Archive for Downsizer For an ethical approach to consumption
|
Silas
|
| Treacodactyl wrote: | | Silas wrote: | | Yes, I was waiting for that daft response from someone. |
What, common sense? |
No, just a trite and predictable post.
|
Silas
|
Well, it is time people woke up and realised it is not language that is the problem, its the way it is sometimes used that is the problem.
|
vegplot
|
| Silas wrote: | | Well, it is time people woke up and realised it is not language that is the problem, its the way it is sometimes used that is the problem. |
Too right. Even ordinary non-offensive words can cut deep if crafted well enough.
|
Treacodactyl
|
| vegplot wrote: | | Silas wrote: | | Well, it is time people woke up and realised it is not language that is the problem, its the way it is sometimes used that is the problem. |
Too right. Even ordinary non-offensive words can cut deep if crafted well enough. |
And something we also keep an eye on, along with many other things. Silas is right though, perhaps we should look closer at people who try and deliberately offend or wind people up.
|
Rob R
|
| Bebo wrote: | | Brownbear wrote: | | Bebo wrote: | | Bernie66 wrote: | Some people dont have the personality to object publically. Some people are introvert. Some people need looking out for,
Thats just how it is |
Wow, moderators as protectors of the downtrodden innocent. Do you get to wear your pants outside your trousers too? |
To be fair, if you're a person who gets upset by what you find crude language, you're unlikely to be the sort of person to confront someone about it. |
RobR and a number of others seems to have been eloquent enough in stating their case against swearing in the public forum, so I'm not sure that's true. |
Not really, I've given up raising it as an issue because asking people to self-moderate their language just seems to result in them getting huffy and using those words more. I'd pretty much accepted that Downsizer has become a place where it is OK to swear & have been more careful as to who I reccomend use the site.
I haven't tried to state a case against it, just tried to suggest a way of self-moderation that would/should be acceptable to the majority bar the most/least sweary of contributors. That explanation was picked apart/mocked because of some pensioners who swear like dockers so I tried to put it another way.
I'm yet to complain about anyone's language directly and I wouldn't do it because if people can't respect Downsizer collectively, I doubt an individual request would be any better, even worse. I don't think there is a need for individuals to be picked out on either 'side'.
|
Behemoth
|
| Silas wrote: | | Well, it is time people woke up and realised it is not language that is the problem, its the way it is sometimes used that is the problem. |
Yes, when someone stands in the crowded village hall, loudly effing and and blinding, knowing that others find it offensive or an uncomfortable enviroment to be, it's hard to concluded that they are not being deliberately rude and provactive.
|
ksia
|
Phew. Long thread. Can't not add my twopen'orth.
It's a great site.
Most people use common sense, most of the time.
I've never had any probs with mods.
I (ia) apologise for any offence I may have caused in the past - I started off very feisty then calmed down. Maybe people need to get used to a place. (ks is always nice)
Some ideas are (probably) out of bounds. As is (probably) some language. But context is all. I remember pasting up a certain Larkin poem - I didn't censor it, and nor did the mods. And this was right!
Maybe the parallel to look at isn't pre-watershed telly, but Radio 4? Serious, fun, challenging, controversial topics sometimes, strong views, strong language at times ..... but always civilised.
|
jema
|
I would tend to concur, I think pre-watershed does fail quite a bit as a description, but then again it probably only really fails if people want to pick the phrase apart rather then listen to its message.
|
resistance is fertile
|
I have an old copy of 'For whom the bell tolls' and have always loved the way that all of the swearing in it is substituted with the word 'obscenity'.
By halfway through you get so used to it that it is how the characters are actually speaking 
Its surprising how well you get their points without the need for the language itself.
|
Silas
|
When I were nobbut a lad, one of our school english text books was 'Escape from Colditz' or something like that (not a particularly good book as I recall), but one of the substitutions was 'Mucking' instead of the obvious expleteive.
Do you think us as 9/10 year olds knew what it was a substitution for - of course we did, and as a consequence half the people in the playground became 'Mucking Idiots'. So I think bunging and asterix (sp?) instead of a vowel does not really achieve much.
|
cab
|
| jema wrote: | | I would tend to concur, I think pre-watershed does fail quite a bit as a description, but then again it probably only really fails if people want to pick the phrase apart rather then listen to its message. |
You're assuming that there is an objective (or sufficiently widely held as to mean more or less the same thing) view of what 'pre watershed' means, or indeed of what is or is not language that can reasonably be expected to offend. Isn't it clear from this and the previous thread that such may not be the case?
|
cab
|
| Silas wrote: |
Do you think us as 9/10 year olds knew what it was a substitution for - of course we did, and as a consequence half the people in the playground became 'Mucking Idiots'. So I think bunging and asterix (sp?) instead of a vowel does not really achieve much. |
I want to agree, but, strangely, when it comes down to it we're not talking about whether people understand what you're saying, we're talking about whether people are offended by it. And while it seems senseless, fewer people seem offended by $h1t than by the real word.
In a more rational world you'd be right. But it ain't a rational world, if it was the very idea of particular words that carry a special offensiveness unrelated to what they actually mean would be considered a bizarre anachronism.
But here we come back to the same basic issue; there is not a defined view of what is or is not offensive. We don't have a general consensus, at least not one that would stand up to the slightest bit of scrutiny.
How this relates to what a forum is for... Well, I'm not sure it does. I'm unclear as to what the 'chat' forum is for; the others make a kind of sense.
|
Rob R
|
I disagree that it is about the offensiveness of the words per se, I think it is more about the overall impression the site gives to a newcomer(s).
|
Green Rosie
|
I've only skimmed through this thread so apologies if this has been said before or is completely off topic but it's my view.
A forum for me, is where a group of people with a similar interest can pass on and receive advice and information. There should be the opportunity to chat on a range of possibly less DS related subjects, as we would if we met in reality for a pint/slice of cake.
And as far as my thinking what a forum is, this one works exceedingly well. I have learnt so much from it and hopefully added some useful information of my own. For me, Chat is great. In there I can chat with "friends", have a laugh, pass on and/or receive helpful advice on all sorts of topics which may or may not be related to Downsizing. This is important for me, living in a foreign country and not always having the chance for this type of banter in my day to day life.
There is a forum for ex-pats which I use from time to time but it is so heavily moderated that anything that even vaguely resembles a sense of humour is deleted, no explanation being given. It is the most boring site full of people who have nothing better than to add some useless comment to a simple request for information that I only really use it when wanting to buy something. (Although OH and a friend have managed a fairly long thread on the tagging and chipping of ferrets without the mods realising they are taking the whatsit  )
As Lettucewoman said - if it ain't broken ........
|
|