Though I'm actually anti-religion, I agree with SS here (though I didn't see the original context). Using Christ as an expletive is offensive to a lot of people, probably more than the number of people offended by "that's so gay". I mean it is actually a violation one of the ten commandments. And the word is a proper name with only one real meaning, while "gay" is a regular adjective which has more than one meaning. When I was a kid, even though it was post Stonewall, etc., I was tought the meaning of gay was happy and carefree. The fact that a particular group claimed the word for themselves doesn't make the original meaning, or any other meaning, into something offensive.

Queer had a meaning already as well, and it was not a positive one. So I don't think anyone should be offended by someone using that word in a negative sense.

LOL! My bad! I switch back and forth between threads so often that I lost track of where I was! 20 push ups for me! (not in the shape I once was )


OK, so the issue for discussion is whether or not a single word exclamation like "Christ" should fall into a category of words that are offensive, though not obscenities, due to the reverence they are treated with by some followers of Christianity. My initial impression was that it does not, because one, not everyone believes there is anything special about the bible or the people described in it, so the name Christ carries no reverence with it. And two, even if one were to allocate some unique status to the name, is simply stating the name offensive absent any other words?

Is a picture of Mohammad out of bounds because followers of that faith believe it is forbidden to create an image of him? What about gods from ancient times (actually I guess all gods are from ancient times) ? Or is the phrase the devil made me do it offensive to satanists?

But I am open to reconsidering my position. I would like to hear peoples thoughts on this, not just shortstacker's. How do you feel we should treat the use/mention of religious figures in terms of being on the offensive/do not use list?

For reference, the post in question had quoted a poster who said that flu vaccines do nothing. The poster responded "Christ!" That was it.

Thanks.

I think if a regular poster in this Forum was known to believe in Greek Mythology "By Thor's hammer!" would be inappropriate.

Well said.

thanks for the input. I do want to mention though, that the term "that's so gay" as used today has no connection to the definition of gay as happy. I grew up watching the Flintstones, where the last line of each stanza of the opening jingle was "we'll have a gay old time!" Rather, it is usually used as a term of disapproval or when something is ****ed up. It connects the negative event with the gay community, not the happy, happy one.

No problema. I often forget what thread I'm posting in, especially when two threads end up discussing the same thing.

While not directly germane to the above, how is the one-word response "Garbage" not just empty posting?

If a regular poster claimed to be a Muslim, an image of Mohammad as a response to a post not about religion would probably be inappropriate. Same for "the devil made me do it" vis-a-vis the Satanist.

Thanks for opening discussion on this topic.

Well said. Important to note how language changes.

As of today, it's been one week since I became a P&S moderator. It feels like a year yesterday. I just wanted to thank everyone for the welcome and support this first week. As they say, all change, for the better or worse, is equally resisted. And I recognize that when changes are being driven by an outsider, it can be even more aggravating.

But my impression is that all you guys have been willing to give it a chance and have been working with me on implementing the changes. It's just been a week, but I really appreciate your help, and look forward to working together to make the forum both enjoyable for our current members as well as attractive to new members.

Thanks again.

I appreciate your openness and willingness to discuss how this Forum can get better and better. I am for sure looking forward to your stewardship of this Forum.

Lol yeah, I remember that from the Flintstones as well. However, when gay is used to show disapproval, it is probably not usually connected, in the mind of the user, with homosexuality. There certainly is no explicit link there, and if a listener is offended by that usage, it is because the connection is in their mind, not the mind of the speaker. Also, it's not that rare for a word to take on a slang meaning which is nearly the opposite of the original meaning, e.g. "Bad" in the 1970's-80's, or "Sick" in recent years.

Also, a better comparison than the use of Thor as an expletive would be the use of Allah as an expletive. If someone used that word everytime he wanted to express disapproval, I have a feeling you wouldn't be likely to approve.

Sounds like it could be a homophone.

browser i am only just seeing this thread now and catching up.

So far, so good and i support generally all the changes you propose and do think most will clean up this place, Many of them I have been proposing for a while, and if we can end the practice of 'accuse first' (bigotry, transphobia, racist, nazi) when 10 options for a posters position are possible but certain posters always jump to the worst one and then continue to push it even after the person clarifies what they meant, that will remove a ton of hostility from this forum and allow for more cordial debate.

I also have suggested the removal of what was termed 'empty posting'. empty posting can just be a troll reply or posting a link to a article or video with nothing from the person who posts it. Making a person put minimal effort to expressing some view gets rid of a ton of trolling and empty posting.

i, for one, am happy with the proposed changes and in the spirit of good faith will work towards them.

Personally I would be much more concerned with people actually being bigoted, transphobic, racist etc than I would about (pretty darned rare cases) of flippant accusations of bigotry etc.

What exactly is your concern? I understand that you wish people weren't bigoted, etc., but that doesn't seem to be exactly what you mean here.

I certainly did have some people flippantly accuse me of racism, when I have never expressed any opinions in any way related to race.

What your concern is, is the removal of certain people being judge, jury and accuser of who is 'actually being bigoted, transphobic and racist' and taking away that ability to hurl that slur and insult based on interpretations and not stated words. I am sure the mod will be fine if 'stated words' are said that are clearly that and the person will be warned if not banned. But what you and i are discussing are the interpretations of a few here, who almost always jump to slur and accustation FIRST and losing that ability.


Far left tactics die without that ability to slur first and the thing they hate, actual debate, thrives. That is terrifying to some.

I feel like if you guys can just avoid posting dumb bigoted **** you’ll be fine.

You answered your question with the bolded.

The loss of that is the concern.

Trying to silence opinions not liked is harder without leveling various '...ism' accusations.

It is the scourge of SM currently. Every disagreement in certain areas is instantly labelled with an "...ism". You cannot just engage in civil debate over contentious issues. Hopefully that will be changed here.

You will be the first one warned as that is your constant refrain and i reported this post to see if the mod will allow that allusion to be cast constantly.

Seems like totally normal behavior.

hey its a good test case because if the mod allows that, then it becomes my go to in all posts going forward, just throwing out that other posters are bogited, racist, transphobes, etc. If he does not allow it 90% of your posts become disallowed.

I call it win/win either way.

So far we've learned (at least) three things:

1. That using the Lord's name in vain as a one-word snark-response to a post is acceptable and remains as we speak.

2. A non-snark response that quotes a brief Scripture containing the Lord's name as a direct response to the snark response is quickly deleted.

3. Numbering a short list of terse statements is as pretentious as it is unnecessary.

I agree. Certain trolleyrs need to shape up or ship out.

Looking forward to browser2920 addressing the bolded.

Honestly I think you’re overthinking this. Just don’t be a terrible poster and you’ll be fine.

Your response kinda proves that you don't understand the context of what's going on.