Using Profanity -- Please read

[Andrew]

Just make it a protestant forum if its normal to treat catholics like that. He left ofter. Can't blame him. Smart.
You assume a lot of stuff.

Exactly, it's not a protestant forum it's a Christian forum and MC is a brother who should be treated with the same respect... Luther was a Catholic and so was John Wycliffe but he never denounced his Catholic faith, give them a break regardless of what Jesus meant when he said take this bread and so on. You cannot take away Catholic traditions ever so live with it and love them the same. Unless he tries selling indulgence then you can call him a mean butt (im sorry if "mean butt" offends people in Germany)

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[Ruth]

I hope I haven't cursed here. Offline at times I have a habit of swearing on occasion as a bad habit. Like when driving and someone does something stupid on the road. Usually under my breath. Or when I am fed up when things get rough. I'm trying to correct myself offline and sure hope I haven't here.

 

[tango]

I think we need to be a little more careful when we say that certain words are profanity. Often, what is flagged as profanity on US-based websites is profanity only in the US, and to a lesser extent, in Canada. The noted "ass", for example is not profanity anywhere else in the English-speaking world, even when someone is being called one. It doesn't mean "buttocks" anywhere else. There is a slightly different word for that, which is used even here in Canada, and even then, it's not necessarily considered to be profanity. It depends on the context. Judgmental, US-centric rules aren't helpful on a website that is used by the international community. Puritan heritage is still much stronger in the US than what many might think.

The trouble with a term like "ass" is that depending on culture and context it could mean a form of donkey or it could mean a rear end. Calling someone an ass in the UK would typically be taken to be comparing them to a rear end rather than comparing them to a donkey. (In the UK we'd usually, but not always, use a slightly different spelling but the sentiment remains much the same).

Since the community is international there's obviously scope to cause offense when none was intended. If we adopt a strict standard where anything that might be considered offensive anywhere is filtered we end up with either an utterly unyielding automatic censor that does all sorts of unpredictable things (like the one at another large Christian forum that periodically censors the Bible). If we adopt a standard where anything is permitted as long as it is considered inoffensive somewhere then essentially there are no rules because many words that are considered very rude in one culture are considered everyday in another.

Another aspect to consider is that when posting on a web site like this one we always have the opportunity to read over what we wrote before hitting the Post button. This is so very different to reality. When I found the corner of my new bed frame with my little toe in the dark, at some hideous hour of the night as I made my way to the bathroom, I said a few words that I wouldn't normally say in polite company. But that was an immediate response to an immediate (and very unpleasant) situation. If describing the incident on a board like this I wouldn't post "And then I said (list of expletives) before continuing to the bathroom". Given the chance to take my time to write I'd say something more like "And after uttering a few colorful words I made my way to the bathroom".

 

[Albion]

.

 

[Albion]

This is all a little bit confusuing. Leaving aside the admiration being voiced for "I'm picking up my marbles and going home since someone disagreed with me" line of thought, what exactly is the argument for the proposition that "It's OK to bash Protestants, just don't bash Catholics?"

:confused2:

 

[NewCreation435]

This is all a little bit confusuing. Leaving aside the admiration being voiced for "I'm picking up my marbles and going home since someone disagreed with me" line of thought, what exactly is the argument for the proposition that "It's OK to bash Protestants, just don't bash Catholics?"

:confused2:

making a flaming comment is flaming whether your Protestant or Catholic and against the rules.

 

[Albion]

making a flaming comment is flaming whether your Protestant or Catholic and against the rules.

That's what I would think. However, the issue may not actually be flaming, which is usually considered to be the posting of an insulting word or accusation.

When we start talking about "bashing" (that's the word that was used), the reference can be to constant put-downs of a more refined character. Sarcasm, satire, frequent posting of propaganda, and coy questions designed to make the other person seem foolish are what a more skilled or careful poster uses.

 

[NewCreation435]

That's what I would think. However, the issue may not actually be flaming, which is usually considered to be the posting of an insulting word or accusation.

When we start talking about "bashing" (that's the word that was used), the reference can be to constant put-downs of a more refined character. Sarcasm, satire, frequent posting of propaganda, and coy questions designed to make the other person seem foolish are what a more skilled or careful poster uses.

Compared to my previous experience on another site where I was moderator we tend to let a lot of little stuff go here. Plus, some things aren't reported by members. At least not until things escalate and someone gets upset enough to report it. We can't see all posts even with having several moderators right now

 

[Albion]

No disagreement here.

 

[tango]

making a flaming comment is flaming whether your Protestant or Catholic and against the rules.

And to be clear, flaming is about insulting the person rather than addressing an argument.

To say something like "your teaching is flawed because it says X is true when Scripture clearly teaches that X is false, as seen in Hesitations 4:13-25" is not flaming as it attacks a position rather than a person, and also invites (even if in a roundabout way) the person to respond saying that Hesitations 4:13-25 is being misapplied and a more appropriate passage to consider would be Obfuscations 7:18-26. It makes an appeal to Scripture and addresses a stance rather than the person making a stance. To say Pastor Joe Blow is a false teacher because he teaches that X is true when Scripture says it is false is not flaming because the primary focus is on the teaching and the reasoning behind the stance that Pastor Blow is teaching falsehood.

To say "you are an idiot" is flaming because it attacks the person rather than any case they are making. To say "Pastor Joe Blow is a heretic" in isolation is an attack on the person without any attempt to explain why such a stance is being taken.

In many ways a good approach is to look at whether "Oh no it isn't" or comparable phrase has a comparable amount of logical validity to the original post. The statement "(user) is an idiot" is no less logically valid than "(user) is not an idiot" so, regardless of whether it is considered flaming, it isn't a useful contribution to a discussion. The statement "Pastor Joe Blow is a false teacher" is no more and no less logically valid than "Pastor Joe Blow is a good teacher", so equally useless as a contribution to a discussion. The statement "Pastor Joe Blow is a false teacher because he teaches X is true despite it being a direct contradiction of Hesitations 4:17-25" is not adequately addressed by the counterstatement "Pastor Joe Blow is a good teacher".

Of course in a general chit-chat thread much is about opinion and although the opinion "I think raspberries are delicious" is no more and no less valid than the counter "I think raspberries are disgusting" in the context of a general chatter thread it makes little difference. Even so, a statement like "Only an (expletive) would enjoy eating raspberries" would not only fail the flaming test it would also fail the profanity test.

 

[Imalive]

That's what I would think. However, the issue may not actually be flaming, which is usually considered to be the posting of an insulting word or accusation.

When we start talking about "bashing" (that's the word that was used), the reference can be to constant put-downs of a more refined character. Sarcasm, satire, frequent posting of propaganda, and coy questions designed to make the other person seem foolish are what a more skilled or careful poster uses.

I haven't seen that here and I get the impression that Snerf thought too that that happened. With that you also have to take culture in consideration. What is just a friendly sarcastic joke here, actually to be nice and not to put someone down, can be taken as insulting if you only use sarcasm to put someone down in your country. Maybe I missed some plain rude sarcasm cause I take it as a compliment. Lol I actually had that sometimes w Americans. I felt flattered when they told me I was a jerk LOL.
I dont understand why I even got mad yesterday. It's hilarious. Dumb Dutch ppl using English words and giving it their own meaning. My kids just say that word and we all think its normal hahahahahahaha.

 

[Albion]

I haven't seen that here

and I get the impression that Snerf thought too that that happened.

Perhaps that means something, then.

With that you also have to take culture in consideration. What is just a friendly sarcasttic joke here, actually to be nice and not to put someone down, can be taken as insulting if you only use sarcasm to put someone down in your country.

You are speculating with the whole world theoretically under consideration. That's not what we face here. And, by the way, when a poster refuses to use the term American because the intention is to insult (but without stepping over the no flaming rule), we are not talking about theory or "friendly" sarcasm.

 

[Imalive]

Perhaps that means something, then.


You are speculating with the whole world theoretically under consideration. That's not what we face here. And, by the way, when a poster refuses to use the term American because the intention is to insult (but without stepping over the no flaming rule), we are not talking about theory or "friendly" sarcasm.

Or perhaps not. You could have asked.

 

[Albion]

Or perhaps not. You could have asked.

I'll rephrase.

Then that should mean something to you!

 

[Imalive]

I'll rephrase.

Then that should mean something to you!

Oh.
It doesn't.
Never understood why ppl were so nasty to him. We had that at the office. One guy didnt get sarcasm and thought the other who's as friendly as can be was an utter jerk to him. Both guys were nice but it became horrible and then the one who didnt get it left. Completely unnecessary. Oh well. So be it. I can only solve fights between my kids. For the rest I gave up.

 

[Albion]

Oh.
It doesn't.

I didn't think so, which is why I wrote "should."

 

[Stravinsk]

That's what I would think. However, the issue may not actually be flaming, which is usually considered to be the posting of an insulting word or accusation.

When we start talking about "bashing" (that's the word that was used), the reference can be to constant put-downs of a more refined character. Sarcasm, satire, frequent posting of propaganda, and coy questions designed to make the other person seem foolish are what a more skilled or careful poster uses.

There's also the issue of making large assumptions of motive/intent/purpose and treating otherwise face value statements with the assumed bias of those assumptions. Chances are 50/50 at best that your attempt to find the hidden meanings and ulterior motives underlying otherwise unoffending posts are true and if reported really just adds to drama based on highly interpreted statements.

Perhaps that means something, then.


You are speculating with the whole world theoretically under consideration. That's not what we face here. And, by the way, when a poster refuses to use the term American because the intention is to insult (but without stepping over the no flaming rule), we are not talking about theory or "friendly" sarcasm.

?

What do "we face" here?
How in the heck do you know what a person's intention is when they use or don't use the term 'American'??? Seriously dude. Am I missing something or are you using this thread to vent some grievances about another poster or posters?

 

[tango]

One good rough-and-ready approach to take is that if a post could be read as being insulting/rude/flaming etc read it over again to see if there's another way to read the post. Since verbal communication is widely reckoned to be approximately 10% in the words that are used and 90% in other aspects (everything from body language to tonal inflexions etc), most of what would normally give us cues as to the meaning of another is missing here. Throw in cultural differences (whether regional or international) and the potential for misunderstanding is significant.

If there is a specific reason to believe someone is making a personal attack there may be more merit in seeing it but, absent a specific reason, giving people the benefit of the doubt can pay dividends. And to harp on the same point again, reading and re-reading before hitting the Post button saves trying to mend things later.

(This isn't directed at anyone in particular, just a comment relating to a few things I've read in this thread and others)

 

[Josiah]

One good rough-and-ready approach to take is that if a post could be read as being insulting/rude/flaming etc read it over again to see if there's another way to read the post. Since verbal communication is widely reckoned to be approximately 10% in the words that are used and 90% in other aspects (everything from body language to tonal inflexions etc), most of what would normally give us cues as to the meaning of another is missing here. Throw in cultural differences (whether regional or international) and the potential for misunderstanding is significant.

If there is a specific reason to believe someone is making a personal attack there may be more merit in seeing it but, absent a specific reason, giving people the benefit of the doubt can pay dividends. And to harp on the same point again, reading and re-reading before hitting the Post button saves trying to mend things later.

(This isn't directed at anyone in particular, just a comment relating to a few things I've read in this thread and others)

Amen.


IMO, this is not a simple issue. Language is strongly cultural and it's extremely difficult to determine intent and how the writer means/defines the term....

CH is an international website. We invite, welcome and include persons from all over the world and from a great many different cultures (and several for whom English is not their primary language). IMO, that reality is BOUND to create some misunderstandings. However unintended. However innocent.


IMO, this suggests two things:


1. As writers, we need to be cautious (especially in matters of humor and satire, particularly when our language is meant to be passionate and strong). We need to be sensitive that an international, diverse audience will read our chosen words. At times, we may INNOCENTLY use a term some find offensive - and while that doesn't make one bad, it does suggest an explanation (and almost certainly an apology) - and for us to LEARN: this is a word that should not be used internationally, beyond our own culture. If the "profanity" filter here kicks it out (replacing with ******) then that means it's extremely likely that many in the USA find that word inappropriate and at the very least means we don't circumvent the filter and don't again use the word. And if we don't understand the situation or think the filter is errant, we might want to contact Staff in the Member Service Center and ask for an explanation. Again, it does NOT mean someone was bad - just that different cultures use and understand words differently. When we voluntarily come into a diverse, multi-cultural, international situation (like CH) that requires respect for others.

2. The flip side IMO is equally important. We should not ASSUME (you know what they say about that, lol) that the writer MEANT the word offensively or even with the meaning you in your culture mean it. Offense is a CHOICE and we all can equally choose not to feel offense. IF you think the poster is innocently unaware and needs some cultural awareness, it might be best to contact the Staff (not necessarily by Reporting it but perhaps just by a PM or in the MSC) and let another intervene. My Christian teachers taught me to "But the best construction on all things" and by my parents "The word ASSUME means .... "well..... you know. Being in a diverse, multi-cultural situation (as we are at CH) requires a bit of tolerance and acceptance.




True story/illustration:

I have a boyhood friend who for college returned to Spain and remained there. I've visited him in Spain a couple of times. On one occasion, his mother went on quite a rant complaining about American tourist, quite obviously angry that they go into churches "wearing shorts." This - it turned out - completely surprising to me - is highly offensive in Spanish culture. This was winter and I had no shorts with me but I IMMEDIATELY wondered if I had done that! I might well have! But after her rant about how rude American tourist are on that point, with nothing from me to cause such, she told me that she (and all in Spain) realize that no offense was meant, no American MEANT to be rude at all.... it's just Americans wear shorts a lot and American tourists go everywhere in shorts.... to them, the church is a tourist attraction.... and (here's my point) BECAUSE this is cultural... BECAUSE all realize no offense at all was intended.... ALL in Spain welcome Americans, embrace them, and say not a word. Ah. I think those in Europe - were divergent cultures live together so closely - they just "get it" better than we do. But there's a flip side! I'm GLAD Marks Grandmother told me that.... I wish Mark had told me that.... I would do NOTHING to offend my fellow humans and especially my fellow Christians! I actually WORRIED that I had done what she decried. What if I had? What I would NOT say is, "Granny, WHO GIVES A RIP what stupid people in Spain feel, _____ it, I'm an AMERICAN and we do what the ____ we want to do cuz we CAN! So just get over it! Accept I meant no offense, you just had a stupid culture here!" I'd not think, say or feel that way. I'd profusely apologize.... thank them for informing me.... and not wear shorts in their churches. When we are told "that's offensive to some" maybe it's best not to knowingly do that?


Yes, disagreements will happen. Passionately sometimes. BUT I remember the words of Scripture: SPEAK THE TRUTH (yup) but ALWAYS WITH LOVE. I think the rubric for ALL of us should ALWAYS be.... say it, but say it as lovingly and respectfully and clearly as possible.... sensitive that such is especially challenging in a very diverse, multi-cultural, international milieu such as CH.


Just MY half cent....


A blessed Advent and Christmas to all....



- Josiah




.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

I can only solve fights between my kids. For the rest I gave up.

I like that