't think there's such a thing as an offensive word. They can be used offensively, but it is possible to use them without offense. I mean, one of my best friends growing up is gay now, and he doesn't even have the slightest problem being called a faggot, unless there's obvious malice behind it.
-
I'm just trying to say that I don't think there's such a thing as an offensive word. They can be used offensively, but it is possible to use them without offense. I mean, one of my best friends growing up is gay now, and he doesn't even have the slightest problem being called a faggot, unless there's obvious malice behind it.
People can take what you say differently than your friend. All I'm saying is you should think about what you're going to say before just calling someone a faggot.
-
How's about you stop talking like us Canadians, eh?
i sincerely wish this forum had a like button :P i would like the hell out of that post
-
I'm just trying to say that I don't think there's such a thing as an offensive word. They can be used offensively, but it is possible to use them without offense. I mean, one of my best friends growing up is gay now, and he doesn't even have the slightest problem being called a faggot, unless there's obvious malice behind it.
I understand that words are different when considered in context and when joking with friends, but someone is always going to be offended when certain words are used a certain way. I'm not saying it makes a person homophobic, but it really doesn't help matters. There's really not a defence for it. I find the words "gay" and "faggot" being thrown around this board all the time to describe people and/or derogatory situations, and it pisses me off.
It offends some people, it doesn't offend others. All I'm saying is that people could stand to be a bit more considerate when posting. Its not like it costs a huge amount of effort to not use words that can be considered offensive to some people.
EDIT: If we're talking about etymology - the f word as a cigarette stems from its literal meaning, and makes sense in its use. Its application to homosexuals is ridiculously offense if you know the reasoning behind it.
I forgot I wanted to add that I agree with this. For those that didn't know - "Faggot" is derived from the French word "Faggeaux" which was the kindling used to burn witches at the stake. When you call someone a faggot, you're saying you think they should burn. If that's not offensive, I don't know what is; especially considering that it's now a common word for homosexuality because of this meaning.
-
but someone is always going to be offended when certain words are used a certain way
Well then fuck those people. Words are nothing but sounds or combinations of symbols, what the fuck is there to be offended about? People are just way too fucking high strung these days.
Even though we've enabled swearing, we still don't allow strings of excessive vulgarity. Swear with measure. - Bosola
-
Yawn.
-
Well then fuck those people.
I'm not going to use my authority to slap you down for saying 'gay', but it is something I don't like. Not only does it align us with bigots, but it makes the forums seem puerile.
Also, we've already outlined that nonsense strings of expletives or vulgar language aren't acceptable. Thus my edit.
Treat swearing and vulgarity as you would smilies - a few :) s and :lol: s are fine, but
omg :-o :-( :-[ :-X :-D :? :x!!!!1111eleventeen 8-)!!
...ain't kosher.
-
Red is my edit color! Find another.
-
Don't be touching green either!
-
use PINK
or ORANGE
:-P
-
Loving your avatar, Obesebear :)
-
Bosola makes me think blue
ALSO:
Are there more people that use the word 'gay' in casual speech or more people that find the word offensive? That should be the basis for deciding if it is right or wrong to say - at least considering the logic behind most arguments in most threads is "consensus rules over all" lol
-
Consensus rules over all? Pfft. Consensus is so overrated. On these forums, the admins rule over all :P It's just simpler that way.
Also, I don't agree with you. If it's offensive, it's offensive to gay people, who are a minority. Consensus victimizes them. So whether 'gay' is offensive or not… I say only gay people should be allowed to vote on that one.
-
Oh, I wasn't saying thats how I think it should be done. I was saying that most recent discussions that I've paid attention to in some threads have been solved by examining what the majority believes. I think consensus is overrated too, and I am aware admins rule and agree it is simpler.
I agree it is offensive too....the only problem I see is that anyone can declare anything offensive. And if consensus means nothing, and it only takes one offended person to render something offensive...well things could get stupid quick.