Use of language

So i see you can have a discussion with heavy word choose... i don't think that is good for this forum.
Yes we want free speach, but calling eachother names is not the way to discuss with eachother.
If we continue like that, then this forum is doomd... mark my words!

so my poll... do we BAN this use of language or not...

(15day poll)

6-6 anthony switched votes... see it's post.

Yes, I dont think we should allow the use of inappropriate language.

I agree
Good initiative RR17

NVM I change vote to I approve that language!

I voted no. We don't have to baby people around here. If someone wants to use offensive language, let them.

Hell no! I'm with WWW. If you're not mature enough to handle a little profanity here and there (personal attacks are much different), then this site and its political content is probably out of your grasp.

And what's with this "protect freedom of speech (but not really)" baloney? That's aggrivating.

EDIT: Hyperlink goes nowhere, that's just WeiWuWei's initials (I swear he did that on purpose)

Black_Cross wrote:

(I swear he did that on purpose)

rofl, it's true.

I definitely don't support this initiative. I believe in freedom of expressing what you want in the way you want (unless your intentions are to outright hinder anyone's intergity).

I can't believe we're discussing this again...

Just as the world wide web says we don't have to baby people here.

What's wrong with coarse language?

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Just as the world wide web says we don't have to baby people here.

I lol'd. First DoWithoutDoing, and now this! Zealot, you're so PUNNY!

WeiWuWei wrote:

I lol'd. First DoWithoutDoing, and now this! Zealot, you're so PUNNY!

I'll be unpunny now: Give me the tools and I'll get the job done! Literally unpunny.

Freedom of expression, fuck yeah!

Hutin_Khan wrote:

Man, you can't compare Kenzu to Zealot. Kenzu is an incompentent piece of shit, and Zealot is a zealous admin who did more for the Forum than anyone here. So stfu, nub.

So these are curse words? these words are offending! And that shouldn't be allawed in a discussion....

If you want to discusse, please do it in normal way, without offending language for people.

thank you.

where not talking freedom of expression, were talking offending people. there is a big difference.

Liche wrote:

where not talking freedom of expression, were talking offending people. there is a big difference.

indeed, i'm gonna quote it bigger..

Hutin_Khan wrote:

Man, you can't compare Kenzu to Zealot. Kenzu is an incompentent piece of shit, and Zealot is a zealous admin who did more for the Forum than anyone here. So stfu, nub.

well I was saying to the other two, who did not expressing themselves. As far as I know they are saying: YEA! CUSSING AT OTHER PEOPLE IS GOOD!

redrevolution17 is a fucking loser.
eat shit reactionary.

feel free to quote

freedom prevails

even against authoritarian douche bags like you.

Nope. Fuck you.

i wanted to vote yes (got a bit confused) and i cancel my vote and re vote

ok thx

that is 5-5 at the moment.

RedRevolution17 wrote:

So these are curse words? these words are offending! And that shouldn't be allawed in a discussion....

"Incompetent piece of shit"

What does this mean? This is a critic towards the performance said in a very disgruntled manner.

When critiques are given in such a way, they denote anger from the one who expresses his views. This anger both has a reason and a place in discussion.

Is it his intention to offend the subject? Perhaps it is, since he's angry at said subject. I wonder now, shouldn't people be free to express what they feel and why they feel so?

RedRevolution17 wrote:

If you want to discusse, please do it in normal way, without offending language for people.

thank you.

So your problem is with the "offensive language" but not with the offense itself? I find this posture even less defensible.

I ask again, why shouldn't people be allowed to employ the language they want? Why shouldn't people be able to freely express themsleves? Why is censorship of a certain kind of language necesary or even admisible?

You may say you want to prevent a flame war. Moderators are precisely here to regulate the happening of such events which can happen with or without the use of coarse language for offenses can always be said even in the most glamorous and refined language sometimes being more offensive in these languages, and more subtle.

So I want to know, what's your problem? The language? Personal attacks? Or both?

In case of being the language please explain why its implications justify censorship.

In case of being personal attacks, I think we all here are against them, yet, in order to come up with whether something is a personal attack or not it is UNEXPENDABLE to take the context into account. And I'll remind you, personal attack have nothing to do with whether coarse language is employed or not, since you can engage in them even with the most refined and rich language, with the most proper use of the language.

Personal attacks here are prosecuted in the Justice Comitee section of this forum if you feel someone has engaged in a personal attack against an individual, that is adressing that individual's person and not quality of the actions or other aspect linked to the person but not part of the person, then you can start a trial against that person, argue why that person has engaged in a personal attack, and let people decide what course to take.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Personal attacks here are prosecuted in the Justice Comitee section of this forum if you feel someone has engaged in a personal attack against an individual, that is adressing that individual's person and not quality of the actions or other aspect linked to the person but not part of the person, then you can start a trial against that person, argue why that person has engaged in a personal attack, and let people decide what course to take.[/b]

I never knew that.
Oh well, thx for saying it now.
Can be handy.

CoolKidX wrote:

I never knew that.
Oh well, thx for saying it now.
Can be handy.

Freedom comes with some reponsability CKX. We have and want freedom of expression here, but one thing is that and other letting people be abusive here and, when the last one presents, leading to a conflict, that's why we have that section to get to a consensus regarding to that conflict.

Everyone here has the capability to defend their posture.

Freedom to say all you want in the way you want!


In my very personal point of view, if someone is calling you sack of shit, loser or pathetic attempt at human being, I think the best way to fend off is precisely through arguements, that is, either demonstrating why that person in wrong in his assertions or rather, factually, demonstrate why that person is right.

Every action has a reason which is the one which should be adressed and, if well founded, defended.

So you can not prosecute someone for a insult but you can for a personal attack, and that means private stuff or such..?

Quote :

So your problem is with the "offensive language" but not with the offense itself? I find this posture even less defensible.

where did i say that? Offensive language also meens the offense itself.

Quote :

I ask again, why shouldn't people be allowed to employ the language they want? Why shouldn't people be able to freely express themsleves? Why is censorship of a certain kind of language necesary or even admisible?

i answer again, because if you people call you names and stuff that is offending, and that is not even discussing.
It's not cencorship, it's just making the discussions better.

Quote :

You may say you want to prevent a flame war. Moderators are precisely here to regulate the happening of such events which can happen with or without the use of coarse language for offenses can always be said even in the most glamorous and refined language sometimes being more offensive in these languages, and more subtle.

I say offending lanuage that means subtle languages to! You don't wish eachother's names. if you say f*ck you or you are something that the daylight never see - that are things that never should be tolerated.

Quote :

So I want to know, what's your problem? The language? Personal attacks? Or both?

both... because if you use offensive language then it's always to hit or make that person rediculus.

CoolKidX wrote:

So you can not prosecute someone for a insult but you can for a personal attack, and that means private stuff or such..?

Define "insult" and "personal attack".

RR17 wrote:

where did i say that? Offensive language also meens the offense itself.

No, it doesn't.

I can use extremely offensive language in a completely possitive way, I can employ extremely offensive language as part of a joke, I can employ said language as part of an explanation and of course I can use that language when presenting a perfectly valid point when nonetheless being quite displeased at what I'm adressing my point.

RR17 wrote:

i answer again, because if you people call you names and stuff that is offending, and that is not even discussing.
It's not cencorship, it's just making the discussions better.

And now a 3rd aspect: you adressed offensive language, personal offenses and now calling names something that can be either offensive or not, it greatly depends on the context.

For example, and I hope Liche remains honest, liche showed me a picture of his while chatting in MSN. I told him "you look like a giant germano-irish baby". That was in complete reference to the fact that he has german and irish roots and that, in my view, he looked rather young in that photo. He actually posted this photo in the Komsomol.

His reply was ":O Thanks! I always wanted to hear that!" then he showed me another photo in which i told him he still "looked babily" to which he replied "lol". Doesn't seem like he got offended.

Yet, when I posted the same comment, on the Komsomol, now even after having proven myself it's not offensive to the subject, Kenzu immediately erased it and told me that I should be respectful. Did Liche even complain? In which way could Kenzu argue it it was and not coul've been offensive to Liche? Yet he censored me and accused me of offending Liche.
That's outright wrong.

What about "incompetent piece of shit"? Ah, this one is even more interesting! If the one who said it had omitted "incompetent" I'd say it was an insult. However, the one emitting this rather impolite expression is adressing the incompetence of the subject and not te subject itself and then is implying that for him that subject's incompetence is enough reason for that subject to be a "piece of shit", apelative that unless the locutor is cropophilic, denotes the subject is as despicable for him as a piece of shit.

That is a founded opinion. In order to prove it valid all he has to do is present evidence to his point.

By not allowing him to use coarse language or being "offensive" we wouldn't be letting that person express neither his feelings or ideas in respect to something, we're limiting his capability to remain truthful and to express his real views as completely as possible, and that sort of authoritarianism is unacceptable. We're not drones, we're humans.

What about the imperative "shut the fuck up, noob!"? Basically it's the implication that for your lack of expertise or involvement in a certain field you lack the capability to excert a valid opinion. The only way I defend the usage of such a sentence is when the individual effectively demonstrates that the subject of his demands is actually incapable of excerting a valid point of view on the subject in question. It, again, denotes certain anger the existance of which none of us can criticize for its a personal matter, unless of course we're psychiatrists or present arguements as to why its rather an exageration.


It's not censorhip? I'm sorry but technically it is. Censorship is defined as the "alteration, cut of or prohibition to show something". Therefore it is censorship.

To make discussion better? Better, my friend, is the superlative comparative for "good" which is a subjective term, that is, everyone has his own concept of "good" and "bad". In my personal perspective and in teh perspective of many others as it is possible to deduct, the "better form" of discussion is without censorship.

Thanks.

RR17 wrote:

I say offending lanuage that means subtle languages to! You don't wish eachother's names. if you say f*ck you or you are something that the daylight never see - that are things that never should be tolerated.

Read above, I believe to have covered this point.

And I remind you: we have a section to prosecute personal attacks and define whether, given the context, they're punible or not or overall what to do with them. This is inmensely better than censorship.

RR17 wrote:

both... because if you use offensive language then it's always to hit or make that person rediculus.

I also cover this point above, I hope you don't miss it.

If you use offensive language its "offensiveness" and the justification for it is absolutely dependant on the context. If you disagree I plea you to present arguements and not simple statements.

Thanks.

Quote :

What about "incompetent piece of shit"? Ah, this one is even more interesting! If the one who said it had omitted "incompetent" I'd say it was an insult. However, the one emitting this rather impolite expression is adressing the incompetence of the subject and not te subject itself and then is implying that for him that subject's incompetence is enough reason for that subject to be a "piece of shit", apelative that unless the locutor is cropophilic, denotes the subject is as despicable for him as a piece of shit.

well if you want to read the line again "Incompetent piece of shit' that means.... Incompetent... that is saying like you are not good enough... that is a personal attack... and piece of shit.... well i don't need to explain this one!

and if you read his reply good, then you know what or who his subject was!

Quote :

What about the imperative "shut the fuck up, noob!"? Basically it's the implication that for your lack of expertise or involvement in a certain field you lack the capability to excert a valid opinion. The only way I defend the usage of such a sentence is when the individual effectively demonstrates that the subject of his demands is actually incapable of excerting a valid point of view on the subject in question. It, again, denotes certain anger the existance of which none of us can criticize for its a personal matter, unless of course we're psychiatrists or present arguements as to why its rather an exageration.

shut the fuck up.... that is for me like saying 'you are not worthed to speak... now my dear friend, THAT is CENSORSHIP.

Quote :

By not allowing him to use coarse language or being "offensive" we wouldn't be letting that person express neither his feelings or ideas in respect to something, we're limiting his capability to remain truthful and to express his real views as completely as possible, and that sort of authoritarianism is unacceptable. We're not drones, we're humans.

You can argue without offending people, that would be extending his capability... of using other words, or thinking before he is writting something, i don't what the capability of "shut the fuck" is?

Quote :

It's not censorhip? I'm sorry but technically it is. Censorship is defined as the "alteration, cut of or prohibition to show something". Therefore it is censorship.

And no that is not censorship, that is just good behaving towords another person.
Censorship is "shut the fuck up" that is censorship.

Quote :

To make discussion better? Better, my friend, is the superlative comparative for "good" which is a subjective term, that is, everyone has his own concept of "good" and "bad". In my personal perspective and in teh perspective of many others as it is possible to deduct, the "better form" of discussion is without censorship.

the better discussion is without offensive language, because realy... what makes the difference of just writting 'shut the fuck up' or saying i don't agree with you.
It's yes... the expression my friend! And offcourse for the 2nd choise you have think maybe 2 seconds to answer, and the first one is the gut feeling... but please, let us maintain the level up in this forum and think before you write something.

thank you.