Are people who expect forums to be free of profanity sanctimonious prudes?

[fitbrit]

Just a continuation of the off topic discussion that was hijacking a thread. Someone posted a graphic with the f-word on it.
Someone reported it.
Another member criticised the reporting member and his/her supporters, ridiculing them for their prudishness.
I told the critic that his opinion was irrelevant as the original picture violates the RFD rules, so that's the end of the matter. I actually agree with his sentiments, but it is neither here nor there.

Any opinions?

[Nikita]

Well, it depends on what you consider profanity. That said, since this is a family forum, and if you can't help but need to use profane language, disguise it with some astericks or something. It's not hard to get your point across without offending the rules or just common decency especially if you consider some young ages that view these forums. Do it for them.

[icecold2021]

i dont know about everyone else but from the first time i went to school i knew what the "middle finger" was, and a whole smorgusboard of swears, including ones in other languages as i was in a quite multicultural school.

i guess my point is that youre not really protecting anyone from something they allready know and probably use with their friends at school on a daily basis.

seeing it on a forum really cant damage them, or at least i dont see how, unless their parents dont know how to communicate the point across that you dont use that language. at which point the problem would be the lack of ability to parent a child... but thats a whole other topic.

[fitbrit]

I think the problem is really with older people, who don't realise that their attempts to mollycoddle their kids are useless.
However, these same people are the ones who'd be offended by profanity if they saw it on the screens of their employees, for example.

On the other hand, do kids need to be encouraged to swear or participate in other "anti-social" behaviour? I was never urged to do so; adults always maintained an air of righteousness, but I still swear liberally in the right context and setting:
Yes, with my younger friends, e.g. McGill grad students.
Yes, with my older friends, if I hear them do so first.
No, in front of my employer.
No, on public forums where I was told to read the rules when I signed up.
No, when giving a seminar at a science conference.
No, when meeting a personal training client for the first time.

Etc. etc.

[hooch]

I think that the "fink" was right to report it. I agree with Nikita as well. RFD IS a family forum, and by posting here, you agree to its terms and conditions. That's regardless of what you, me, or anyone else might consider profane, the fact of the matter is that profanity is not allowed on here. And the f word, last time I checked is still considered profane, even if some of us consider it mild or a non-issue.

It's not a matter of "protecting the children" or anything like that. It's a matter of us all agreeing to meet a certain criteria in our posts when we signed up for an account on RFD and following it.

[CastIronStove]

Just a continuation of the off topic discussion that was hijacking a thread. Someone posted a graphic with the f-word on it.
Someone reported it.
Another member criticised the reporting member and his/her supporters, ridiculing them for their prudishness.
I told the critic that his opinion was irrelevant as the original picture violates the RFD rules, so that's the end of the matter. I actually agree with his sentiments, but it is neither here nor there.

Any opinions?

This is an inaccurate depiction of the situation. I apologize if I hurt your feelings by pointing out how your post did nothing but reduce the SNR of the thread, but you really have nothing to gain by misrepresenting what happened.

Another member did not criticize the reporting member, but rather the nonsense claims made by their supporters, such as the need to protect the children and comparing swearing to smoking. Then you popped in and started talking about the forum rules, completely missing my point.

After I brought this to your attention you began spouting vitriol such as:


1) Get a job, but try not to swear too much at the interview
2) Show your employer that picture.
3) Get a job.


Your posts are somewhat beneath me, but there are those whom I don't suffer gladly, so I will respond:

1) I am well employed. As a matter of clarification, I don't swear either in these posts or in real life, as I personally consider it vulgar. I won't bother explaining this apparent discrepancy to you as I doubt you would understand. I won't bother explaining the word discrepancy either.

2) My employer has shown me worse pictures than that, so I doubt it would faze him. Maybe you should try working somewhere where you're valued enough to not have to worry about such trivialities.

3) See 1.

[fitbrit]

I think that the "fink" was right to report it. I agree with Nikita as well. RFD IS a family forum, and by posting here, you agree to its terms and conditions. That's regardless of what you, me, or anyone else might consider profane, the fact of the matter is that profanity is not allowed on here. And the f word, last time I checked is still considered profane, even if some of us consider it mild or a non-issue.

It's not a matter of "protecting the children" or anything like that. It's a matter of us all agreeing to meet a certain criteria in our posts when we signed up for an account on RFD and following it.

Agreed 100%

[fitbrit]

Well thanks for popping in and clarifying what you feel the real issue is. I created this thread so that you could do precisely that and not clutter the other one. I also stated that I agree with your points. However, I maintain that you're the one whose opinion is pointless (something you directed at me when I said this the first time) in that situation because the profanity is against the rules. End of matter.
Perhaps, I should have emphasised that the supporters of the "fink" were right because it's against the rules, but any other reason for their support was also irrelevant?
Thanks for stooping this low beneath you to discuss and defend your stance.


This is an inaccurate depiction of the situation. I apologize if I hurt your feelings by pointing out how your post did nothing but reduce the SNR of the thread, but you really have nothing to gain by misrepresenting what happened.

Another member did not criticize the reporting member, but rather the nonsense claims made by their supporters, such as the need to protect the children and comparing swearing to smoking. Then you popped in and started talking about the forum rules, completely missing my point.

After I brought this to your attention you began spouting vitriol such as:



Your posts are somewhat beneath me, but there are those whom I don't suffer gladly, so I will respond:

1) I am well employed. As a matter of clarification, I don't swear either in these posts or in real life, as I personally consider it vulgar. I won't bother explaining this apparent discrepancy to you as I doubt you would understand. I won't bother explaining the word discrepancy either.

2) My employer has shown me worse pictures than that, so I doubt it would faze him. Maybe you should try working somewhere where you're valued enough to not have to worry about such trivialities.

3) See 1.

[CastIronStove]

I think that the "fink" was right to report it. I agree with Nikita as well. RFD IS a family forum, and by posting here, you agree to its terms and conditions. That's regardless of what you, me, or anyone else might consider profane, the fact of the matter is that profanity is not allowed on here. And the f word, last time I checked is still considered profane, even if some of us consider it mild or a non-issue.

It's not a matter of "protecting the children" or anything like that. It's a matter of us all agreeing to meet a certain criteria in our posts when we signed up for an account on RFD and following it.

I agree, one of the conditions for the privilege of posting in these forums is following the rules. My objection had nothing to do with that, and more with the 'it's for your own good' attitude some posters used to justify it.

[afong56]

bottom line, were the rules broken?

that's all that matters.

we don't get to decide what is right or wrong on this forum. by agreeing to the membership user agreement, we abide by others' rules, not the ones we feel are correct.

that's it. end of story

[D-Roc]

People who feel the need to use profanities to express their thoughts, shows that they are lacking intelligence.

[fitbrit]

bottom line, were the rules broken?

that's all that matters.

we don't get to decide what is right or wrong on this forum. by agreeing to the membership user agreement, we abide by others' rules, not the ones we feel are correct.

that's it. end of story

Agreed. My mistake was to only chastise one side's argument for being irrelevant. Upon reflection I should have just said that rules were broken and further discussion was justa waste.

[CastIronStove]

Well thanks for popping in and clarifying what you feel the real issue is. I created this thread so that you could do precisely that and not clutter the other one. I also stated that I agree with your points. However, I maintain that you're the one whose opinion is pointless (something you directed at me when I said this the first time) in that situation because the profanity is against the rules. End of matter.
Perhaps, I should have emphasised that the supporters of the "fink" were right because it's against the rules, but any other reason for their support was also irrelevant?

I wouldn't say my opinion was pointless, but it was definately off-topic, and I should have created my own thread.

Thanks for stooping this low beneath you to discuss and defend your stance.

Rereading my post, my original wording was unduly harsh, and I apologize for that (a real apology this time, not a sarcastic one). I was referring to the insulting implication of your list.

I can't properly judge your other posts since I haven't read many of them, but you certainly seem to be reacting better here than I did.

[Madchester]

Just a continuation of the off topic discussion that was hijacking a thread. Someone posted a graphic with the f-word on it.


http://www.channel4.com/life/media/F/fword/header.jpg

:lol:

I don't have a problem with profanity. I think this forum is too family friendly at times; if only you could implement a watershed... just like television.

Canada has a 9 PM TV watershed, but most of the networks don't take advantage of it anymore. I remember 5-6 years back when CityTV would air Die Hard at 8 PM. The first hour would have all the swearing edited out, but past the stroke of 9, all the colourful dialogue returns on air. :) These days, City seems to edit the entire film despite the watershed being available to them after 9.

[fitbrit]

I wouldn't say my opinion was pointless, but it was definately off-topic, and I should have created my own thread.

Rereading my post, my original wording was unduly harsh, and I apologize for that (a real apology this time, not a sarcastic one). I was referring to the insulting implication of your list.

I can't properly judge your other posts since I haven't read many of them, but you certainly seem to be reacting better here than I did.

No problem. Misunderstandings and miscommunications, and overreactions to these happen all the time. It takes maturity plus a desire to see it sorted out to engage in civil debate and offer apologies. It's a pity that in the macroworld of government interactions, escalation appears easier than admitting you were wrong and trying to make amends. The latter is considered a sign of weakness.

[BaconMunch]

I think the rules are here to establish some sort of boundry. In the same guise, how are we supposed to deal with companies like French Connection United Kingdom.

I mean while wearing FCUK shirts, I get it from older parents that is it not nice and shouldn't wear stuff like that, so technically, it's not family-friendly. So does that mean that these deals are not welcome on the board? I think it's a matter of context.

And as for the wastershet TV issue, they're saying B-words, A-words and all sorts of things that I sit back and say whoa..they can mention that on tv now?

[Nikita]

1) I am well employed. As a matter of clarification, I don't swear either in these posts or in real life, as I personally consider it vulgar. I won't bother explaining this apparent discrepancy to you as I doubt you would understand. I won't bother explaining the word discrepancy either.


3) See 1.

LOL....well put.

People who feel the need to use profanities to express their thoughts, shows that they are lacking intelligence.

My feelings exactly. Using vulgar language, except perhaps in a moment of passion (like when I stubb my toe or something, yes, my neighbors probably hear a couple nasty words...lol) is, IMHO, an indication of a lack of vocabulary....and yes, ignorance (which are both the same thing I guess).

[df329]

if it breaks the rules report it. if you dont like the rules then dont read the forum. i dunno :lol:

[aelam]

Canada has a 9 PM TV watershed, but most of the networks don't take advantage of it anymore. I remember 5-6 years back when CityTV would air Die Hard at 8 PM. The first hour would have all the swearing edited out, but past the stroke of 9, all the colourful dialogue returns on air. :) These days, City seems to edit the entire film despite the watershed being available to them after 9.

Yeah right! Just a couple months ago City aired American Wedding, totally uncut, boobs and all, at like 7:30! Me and my sister were incredulous! (Great movie though :D )

Oops, am I going to get in trouble for saying boobs? :rolleyes:

[Codegen]

Who knew an argument would break out from a post that's three and a half months old :lol:

[Siefer999]

FLICK OFF?
http://www.flickoff.org/themes/barn_flick_off_02/logo.png

[Codegen]

FLICK OFF?
http://www.flickoff.org/themes/barn_flick_off_02/logo.png

I remember that!

Wasn't that from the city of Ottawa or the province Ontario?

I betcha that was done intentionally.

[sockhead]

what are you a grad student in?

I think the problem is really with older people, who don't realise that their attempts to mollycoddle their kids are useless.
However, these same people are the ones who'd be offended by profanity if they saw it on the screens of their employees, for example.

On the other hand, do kids need to be encouraged to swear or participate in other "anti-social" behaviour? I was never urged to do so; adults always maintained an air of righteousness, but I still swear liberally in the right context and setting:
Yes, with my younger friends, e.g. McGill grad students.
Yes, with my older friends, if I hear them do so first.
No, in front of my employer.
No, on public forums where I was told to read the rules when I signed up.
No, when giving a seminar at a science conference.
No, when meeting a personal training client for the first time.

Etc. etc.

[hooch]

I remember that!

Wasn't that from the city of Ottawa or the province Ontario?

I betcha that was done intentionally.

It was part sponsored by the Goverment of Ontario. And yes, it was definately done intentionally to be edgy and to reach out to young people. At least, that's what the media was saying.

Being on my soap box, I think it was done in poor taste. Swearing is fine and all for me, but I don't think it was effective at all, and I would like to think that the Government of Ontario could've come up with better way of reaching out.

And I have to say that I find it really cool that this thread didn't spin into a flame war! :cheesygri

[fitbrit]

what are you a grad student in?

I'm not a grad student; I got my Ph.D. in molecular and cellular bology from the University of Cambridge in 1995.

[x86asm]

Yes.

[M@rk]

I actually agree with the rule.

It has nothing to do with prudishness or family-style forum. If you start allowing swear words, pretty much half the forum would be filled with the f-bomb, and that gets quite annoying and completely changes the tone of respect and atmosphere within the forum.

[grant]

Any opinions?
Yes, you should learn the definition of words like "sanctimonious" before including them in your rhetoric.

[aidzhsiah]

I think you really have to consider a forum to be a public venue... it just happens that it's a virtual venue. As in any public venue where you're around people you don't know personally/are friends with, it's just respectful to others and a common courtesy not to use profanity where others could possibly be offended.

The anonymity of the internet has warped the acceptability of using such words.

Regarding that specific graphic in that thread... if I were to be talking to a stranger I met on the street about something and told him to "Shut the f*** up!", I'd say that there's a good chance that he'd deck me (and deservedly so).

It's not really about prudishness and being offended by a word. It's more about the percieved lack of maturity and respect and bad taste exhibited by the other person.

[fitbrit]

Yes, you should learn the definition of words like "sanctimonious" before including them in your rhetoric.

Thank you for your opinion. I used that word as it was utttered by someone in the previous thread. I included it as a little dig at that person. However, it's used perfectly in this context.

[CastIronStove]

Yes, you should learn the definition of words like "sanctimonious" before including them in your rhetoric.

from dictionary.com (www.dictionary.com):

American Heritage Dictionary

sanc·ti·mo·ni·ous

adj. Feigning piety or righteousness

right·eous

Morally upright; without guilt or sin: a righteous parishioner.
In accordance with virtue or morality: a righteous judgment.
Morally justifiable: righteous anger. See Synonyms at moral.


Thanks for coming out, but I'm afraid you'll have to leave with the consolation prize.

[fitbrit]

*High-fiving a stove*

from dictionary.com (www.dictionary.com):

American Heritage Dictionary

sanc·ti·mo·ni·ous

adj. Feigning piety or righteousness

right·eous

Morally upright; without guilt or sin: a righteous parishioner.
In accordance with virtue or morality: a righteous judgment.
Morally justifiable: righteous anger. See Synonyms at moral.


Thanks for coming out, but I'm afraid you'll have to leave with the consolation prize.