Insult, like pornography, is difficult to define, but I know it when I see it.
What is an insult?
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 vinny the hack |
|||
|
Posts: 1539 (04/04/08 09:27 PM) Administrunktorbot |
You're not drunk if you can lie on the floor without holding on. --Dean Martin
|
||
|
Laird Shaw |
|||
|
Posts: 65 (04/04/08 09:30 PM) |
Whether he "should" or not, he apparently does view the comparison as having negative connotations though, given that he included the term Nazi on his list of offensive/insulting words earlier in this thread. I believe that we should in general apply the reasonable (or "average") person test to decide whether something is an insult, however if the subject of the "insult" declares that - despite what a reasonable person might think - s/he does not find it insulting, then that should take precedence. In other words I accept that your argument - that if DH doesn't find it insulting, then it shouldn't be considered an insult - is valid, but plainly the data point to the opposite: he does find it insulting, just as (I believe) a reasonable person would.
Well it's part of the criteria used to decide whether or not a person belongs to a particular group, wouldn't you say? One can only decipher so much about another person's beliefs from their actions, writings and speech; a clear-cut and direct affirmation or denial of membership in that group from the person concerned carries at least some weight. It's not the be-all and end-all of course - for example if someone claimed to be a greenie and then started work for a logging company chopping down old-growth forest then we could discount the claim as bogus - but in situations where there's some doubt it might be the clincher. |
||
|
Laird Shaw |
|||
|
Posts: 66 (04/04/08 09:32 PM) |
vinny the hack wrote: "It's not an insult, it's erotic art."
|
||
|
Dan Rowden |
|||
|
Posts: 37 (04/04/08 09:35 PM) |
Laird Shaw wrote:Hmm, let me know when you find some. Basically I don't think you can moderate on the basis of perceived insults other than in exceptional circumstances; there's just too many mitigating and complicating factors: # A perceived insult may have been intended as a joke. # We can't get into people's heads to see their real motives. # There's an issue with seeing insult on behalf of people who don't themselves feel insulted. # Then there's the issue of a hangover preventing me from thinking of any remaining issues. I think a person's behaviour needs to be fairly consistent and extreme to warrant administrative action in the case of insults because of those things I mentioned. Now, fuck off ya dumb arsehole. |
||
|
vinny the hack |
|||
|
Posts: 1540 (04/04/08 09:47 PM) Administrunktorbot |
To add a little more pith (as if everyone hasn't already pithed all over this thread), Dan is right that insults are subjective, and in a perfect world, we
wouldn't need to explain in minute detail what an insult is. And I don't think that doing so will prevent or even necessarily reduce the incidence of
insults being hurled, but it would at least be something one can point at (without having to keep repeating spontaneously), when someone crosses the line. Some
moderators like this aspect of it.
This seems to be a problem on virtually every message board. People admonished or banned seldom agree with the action--and it's not like there's no guidelines. Personally, I would just as soon do away with them and leave it to the moderator to decide who needs disciplinary action and how severe it should be. The poster will be pissed off, but they would be even with the existence of rules. The only difference is you save the trouble of composing and debating the rules ad nauseum. Having said that, I would never be a moderator.
You're not drunk if you can lie on the floor without holding on. --Dean Martin
|
||
|
Laird Shaw |
|||
|
Posts: 68 (04/04/08 10:02 PM) |
Dan,
# A perceived insult may have been intended as a joke. I partly dealt with this in my thread-starter where I described how "nigger" can be a term of endearment between dark-skinned folk. Yes, it can be a joke, but a joke can be taken too far as well. As I wrote, it is in my opinion ultimately up to the "insultee" as to which category - joke/insult - the remark fits, and it is up to the "insulter" to make sure that s/he is being appropriate. # We can't get into people's heads to see their real motives. And as I argued with you in that thread on disrespect at GF, motive is not the whole story. I might be in an unsound state of mind and say all sorts of unkind things about you, not meaning to insult but insulting nevertheless. There are some standards as to what constitutes an insult, independent of motive. # There's an issue with seeing insult on behalf of people who don't themselves feel insulted. Sure, which is why I said to vinny just a few posts ago that if David decides that being called a Nazi is not insulting, then that overrides the reasonable person test. # Then there's the issue of a hangover preventing me from thinking of any remaining issues. Excessive alcohol is an insult to the brain. And we both know that I'm a hypocrite to point that out to you. :-P (I had to correct an appropriate typo: I originally typed "point" as "pint") I think a person's behaviour needs to be fairly consistent and extreme to warrant administrative action in the case of insults because of those things I mentioned. Sure, I guess what we can do though is to consistently encourage a cordial environment by pointing out what is unacceptable when it occurs, even if no action is taken. Now, fuck off ya dumb arsehole. Have the other cheek too, ya scurvy landlubber. |
||
|
Dan Rowden |
|||
|
Posts: 41 (04/04/08 10:19 PM) |
It's fine to encourage cordiality, but if you get too obsessed with it you may as well kiss your forum goodbye, because those sorts of issues will take
over the dynamics. I've been to many boards where poster behaviour was such a strong focus that barely any real discussion was taking place. I think
there comes a time at which a mod can reasonably infer from a poster's behavior that their sole or main intention is to insult people. Action then becomes
necessary. That inference may turn out to be wrong, but we don't live in a perfect world and we can't expect everything we do to be perfect.
When all's said and done, I don't believe insults mean much. If you intentionally insult someone it reflects on you and you alone, so you're really damaging yourself and not the intended recipient of the insult. The best "revenge" when insulted is to not feel insulted. That really shits people. There's nothing that drives such people nuts more than the realisation that they have no power over you. |
||
|
wannabealot |
|||
|
Posts: 7 (04/04/08 10:29 PM) |
I'd say that an insult is calling someone something less than what they are. With that definition, insults could either be intentional or unintentional.
As for the rules, I believe that banning "intentionally offensive" comments would be more in line with the spirit of the rule. It isn't necessarily what is said as much as the meaning behind it - and the interpretation of the reader. Sometimes (as evidenced above) people do like to play rough, and don't mean any harm by it. If the reader interprets something as offensive, they can state something to that effect and either get a clarification (at least most of us have unintentionally offended someone) or otherwise rectify the situation. If the offensive behavior is continued beyond that point, it is then fair for someone to step in and rectify the situation for the person who is being intentionally offensive. |
||
|
Dan Rowden |
|||
|
Posts: 42 (04/04/08 10:43 PM) |
Well, I'm offended by every word you just wrote - Laird, front and centre!
|
||
|
Dan Rowden |
|||
|
Posts: 43 (04/04/08 11:16 PM) |
Oh, and did I mention that I also find insulting and offensive any instance at any time of anyone being ahead of me on points in Scrabble. I fully expect
Laird to take the appropriate action should such a thing occur.
|
||
|
DavidHenryGF |
|||
|
Posts: 42 (04/04/08 11:31 PM) |
I'm against the death penalty except in extreme cases such as serial killers.
You guys never question the merits of the terms racist/anti-semite, you just ass-ume that they have value, ie, that people hate Jews just for the hell of it, and might I remind you, that I define a Jew as anyone who supports the evil triad of Judaism, Zionism and Israel, so those religious Jews against Zionism are off my radar. What's a racist anyway, aren't I entitled to hate whoever I want? Both this forum and the GF have a hostile attitude towards anti-semites, ie, people who expose the truth about the triad's activities and motives. One of things that amazes me is that I've always said that figuring out that Zionism is alive and well isn't that complicated, yes it will take a few days-weeks worth of reading and digesting, but it's not as complicated as the basics of philosophy, so I'm thinking that step one should be all about Zionism, and if I fail at that level, there's no point going beyond. |
||
|
Dan Rowden |
|||
|
Posts: 44 (04/04/08 11:45 PM) |
You guys never question the merits of the terms racist/anti-semite, you just ass-ume that they have value, ie, that people hate Jews just for the hell of it, and might I remind you, that I define a Jew as anyone who supports the evil triad of Judaism, Zionism and Israel, so those religious Jews against Zionism are off my radar. What's a racist anyway, aren't I entitled to hate whoever I want? As far as I'm concerned you are entitled to hate anything you want, just as others are entitled to view you as irrational for it. But your claim to value logic keeps getting undone by your own words. How can you exclude anti-Zionist Jews from your hate club when they are Judaists and Judaism is one of the arms of your unholy trinity? That just doesn't make sense. Both this forum and the GF have a hostile attitude towards anti-semites, ie, people who expose the truth about the triad's activities and motives. That is a lie. GF, as a board, has a more or less indifferent attitude to such thinking. We are not hostile to it, we just don't give a shit for the most part. One of things that amazes me is that I've always said that figuring out that Zionism is alive and well isn't that complicated, yes it will take a few days-weeks worth of reading and digesting, but it's not as complicated as the basics of philosophy, so I'm thinking that step one should be all about Zionism, and if I fail at that level, there's no point going beyond. We know Zionism is alive and well. Did you think that was news to people? In any moment in history there are any number of groups vying for power. Zionists are simply one of them. I don't see any reason for viewing them as particularly special. It's just another bullshit agenda. |
||
|
DavidHenryGF |
|||
|
Posts: 43 (04/05/08 12:27 AM) |
You've also closed threads at GF Dan, that shows an particular attitude known as intolerance towards anti-Zionism, presumably because Kevin is Jewish and
you don't want to hurt his feelings+ you've been brainwashed by the Zionists anyway.
Another bullshit agenda responsible for many of the wars/brutality/deathtoll throughout the 20th/21st century, yeah, I can see how they're nothing special when you favour death and destruction. |
||
|
Dan Rowden |
|||
|
Posts: 46 (04/05/08 01:03 AM) |
David,
You've also closed threads at GF Dan, that shows an particular attitude known as intolerance towards anti-Zionism, I am an anti-Zionist myself you dropkick. Name a single thread I've closed for that reason. presumably because Kevin is Jewish and you don't want to hurt his feelings Kevin's history is from Guernsey; "Solway" is an English name with Norse-Viking origins. Your insistence that Kevin is Jewish is staggeringly stupid. Honestly, it makes you look insane. Is that the impression you want to give of yourself? If it is then congratulations, you've done a sterling job. + you've been brainwashed by the Zionists anyway. Um, yeah, whatever dude. What cab company do you drive for? I'll try and avoid them. Another bullshit agenda responsible for many of the wars/brutality/deathtoll throughout the 20th/21st century, yeah, I can see how they're nothing special when you favour death and destruction. That's what bullshit agendas tend to accomplish, which is why they're bullshit. Can you name me two wars that Zionism is specifically responsible for? Don't include WW1 or WW11 because then I'll know you're having me on. |
||
|
DavidHenryGF |
|||
|
Posts: 44 (04/05/08 02:18 AM) |
"""Don't include WW1 or WW11 because then I'll know you're having me on""""
Keep digging, sooner or later you might stumble on to the truth ole boy. Btw, when I say you've closed threads, I mean the mods. As for Kevin....how do you know he isn't a Jew?....have you ever asked him? Don't you know Judaism is a racist doctrine that defies common definitions of race etc... |
||
|
Dan Rowden |
|||
|
Posts: 47 (04/05/08 02:43 AM) |
Keep digging, sooner or later you might stumble on to the truth ole boy. I've seen all the sites that make the argument that Zionism is responsible for everything including Global Fucking Warming. They are mostly tedious and replete with nonsense. Zionists have had their sticky fingers in all sorts of things and are responsible for a great many crimes. But to say that they are directly responsible for either world war is just silly. History is a little more complicated than that. Btw, when I say you've closed threads, I mean the mods. I don't care what you mean. Name even one thread that has been closed on account of this subject matter. As for Kevin....how do you know he isn't a Jew?....have you ever asked him? By your nifty definition of "Jew", he could be said to be since he supports Israel's existence. But your nifty definition is self serving and ultimately pretty ridiculous. Don't you know Judaism is a racist doctrine that defies common definitions of race etc... Judaism is a load of religious bollocks. Talmudic Judaism is as arrogant and racist as any religious doctrine in existence. This is not news to me. |
||
|
Laird Shaw |
|||
|
Posts: 70 (04/05/08 02:02 PM) |
OK, after digesting this thread, I think that I have a better idea about how to moderate this forum. I don't intend to become an overbearing
policeman/nanny, and I don't intend for posting behaviour to become the focus of the forum, so I'm not going to point out every instance of insulting
behaviour, but I might point out the more severe insults every now and then just to remind people that such insults are unwelcome. Anyone who feels that they
have been insulted is welcome to state it, and I or one of the other moderators/admins (assuming that they agree with this approach) will decide whether an
insult has occurred and, if so, take appropriate action. Basically I intend to let the moderation guidelines and this thread set the tone for the forum, and to
trust that people will try to respect it.
I propose that we replace that part of the moderation guidelines which currently read: Incidental humour is acceptable, and incidental insults are tolerated, however humour and insults should not come to predominate a poster's contributions to this forum, nor come to be excessive, at the risk of the poster being warned or banned. Posters who are judged in the eyes of the moderator/s of the forum to be particularly significant and worthwhile contributors may be given additional leeway in terms of humourous and/or insulting contributions. with this: We hope to cultivate a cordial atmosphere on this forum. Humour is welcome, however the focus of the forum is serious discussion, so please balance your humourous contributions with serious ones. Insults are decidedly unwelcome. For guidance on what we consider to be an insult, please consult the thread What is an insult?. The moderator(s) will probably not police this policy to the letter of the law, but they will take note of offensive behaviour and will take action in extremes. Should any person feel that s/he has been insulted unfairly and desire a remedy, s/he may state this and request one. An admin/moderator will decide whether an insult has occurred and will take appropriate action. In short: play nice, guys! Let's turn this into a friendly and intelligent venue. Unless anyone objects within 24 hours, I will perform this replacement. Please note in particular that the "Victor Clause" has been removed. Elizabeth, I think that we have a slightly different understanding of what an insult is - to me it's possible to tell someone exactly what they are and for it still to be insulting. I gather that by your definition, to say to the overweight Betty, "God Betty, you're a fat porker!" would not be insulting. By my definition, it would be. Your words have inspired, however, the appeal process that I described above, whether you intended exactly that or not. :-) |
||
|
Ducky M |
|||
|
Posts: 96 (04/05/08 04:38 PM) Self-Certified Genius |
DavidHenryGF wrote:Such as Hitler? 
|
||
|
Ducky M |
|||
|
Posts: 97 (04/05/08 04:55 PM) Self-Certified Genius |
Laird Shaw wrote: In my tripartite classification scheme, it falls under "bodily insult" -- by far the deadliest kind. Laird Shaw wrote: Just an illustration of how intoxication enhances creativity. Perhaps that's why so many writers drink! It helps them come up with the wittiest
punts... I find words themselves to be so intoxicating that for a long time I have not found it necessary to seek the assistance of Al Cohol.
Last Edited By: Ducky M
04/05/08 05:14 PM.
Edited 2 times.
|
||
|
Ducky M |
|||
|
Posts: 98 (04/05/08 04:58 PM) Self-Certified Genius |
Dan Rowden wrote: Exactly. |
||
