• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

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

abaddon

Penultimate Amazing
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.
 
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.

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:
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.

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)
 
5 October 2017: A link to a PDF repeating a delusion of a "Deepmnd atari q architecture".

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:
I wonder why it is wrong when I point out that people say retarded things?
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:
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.


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.
 
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.

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
 
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

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.
 
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.

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?
 
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?

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

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

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

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

Anyway, anything sensible to say with respect to the OP?

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

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.
 
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.

Oh, it appears this site is mostly USA populated, and it is pertinent that any member speaks in manner that makes USA people feel good...
 
I have met many Jamaican people, and they have been well mannered.

Try not to let the side down.

Most Jamaicans are religious fools.

I am already letting them down in that regard; I don't subscribe to fictitious character worship, and they don't fancy that..

I am not liable to care about "letting the side down".
 
Wait, for real? You really do not know that white supremacists use the term to categorise anyone with insufficiently pasty skin as a sub-human? Really?

I ponder what other standard words "white supremacists" use, and whether we should avoid using them, because the "white supremacists" use them...
 
I ponder what other standard words "white supremacists" use, and whether we should avoid using them, because the "white supremacists" use them...

This is why the thread keeps turning back to your piss-poor communication skills and WHY your piss-poor communication skills remains relevant to the thread.

A good communicator would choose to stop using a word or phrase that offended the majority of the people they were communicating with. Being needlessly offensive distracts from your core message. At this point YOU have derailed your own thread by doubling down on justifying your use of a word others found offensive. You then went on to take the opportunity to take unrelated and unjustified pot-shots at the character of your fellow countrymen.

I've been reading this thread for a while now, and you have consistently and persistently alienated people and engendered hostility towards your point of view. If Einstein had conducted himself the way you are now, the odds are good we STILL wouldn't know why the orbit of Mercury is so wonky.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, I have a bit of autism

I know a number of people on the Autism and Asperger's spectrum. The ones who are successful in their endeavors tend to take feedback on their communication skills seriously. The ones who go in for a bull-headed, legalistic defense when told they are communicating poorly tend to have career and romantic problems.

You know you have issues with communication. Please stop rejecting feedback from people who simply want you to be able to communicate more effectively. I want to see your ideas discussed on their merits, not on your personality and behavior.
 
Oh, it appears this site is mostly USA populated, and it is pertinent that any member speaks in manner that makes USA people feel good...

You were warned by a moderator who is not from the USA. A word to the wise is sufficient, but it looks like you're going to need stronger admonishment.
 
Last edited:
I know a number of people on the Autism and Asperger's spectrum. The ones who are successful in their endeavors tend to take feedback on their communication skills seriously. The ones who go in for a bull-headed, legalistic defense when told they are communicating poorly tend to have career and romantic problems.

You know you have issues with communication. Please stop rejecting feedback from people who simply want you to be able to communicate more effectively. I want to see your ideas discussed on their merits, not on your personality and behavior.

I see you are no different from the people who tend to want to attack me absent evidence; they jump on the "let's attack Jordan on the premise of an invalid thing some other poster has mentioned" bandwagon.

Before you jump on the bandwagon of Jordan is wrong, investigate the details for yourself.
 
I see you are no different from the people who tend to want to attack me absent evidence; they jump on the "let's attack Jordan on the premise of an invalid thing some other poster has mentioned" bandwagon.

Before you jump on the bandwagon of Jordan is wrong, investigate the details for yourself.

*BANG*
 
I see you are no different from the people who tend to want to attack me absent evidence; they jump on the "let's attack Jordan on the premise of an invalid thing some other poster has mentioned" bandwagon.

Before you jump on the bandwagon of Jordan is wrong, investigate the details for yourself.

I'm not attacking you. I'm trying to help you. I'm sorry for whatever life experiences lead you to conflate the two.

When a student who claims that 2+2=5 is told that the correct answer is 4, the student is not being attacked. Please try to see discussion of your communication and writing style in the same light in which you saw your early mathematics education.
 
You were warned by a moderator who is not from the USA. A word to the wise is sufficient, but it looks like you're going to need stronger admonishment.

I was simply responding in accordance with the comment of another here:

halleyscomet said:
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.

..but I see like some others here, you want to make some form of comment, regardless of the lack of evidence or reason to justify said comment.

You see "ProgrammingGodJordan" and something clicks, and you get the urge to say something likely silly, just for the irrelevant sake of it.

Here is a prime example: Yet another example where a member attacks Jordan, for a particular scope, but totally ignores another member for quite a similar scope.
 
I'm not attacking you. I'm trying to help you. I'm sorry for whatever life experiences lead you to conflate the two.

When a student who claims that 2+2=5 is told that the correct answer is 4, the student is not being attacked. Please try to see discussion of your communication and writing style in the same light in which you saw your early mathematics education.

A silly anecdote; as I said before, investigate the details, and avoid silly "2+2=5" anecdotes.

Of course, I don't mind attacks supported by sufficient evidence, but attacking absent evidence is not optimal.
 
Last edited:
A message from the executor of the estate of MostlyDead (herinafter, AllTheWayDead):

Hommes, we just talked about this. Read the posts above from halleyscomet and John Jones. Take them to heart, they contain solid advice. Stop insulting and looking for arguments.
 
A message from the executor of the estate of MostlyDead (herinafter, AllTheWayDead):

Hommes, we just talked about this. Read the posts above from halleyscomet and John Jones. Take them to heart, they contain solid advice. Stop insulting and looking for arguments.

I stand by replies 290 and 291.

I motion that it is okay to attack someone in argument, given that sufficient evidence is provided.

Why has my supermathematics thread become this unfortunate political soup?
 
Back
Top Bottom