• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread Offensive language - is it still offensive if offence is not intended?

abaddon

Penultimate Amazing
abaddon
Joined
Feb 7, 2011
Messages
23,499
Location
Republic of Ireland
The first 42 posts in this thread originated in a thread about supermathematics and AI, which was once again derailed by a discussion about written English. In particular, the use of an offensive word (retarded) where apparently no offence was intended.
Posted By: Agatha


Funny enough, a search on the material gives this result...
https://atheistforums.org/post-1614538.html

Yup, Joined 5th September 2017. and banned 6th September 2017.

I stopped at that point because really, how potty does an idea have to be to buy an instaban? That has to be at least approaching some sort of record.

In any event we are here and not there, and the MA here specifically precludes such spam. I await the programming god's response.

ETA: Apologies, but I should have mentioned that I had never heard of that venue before, but now I want to join. Thank you PGJ.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
To be fair, it appears that Atheist Forum has the same policy on socks as we do here, and PGJ had been there (and banned) before he joined as ThoughtCurvature.
 
abaddon said:
Funny enough, a search on the material gives this result...
https://atheistforums.org/post-1614538.html

Yup, Joined 5th September 2017. and banned 6th September 2017.

I stopped at that point because really, how potty does an idea have to be to buy an instaban? That has to be at least approaching some sort of record.

In any event we are here and not there, and the MA here specifically precludes such spam. I await the programming god's response.

ETA: Apologies, but I should have mentioned that I had never heard of that venue before, but now I want to join. Thank you PGJ.
Click to expand...

I was initially banned there, because I called a few people retarded. I've done well here so far, without doing that, although even now I am tempted to do so for a few cases.


Footnote:

Apart from your irrelevant words, do you have anything sensible to contribute w.r.t. to the OP?

(1) You may use this conversation on thought curvature on science forums as a guide)

(2) You may use this discussion on thought curvature on physics forum as a guide too.

You could also sign up on those other forums, and post about all the other places I have been banned , although of course, this would have no relevance to the OP...
 
Last edited:
Agatha said:
To be fair, it appears that Atheist Forum has the same policy on socks as we do here, and PGJ had been there (and banned) before he joined as ThoughtCurvature.
Click to expand...

As I expressed above, I was initially banned on that other forum, because I called a few people retarded. I've done well here so far, without doing that, although the responses of a few others have tempted me to do so several times.

However, even regardless of the instance that the latest sock there got banned, I still got useful information (from some members that knew me well there with respect to the OP)
 
Reality Check said:
5 October 2017: A link to a PDF repeating a delusion of a "Deepmnd atari q architecture".
Click to expand...

I wonder why it is wrong when I point out that people say retarded things? I was banned a few times on other forums because I pointed out their retarded comments. What is with people and soft-snowflake feelings in 2017?

Alas I shall resist on this forum.

Edited by Agatha: 
Edited material pertaining to the original thread
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
I wonder why it is wrong when I point out that people say retarded things?
Click to expand...
Because it is an double insult (you are insulting those people and you are insulting intellectually handicapped people) that depending on the forum rules breaks the rules to such an extent that you would be banned. As you know from being banned.


Edited by Agatha: 
Edited material pertaining to the original thread
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Reality Check said:
Because it is an double insult (you are insulting those people and you are insulting intellectually handicapped people) that depending on the forum rules breaks the rules to such an extent that you would be banned. As you know from being banned.
Click to expand...


I excluded the ALE portion of your quote, as it is extremely irrelevant/worthless. (Notably, great portions or the entire length of of your quotes are typically irrelevant, but I tend to snip away the extremely irrelevant sequences)

Retarded may simply mean foolish.
 
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
I excluded the ALE portion of your quote, as it is extremely irrelevant/worthless. (Notably, great portions or the entire length of of your quotes are typically irrelevant, but I tend to snip away the extremely irrelevant sequences)

Retarded may simply mean foolish.
Click to expand...

Retarded and foolish do not have identical meanings, but neither word is acceptable when referring to other posters. Please remind yourself of the Membership Agreement to which you agreed on joining this forum, particularly with rule 0 and rule 12.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha
 
Agatha said:
Retarded and foolish do not have identical meanings, but neither word is acceptable when referring to other posters. Please remind yourself of the Membership Agreement to which you agreed on joining this forum, particularly with rule 0 and rule 12.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha
Click to expand...

Notes to consider;:

(1) I was considering referring to the poster's argument, and not the poster directly (See this reply)

(2) Retarded may mean foolish.

Of course, foolish does not encompass all that the word retarded can mean, but nevertheless, retarded may mean foolish.

See the informal portion below:

Google definition of retarded

(3) Any actual reply to do with the OP is welcomed.
 
In the abstract, certainly. In the real world of online forums? Not so much.
 
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Notes to consider;:

(1) I was considering referring to the poster's argument, and not the poster directly (See this reply)

(2) Retarded may mean foolish.

Of course, foolish does not encompass all that the word retarded can mean, but nevertheless, retarded may mean foolish.

See the informal portion below:

Google definition of retarded

(3) Any actual reply to do with the OP is welcomed.
Click to expand...

Our Lord of Science,

Your definition of retarded is not 'simply foolish', as you assert earlier then backpedal away from. It is 'very foolish or stupid', and is specifically an 'informal offensive' usage. Apply Thine analytical wisdom unto that use: it's intent is to be offensive, so if Thy Magnificence uses it thusly, Thy intent is to offend. Is a reading from the Book of the MA, Chapters 0 and 12, appropriate for today's homily?
 
MostlyDead said:
Our Lord of Science,

Your definition of retarded is not 'simply foolish', as you assert earlier then backpedal away from. It is 'very foolish or stupid', and is specifically an 'informal offensive' usage. Apply Thine analytical wisdom unto that use: it's intent is to be offensive, so if Thy Magnificence uses it thusly, Thy intent is to offend. Is a reading from the Book of the MA, Chapters 0 and 12, appropriate for today's homily?
Click to expand...

Well, that is how I intended to use the word...

Anyway, anything sensible to say with respect to the OP?
 
halleyscomet said:
Dude,

I get it. You like rules lawyering about language, but there's a time and place for everything.

Please check out this site before you continue down this path: R-word, spread the word to end the word. I'd hate to see you suspended again over such an easily avoidable issue.
Click to expand...

I already specified the word's intended use; simply foolish.

Do you have anything sensible to say w.r.t. OP?
 
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Well, that is how I intended to use the word...

Anyway, anything sensible to say with respect to the OP?
Click to expand...

The term "retarded" is being viewed as increasingly hostile in the USA. There are people arguing that it should be considered as offensive in its use as the nastier racial slurs. The word "retarded" is a double duty insult, as it also insults by implication people with developmental difficulties. Functionally it is equivalent to a racial slur when referencing people who would have once been described as "retarded" in a clinical diagnosis.

Regardless of the dictionary definition, the ventricular use of the term is cruel, vindictive and nasty. Please try to keep the difference between the dictionary definition of a word and its vernacular use n mind.
 
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
I already specified the word's intended use; simply foolish.
Click to expand...

I am merely trying to convey the cultural baggage the word carries in the USA, and how that baggage makes it a very poor synonym for "foolish" in civil discourse.

Please do not use the word as a synonym for "foolish" again, unless your intention is be deliberately vulgar, cruel, dismissive an nasty. Expect hostile reactions when you use that word in the future, as it is a hostile word and one that provokes further hostility.

I am reminded of one of my former employers, who lost a client because he used the phrase "Jew me down" to describe a tough bargaining process with the client, and the client overheard him. Your arguments to defend your use of the word "retarded" sound very similar to the justifications he used over the phrase "Jew me down." In both cases something was said without intended hostility, but hostility was perceived as a result of the cultural baggage of the words used.

If you wish to be understood, you must contaminate clearly, with awareness of the nuances of the language you are using.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom