Acceptable language
-
Robin Orton
- Posts: 3380
- Joined: 9 Sep 2008 07:30
- Location: London SE26
Acceptable language
A recent poster on this forum (see http://sydenham.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=24581) used 'Christ!' as a jocular expression of surprise. This usage gives unnecessary offence to many people, and I must say it makes me feel uncomfortable. Should it be avoided on the forum, I wonder?
Who are all these "many people" it gives offence to?
Would they be similar to the many people that celebrating Christmas allegedly offends, or the other lot of many people that, we are told, get offended by the flying of the flag of St George?
I'm sure even the most devout of Christians could think of more important things to get offended about.
Would they be similar to the many people that celebrating Christmas allegedly offends, or the other lot of many people that, we are told, get offended by the flying of the flag of St George?
I'm sure even the most devout of Christians could think of more important things to get offended about.
-
SydenhamHillAndy
- Posts: 116
- Joined: 20 Jul 2007 15:01
- Location: SE26
Robin, I can see where you're coming from. Every one of us has something, whether it be a hobby, a disability, whatever it is, some form of "achilles heel" if you like, that people in general take the pi$$ out of.
You have to remember, though, that only the nastiest of people will do this on purpose. Especially on an internet forum like this one, where I would hazard a guess that not many members have met many other members, so not many people are aware of each other's "heels".
For example, there were posts about healthy eating not so long ago somewhere on here. As a rather overweight bloke, I could have complained to Admin about the blatant disregard for the feelings of fat people who had to read threads about cooking healthy food (okay, it's a bad example, but you see where I'm coming from!)
I'm quite confident that the word you refer to was not used purposely to offend you in particular, or Christians in general, and, given that, the options are to increase moderation to a point where Admin either needs to find more moderators or goes under with the workload, or worse, shuts the forum down, or, put (uncharacteristically, for me) bluntly, to develop a thicker skin.
You have to remember, though, that only the nastiest of people will do this on purpose. Especially on an internet forum like this one, where I would hazard a guess that not many members have met many other members, so not many people are aware of each other's "heels".
For example, there were posts about healthy eating not so long ago somewhere on here. As a rather overweight bloke, I could have complained to Admin about the blatant disregard for the feelings of fat people who had to read threads about cooking healthy food (okay, it's a bad example, but you see where I'm coming from!)
I'm quite confident that the word you refer to was not used purposely to offend you in particular, or Christians in general, and, given that, the options are to increase moderation to a point where Admin either needs to find more moderators or goes under with the workload, or worse, shuts the forum down, or, put (uncharacteristically, for me) bluntly, to develop a thicker skin.
-
nork1
- Posts: 287
- Joined: 9 Jul 2006 12:49
- Location: Banned myself - can't be bothered with the Greg/Ulysses show anymore
Oh come on, NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition.SydenhamHillAndy wrote:Is this now the Sydenham branch of the Spanish Inquisition?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tym0MObFpTI
Can I thank Robin and company for this thread. It is invaluable to have your thinking on this issue.
First the current policy on 'personal abuse' is whether the poster intends offence rather than offence being taken. Secondly the degree. There would be no problem with mild rudeness directed to someone who argues robustly. Whereas if that were directed to a new poster it may be seen as aggressive.
In this case as I don't think any offence was intended so it is not subject to the current moderation policy. Also it was not personally directed. However, that and all policies are up for discussion and change if there is a consensus.
The other issue here is the secular use of religious language. Robin, I'm in real difficulty here. Christmas is now this country's major festival (but only second to the christian church). Its combination of Christ & Mass to describe a secular session of excessive drinking, eating, spending and enjoyment of other unchristian values would seem to cause much greater offence. Christmas has been stolen from the church, but the actual feast was stolen by the church from the pagans so should we accept the reality however distasteful?
Admin
First the current policy on 'personal abuse' is whether the poster intends offence rather than offence being taken. Secondly the degree. There would be no problem with mild rudeness directed to someone who argues robustly. Whereas if that were directed to a new poster it may be seen as aggressive.
In this case as I don't think any offence was intended so it is not subject to the current moderation policy. Also it was not personally directed. However, that and all policies are up for discussion and change if there is a consensus.
The other issue here is the secular use of religious language. Robin, I'm in real difficulty here. Christmas is now this country's major festival (but only second to the christian church). Its combination of Christ & Mass to describe a secular session of excessive drinking, eating, spending and enjoyment of other unchristian values would seem to cause much greater offence. Christmas has been stolen from the church, but the actual feast was stolen by the church from the pagans so should we accept the reality however distasteful?
Admin
Back in 1968 a some took offence to John Lennon singing "Christ you know it ain't easy, you know how hard it can be, the way thing are going, their gonna crucify me".
It was one of my vicars favourite songs and one of my step uncles who was a Catholic Priest had no issue with it.
There will always be someone, somewhere who is offended by something. I agree with admin (who does sterling job) that it's the intention that should be taken into account.
It was one of my vicars favourite songs and one of my step uncles who was a Catholic Priest had no issue with it.
There will always be someone, somewhere who is offended by something. I agree with admin (who does sterling job) that it's the intention that should be taken into account.
I think we have to put things in context here. We have had one use of "christ" - by someone who was at the time totally shocked to be in agreement with Nasaroc, so you can understand why his language might have slipped a bit - and only one person has objected to this. Other than that, what, in recent months, has there been to complain about?
I think that the overall approach to moderation is very good so keep up the good work Admin!
I think that the overall approach to moderation is very good so keep up the good work Admin!
-
catscratch
- Posts: 83
- Joined: 13 Jul 2008 12:44
- Location: se20
Well, I am sorry that you feel offended - that was certainly not the intention.
However, this raises a wider view as to how much consideration should be given to words or phrases that are possible to cause offence. Certainly almost anything is "possibly" offensive - but a line must certainly be drawn. Its always possible to be too sensitive (when considering the "what ifs" of possible offence) but it is, of course, always possible to be downright insensitive.
Therefore I think we should, generally speaking, take admin's view that one should look at the motive.
Now, the more delicate questoin arises when we are to consider whether that word is offensive on this site from now on. You have made it plain that you do not like it, so if I were to deploy it again it might be construed as gratuitous and offensive on my part to say it again. On the other hand, as so many other people seem to think you are being oversensitive would it offend them to think that we are all inhibited now and must refraid from all sorts for fearing causing offence? Would others be insulted or annoyed if I was to deliberately never mention that word again as it would be seen as kowtowering?
I do not know.
Or perhaps and exclamation should now be started Christ/Allah/Buddah/jehovah/Krishna/Dawkins! - but that would just be silly.
However, as a practicing christian myself, I'd be interested to hear why you find it particularly offensive/dicomforting? It is, of course, your right to feel that way. But as someone without a problem with it I'd be interested to hear why that is so...
However, this raises a wider view as to how much consideration should be given to words or phrases that are possible to cause offence. Certainly almost anything is "possibly" offensive - but a line must certainly be drawn. Its always possible to be too sensitive (when considering the "what ifs" of possible offence) but it is, of course, always possible to be downright insensitive.
Therefore I think we should, generally speaking, take admin's view that one should look at the motive.
Now, the more delicate questoin arises when we are to consider whether that word is offensive on this site from now on. You have made it plain that you do not like it, so if I were to deploy it again it might be construed as gratuitous and offensive on my part to say it again. On the other hand, as so many other people seem to think you are being oversensitive would it offend them to think that we are all inhibited now and must refraid from all sorts for fearing causing offence? Would others be insulted or annoyed if I was to deliberately never mention that word again as it would be seen as kowtowering?
I do not know.
Or perhaps and exclamation should now be started Christ/Allah/Buddah/jehovah/Krishna/Dawkins! - but that would just be silly.
However, as a practicing christian myself, I'd be interested to hear why you find it particularly offensive/dicomforting? It is, of course, your right to feel that way. But as someone without a problem with it I'd be interested to hear why that is so...
-
Robin Orton
- Posts: 3380
- Joined: 9 Sep 2008 07:30
- Location: London SE26
Thank you, everybody who responded to my query - I’m particularly grateful to Admin, Barty and Bensonby. Perhaps I should clarify what lay behind my question.
I wasn’t meaning to suggest that the rules for moderating the forum should be changed. I agree that the present light touch moderation is excellent and that everyone should be free to express their opinions forcibly, even if that may upset other users.
Nor was I wanting to say anything about ‘taboo’ (well, not very nowadays) scatological or sexual expressions. I use them myself in the presence of my nearest and dearest without much inhibition. They can of course be pretty ugly or even threatening when used in a violent or aggressive way. Subject to that, I would not particularly mind seeing them in postings here, without the coy asterisks.
Nor, pace Admin, was I talking about ‘personal abuse.’
What I was actually after was views about whether posters on the forum should consider self-restraint in ‘swearing’ in the old-fashioned sense, that is, using in a trivial, scornful or flippant way expressions which some people consider sacred - not as an element in a reasoned religious argument but merely for rhetorical effect. I believe ‘Christ!’ is such an expression for some Christians. It ‘takes the name of the Lord in vain’, in that it appears to be belittling and demeaning not only God (who is presumably able to take care of himself) but also those who worship him (who may not be). Moreover, some Christians feel themselves to have a very close relationship with Jesus, rather like that with members of their own families. It is therefore hurtful to them if his name is bandied around as a ‘cuss-word’.
I think the point about the secular takeover of Christmas which Admin raises (yes, I know the Christians took it over from the pagans in the first place!) raises rather different issues. ‘Christmas’ is not a swear word!
So, what I really intended to do was to ask whether on a ‘community’ website it is reasonable to ask people to avoid expressions which might unintentionally cause pain to other members of the ‘community’, and to point out that the latter include Christians (as well of course as Jews and Muslims and other religious groups).
I wasn’t meaning to suggest that the rules for moderating the forum should be changed. I agree that the present light touch moderation is excellent and that everyone should be free to express their opinions forcibly, even if that may upset other users.
Nor was I wanting to say anything about ‘taboo’ (well, not very nowadays) scatological or sexual expressions. I use them myself in the presence of my nearest and dearest without much inhibition. They can of course be pretty ugly or even threatening when used in a violent or aggressive way. Subject to that, I would not particularly mind seeing them in postings here, without the coy asterisks.
Nor, pace Admin, was I talking about ‘personal abuse.’
What I was actually after was views about whether posters on the forum should consider self-restraint in ‘swearing’ in the old-fashioned sense, that is, using in a trivial, scornful or flippant way expressions which some people consider sacred - not as an element in a reasoned religious argument but merely for rhetorical effect. I believe ‘Christ!’ is such an expression for some Christians. It ‘takes the name of the Lord in vain’, in that it appears to be belittling and demeaning not only God (who is presumably able to take care of himself) but also those who worship him (who may not be). Moreover, some Christians feel themselves to have a very close relationship with Jesus, rather like that with members of their own families. It is therefore hurtful to them if his name is bandied around as a ‘cuss-word’.
I think the point about the secular takeover of Christmas which Admin raises (yes, I know the Christians took it over from the pagans in the first place!) raises rather different issues. ‘Christmas’ is not a swear word!
So, what I really intended to do was to ask whether on a ‘community’ website it is reasonable to ask people to avoid expressions which might unintentionally cause pain to other members of the ‘community’, and to point out that the latter include Christians (as well of course as Jews and Muslims and other religious groups).
It's a reasonable request, but, the thing is, going back to what I was saying about people's sensitive subjects, "achilles heels", is that you don't know what is going to upset a given individual - unless you know them very well, or until you have already upset them by saying it.
it requires 50% common sense by the poster - in not posting anything that is bound to upset someone, and 50% tolerance by the insulted one - in realising that the poster was probably not setting out to deliberately upset them.
it requires 50% common sense by the poster - in not posting anything that is bound to upset someone, and 50% tolerance by the insulted one - in realising that the poster was probably not setting out to deliberately upset them.
Almost anything anyone posts on here could be unintentionally offensive to someone.So, what I really intended to do was to ask whether on a ‘community’ website it is reasonable to ask people to avoid expressions which might unintentionally cause pain to other members of the ‘community’, and to point out that the latter include Christians (as well of course as Jews and Muslims and other religious groups).
Where does it end?
I think you raise a number of practical issues Robin.
The first the unintentional aspect. If I don't know it would offend you then I can't know not do it.
The second is that in law (and forums?) 'offence' is decided by a neutral party who both test the the alleged offender and offended as to the social acceptability of both. Otherwise anybody could stop/dissaude anybody else saying anything by claiming to be offended by it.
The third is that in this case I presume we are referring to the third commandment. That would appear to be an injunction that a believer is commiting a sin by cussing (as many theologians interpret the phrase). In other words taking the name in vain is an offence inflicted on the offender. It is something between him/her and Christ or God and not aimed at any other christian or non-christian.
The fourth, and I regard this very seriously, is that freedom of speech is a necessary requirement for freedom of religion. To believe and say what you believe. Hence your claim here. But there is Quid Pro Quo that imposing beliefs on those that don't have them is not acceptable whether by christian, muslim atheist or Jedi. Seeking to impose a particular interpretation of the third commandment is an issue within the christian church (see posts above) and hence more problematic with the majority without the church.
My final point is you raise the issue of this being a community website and hence we should try very hard not to offend anybody in the community. On one level I agree with you. Every community member should feel very welcome (even if we take a raincheck on their views). If you or those that felt offended decide to leave - that would be a real loss. However, if we create an atmosphere that means we cannot speak spontaneously then the very purpose of STF is emasculated. Many others would find it too restrictive and leave. The forum becomes bland and dies.
So that's the problem of moderation of any forum. How do you keep as many on-board as possible to have spirited discussion? For a community website how do you make the membership genuinely diverse? That implies agreement on anything cannot be unanimous and simple majority rule is divisive.
Hence I try and seek for the elusive consensus on issues. A decision on which many can agree and others can live with. Which really brings back the question to you. Can you live with this? If not, why not?
Admin (sorry its very long and rambling a bit)
The first the unintentional aspect. If I don't know it would offend you then I can't know not do it.
The second is that in law (and forums?) 'offence' is decided by a neutral party who both test the the alleged offender and offended as to the social acceptability of both. Otherwise anybody could stop/dissaude anybody else saying anything by claiming to be offended by it.
The third is that in this case I presume we are referring to the third commandment. That would appear to be an injunction that a believer is commiting a sin by cussing (as many theologians interpret the phrase). In other words taking the name in vain is an offence inflicted on the offender. It is something between him/her and Christ or God and not aimed at any other christian or non-christian.
The fourth, and I regard this very seriously, is that freedom of speech is a necessary requirement for freedom of religion. To believe and say what you believe. Hence your claim here. But there is Quid Pro Quo that imposing beliefs on those that don't have them is not acceptable whether by christian, muslim atheist or Jedi. Seeking to impose a particular interpretation of the third commandment is an issue within the christian church (see posts above) and hence more problematic with the majority without the church.
My final point is you raise the issue of this being a community website and hence we should try very hard not to offend anybody in the community. On one level I agree with you. Every community member should feel very welcome (even if we take a raincheck on their views). If you or those that felt offended decide to leave - that would be a real loss. However, if we create an atmosphere that means we cannot speak spontaneously then the very purpose of STF is emasculated. Many others would find it too restrictive and leave. The forum becomes bland and dies.
So that's the problem of moderation of any forum. How do you keep as many on-board as possible to have spirited discussion? For a community website how do you make the membership genuinely diverse? That implies agreement on anything cannot be unanimous and simple majority rule is divisive.
Hence I try and seek for the elusive consensus on issues. A decision on which many can agree and others can live with. Which really brings back the question to you. Can you live with this? If not, why not?
Admin (sorry its very long and rambling a bit)