Saint N. wrote:First you'd have to explain to me why 1) would not be an option, especially in a unmoderated forum, given that in my original reply to you I say, "the first [statement] is a personal choice whose restricts bar on no one else but the person who has self-selected to uphold it." There is no actual requirement on here for you or anyone else to use/not use any epithets whatsoever. But you can't externalize your personal discomfort onto others without expecting to get objections from people who have a different take (it's not rational to demand for others to just take offense on your behalf if they are not offended). As to why some people feel more comfortable with one epithet over another, different people have different reasons, and I refuse to generalize on something that has no one answer. I can only speak for myself, as I did when I told you,
Why do you assume
I'm offended by the use of words on here? I'm mainly talking about the offence of others... For myself I saw the homophobic comment I mentioned (Faggy Josh) and it was the first time I had a real reaction to a phrase on here. Not that rational a reaction - a disgust reaction. Then having read some articles including the one Steersman linked to about how sexist and misogynistic language is more accepted than homophobic or racist language I had to ask
myself why am I offended/disgusted by f*ggot or n*gger used in the context to diminish a gay or black person and not so much by c*nt, tw*t, bitch etc. when used to diminish a woman?
Having seen the lack of racist and to a lesser degree homophobic language used to diminish your opponents here while misogynistic language is fine I wonder the same of the pitters.
I have no right to be offended by f*ggot or n*gger when used in the context that makes them *bad*, they don't apply to me. I will be disgusted by the mentality as using gay slurs is homophobic and many here, like me, are disgusted by homophobia (It is not a rational-sceptical mentality). same for racism and racist slurs, same for misogyny and misogynistic slurs... Well maybe just went one too far to include everyone on here.
Saint N. wrote:I don't actually censor by diction on account of not wanting to offend people. If there are words (whether casual niceties or profanities) I don't use it's more because they're not part of my everyday vocabulary rather than that I see them as 'bad'. (by not being part of my everyday vocabulary I mean that I would have to make a conscious effort to remind myself to use them just to make a point of using them, which would be a silly exercise IMO). But I don't police other people's word choice, nor do I jump to conclusion about their character based on the words they use.
So you are talking to your neighbour out front, they say '... that fucking n*gger down the road let his dog shit on my grass, what a c*nt..". You blithely ignore the word-choice? What a wonderfully picture perfect rational-sceptical world you live in. Maybe you need to perform psychometric tests and poll the neighbourhood before deciding that person is a racist. Me, I'm just a non-rational-sceptic judgemental arsehole like all the FtB'ers, obviously.
You know a group will be offended by the language used to describe them because it is especially used to diminish and demean them and you carry on using it then you have every expectation to be considered a racist, homophobe or misogynist.
Saint N. wrote:Unlike at FtB, there is still no rule here forbidding any of these words either explicitly or implicitly, evident by the fact that we've said them now several times with no repercussions whatsoever.
they have a whole list of verboten words that if used by a person, in any situation, defines them as irredeemable immoral scumbags. Pointing out the humor when they fail to live up to the standard they demand of everyone else is not a bias, when our only standard is that censorship (y'know, the kind that's imposed on others) is antithetical to freethought.
Bullshit... The straw is poking a country mile out of your description of FtBs here. Count how many N-words and how much PG and John D get to demonstrate 'free thought' on this thread.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/crommunist/ ... ew-nigger/... But of course they were banned and had their posts edited to make them look stupid? Or they are deemed
irredeemable immoral scumbags .. Quite how you gauge
irredeemable I don't know. Someone saying 'you are an immoral scumbag' apparently implies they will remain this way for eternity. I'd bet you even the most brass-necked Pharyngulite will concede there is a chance 'franc hoggle' even could be 'redeemed', it may be considered extremely unlikely but anyone that is less than a 7 on the Dawkins atheist scale accepts possibility is almost endless.
Saint N. wrote:tl;dr Oolon your conflation of personal word choice and imposed censorship (by which if you fail to censor along the lines of the approved narrative you're dismissed as an immoral and indecent person by definition) is wrongheaded at best, and disingenuous at worst.
Hopefully I've clarified that I am not considering anyone immoral and indecent to their
core by using certain slurs at all. I am saying that using slurs in a certain context then yes you will have every expectation to be considered a bigot and I think most here will agree with two out of the three below.
1. Say a black person is a n*gger in a context where that person is being disparaged then racism is a reasonable assumption
2. Say a gay person is a f*ggot in a context where that person is being disparaged then homophobia is a reasonable assumption
3. Say a female person is a c*nt in a context where that person is being disparaged then misogyny is a reasonable assumption
Strangely the majority of rational-sceptic-atheists will agree with
all of the above. They will also agree on Humanist principles that there is scope for change. Regardless of how often you have infringed any of the above 'rules'... To imply otherwise is wrongheaded at best, and disingenuous at worst.
