[TimG]

onoway, on Mar 25 2008, 04:37 PM, said:

I think that a large part of the question has to be if the person using the expression is doing so to be offensive, and if someone said to me what size are your tits I WOULD be offended, because the comment at the very least was designed to embarrass and/or offend and when using such gender specific comments has to have sexist overtones BECAUSE it was designed to offend.

"Tits" is gender specific? Take a look around next time you are at a bridge tournament!

[jillybean]

barmar, on Mar 25 2008, 01:02 PM, said:

These things certainly do depend on context.

As an example, there's an American cable TV show called "Dirt", about a Hollywood gossip magazine.  The lead character, played by Courtney Cox (Monica from "Friends"), is the editor of the magazine.  She's tough, drives her people hard, and is willing to do just about anything to get a story, and demands the same of her underlings.  And in her private (i.e. sexual) life, she's also in charge.  She's the type of woman who would call herself "ballsy" -- there's hardly any other term that sums up her style so succinctly.  The people she's run over to get where she is would agree, although they'd probably be more likely to call her a bitch or cunt; she'd probably not take offense at these, either, because she knows what she did to deserve it.

We can always stoop to new lows,. I'd rather stay out of the gutter and keep things civilized.

Uday – where are we at? The (overwhelming response) loudest voices say we need few rules, personal attacks are out, including innuendoes? Other than that, anything goes as long as the writer is making a point and not being deliberately offensive. edited: But isnt this why the WC was set up in the first place?
http://forums.bridge...showtopic=12841

It seems then with those guidelines on the main forum, the WC should be completely moderator free?

[helene_t]

Elianna, on Mar 25 2008, 11:23 PM, said:

I sometimes wonder if people who think that describing someone as "having balls" isn't sexist also think that saying a female bridge player "plays like a man" isn't sexist, either.

I don't think it is meaningful to discuss whether an expression is sexist. Modern languages are full of reminiscents from a past when all kind of superstition and archaic ethics were the norm and shaped the language, but modern users are generally not conscious about that. Even when they are conscious about it they may consider it irrelevant.

What is meaningful to discuss is whether someone ought to be aware that the use of the expression "you have balls" creates (disturbing) associations to sexism by part of the audience, even if the intended message was not a sexist one. FWIW I don't have strong feelings about that issue either way.

[jillybean]

This is an excerpt not from the main forum but from the WC rules

Rain, on Mar 3 2006, 07:48 PM, said:

In general, please follow this rule of thumb (which is a good rule I've picked up from another forum): If you aren't comfortable emailing a post to your grandmother/mother/colleague, then it probably shouldn't be posted here.

[han]

Can't believe you are still going on about this Kathryn, that takes some.. ehm.. nerves.

[sceptic]

Well, having been the author of a few posts that are probably considered objectionable, by some, I found one of Al's posts in bad taste and posted something of my own that I know was in bad taste but, it was not meant to offend just to make a point, my post was removed and Al's stayed ( never had a reason why it was removed)

some one made a comment about me being removed from the forums permenately because of it, I got a higher warn level, not everyone was offended and some even had the intelligence to see that I was not serious in my post (probably the moderator showed good judgement).

I personally have no issue with some profabities being used on the forums, but I would hate to see some one called a C word, I think that would over stretch the mark, I also find offensive the use of the word Cretin unacceptable as I would Spastic and Retard. some consider the use of at least one of these words acceptable, even though they find bad language offensive. perhaps, I am just sensitive about those particular words.

Some people are easily offended, that is not my problem, in fact I think that is thier problem.

all in all, I think the mods do a good job, I have over stepped the mark and had my *** kicked probably deservedly so, they give us all leaway to express ourselves, some of us are guilty of bad taste, arrogance, bad language and a multitude of sins, lets not drag the WC down, just because of a few overly sensitive types

I think things are ok, obviously not everyone does or Uday would not ask he question

[barmar]

Elianna, on Mar 25 2008, 06:23 PM, said:

I sometimes wonder if people who think that describing someone as "having balls" isn't sexist also think that saying a female bridge player "plays like a man" isn't sexist, either.

The difference is that one phrase has entered the vernacular, and has an idiomatic meaning, while the other has not.

Since, "plays like a man" is not idiomatic, it's interpreted literally, and that has sexist connotation. "Throws like a girl" is similar.

On the other hand, we have a phrase like "man up", which is an idiom that means "be strong and fulfill your responsibilities". Obviously it has a gender-based origin, but it's become idiomatic and should not engender sexist complaints.

On the other hand, we live in a strange time, when people find offense all over the place. The "PC police" and "feminazis" have made it difficult to use common words and phrases; many male pronouns have for years been also used as the generic, non-specific words, but feminists started to make a big deal about it, so these days one often has to use "they" even when the referent is singular, or the cumbersome "he or she". A few years ago a White House staffer (or some other government official) used the word "niggardly" in public and lost his job, despite the fact that this word bears absolutely no relation to the dreaded N-word. We live in a world where a fatwa was declared over some cartoons depicting Muhammed.

So I guess this means one must defer to conservatism.

[finally17]

On the subject of growing balls:

I still get very amused when I recall my freshman year of college, standing outside my dorm waiting for some sandwiches to be delivered. Smoking inside the dorms was against the rules, and while you could get around the smoke detectors, some people actually didn't bother. So I'm standing in the cold when three girls come outside to have a smoke. It was quite cold out, and after a couple of minutes one had finished her cigarette and said to the others:

"c'mon, let's go inside, i'm freezing my balls off."

[bid_em_up]

The wolf certainly has them...

http://photos4.meetupstatic.com/photos/mem...er_3593224.jpeg

[helene_t]

finally17, on Mar 26 2008, 11:25 PM, said:

It was quite cold out, and after a couple of minutes one had finished her cigarette and said to the others:

"c'mon, let's go inside, i'm freezing my balls off."

Yeah, my niece was two years old when she learned to shout "auuw my balls" when she fell.

[jillybean]

sceptic, on Mar 26 2008, 02:22 PM, said:

lets not drag the WC down, just because of a few overly sensitive types

I think things are ok, obviously not everyone does or Uday would not ask he question

Lets be clear here, this is not about the WC, it is about the main forum. I doubt we’d be having this discussion if it had stayed in the WC.

I have no problem at all with people using obscenities to “express their view’, attack fellow mankind, sex, religion, politicians, lawyers, you name – if it is done in the WC. I know I will likely be offended by the content and so when I see a post made in the WC, I can make a choice not to open it.

When these things spill over into the main forum, you have taken away that choice.

[jdonn]

Jilly I like you and I've never had any problem with you of any kind, but I just don't feel bad at all here. When you get out of bed in the morning and open your eyes, you are bound to see things you wish you hadn't seen. Ultimately that is not a choice unless you lock yourself in a closet for life. The real choice is how you react to them. If you choose to be offended by innocuous comments that weren't intended to be offensive, then the only one who suffers is you.

[jtfanclub]

jdonn, on Mar 26 2008, 07:59 PM, said:

Jilly I like you and I've never had any problem with you of any kind, but I just don't feel bad at all here. When you get out of bed in the morning and open your eyes, you are bound to see things you wish you hadn't seen. Ultimately that is not a choice unless you lock yourself in a closet for life. The real choice is how you react to them. If you choose to be offended by innocuous comments that weren't intended to be offensive, then the only one who suffers is you.

Let's get things straight here.

Han posted a thread.
Jilly posted a one liner saying she considered it offensive.
Han had the title changed.

Jilly posted a thread.
A moderator changed the title's thread without her permission.
Said moderator started this thread as a result of her "offensive" title.

If what you say is true, why are you going after her? She's not the one who censored somebody. She didn't start this thread. Aren't they a better target?

Or is it, if you choose to be offended by "balls", you should get a life, but if you choose to be offended by "tits", you should be censored and have a 70 post thread written about you, most of it rude and condescending?

Edited to add: I believe most of the people on this thread agree that "How big are your balls" used to be crude and offensive but has now entered the vernacular. But the reason why it was able to gain general acceptance was because not enough people said they were offended to stop it. If something bothers you, you gotta tell people it bothers you, or you're going to get a whole lot more of it. If somebody is tapping their pen against the table while I'm thinking, they're going to keep right on doing it unless I tell them to stop. That doesn't mean that grabbing the pen from them, breaking it in half, and throwing it across the room is appropriate, but I don't think it's ever wrong to tell somebody to stop doing something that bothers you that's under their control. It's what you do if they won't stop that's the difference between getting on with your life or getting hung up.

[the hog]

jtfanclub, on Mar 27 2008, 11:28 AM, said:

If something bothers you, you gotta tell people it bothers you, or you're going to get a whole lot more of it.
snipped
but I don't think it's ever wrong to tell somebody to stop doing something that bothers you that's under their control. It's what you do if they won't stop that's the difference between getting on with your life or getting hung up.

Well JT IF you really mean what you say, "Gotta" really bothers me. There is no such word in the English language. Please don't use it in future. Correct usage is "have to."

[jillybean]

jdonn, on Mar 26 2008, 05:59 PM, said:

Jilly I like you and I've never had any problem with you of any kind, but I just don't feel bad at all here. When you get out of bed in the morning and open your eyes, you are bound to see things you wish you hadn't seen. Ultimately that is not a choice unless you lock yourself in a closet for life. The real choice is how you react to them. If you choose to be offended by innocuous comments that weren't intended to be offensive, then the only one who suffers is you.

Ditto and its not my intention to make people feel bad.

I make choices every day, I chose not to watch certain TV programs, read certain books, listen to certain people. Sometimes I am exposed to things I would rather not see. Some of these things offend me, make me feel sad, shock me, scare me or feel bad. How I feel is not a choice, it is who I am; it is what makes me different from you and every other bag of skin and bones on this planet.
The choice I have is how to react, I can ignore it or try to do something about it.

[awm]

Based on talking to him today, I can safely say that this whole mess probably started because Han has too many bridge hands to post and not enough good ideas for thread names.

Perhaps we should help him out with some creative, possibly funny, and hopefully not offensive, names for play or bidding problems.

[kenberg]

Maybe I have a suggestion:

If A is offended by something B says, B could write to A. Maybe A will acknowledge this, maybe not.

I can offer some history.

Early on in my career as a bbo poster JB sent me a private message taking issue with something I said (I don't recall what). I sent a reply clarifying my intent, and as far as I know we are now on good terms.

Somewhat later, on another thread, I described a Second City skit that I thought was more or less (maybe less) on topic. Someone, I think it was Phil, took offense (it was a religious matter). I thought it over, decided he had a point, and deleted the post.

In each case I might have responded otherwise. If so, then JB or Phil can take that into account in how they regard me.


The general view expressed on this thread is, I think, that the moderator should censor rarely (the dominant view, I think, and my view) or never (some support for this).

Will Rogers claimed that he never met a man he didn't like. Well, I could introduce him to some people that might change his mind. But my experience is that most people, bridge players included, are not actively trying to be jerks. A lot of conflicts can be disappeared with a little faith.



Ken

[Codo]

It is and always was the privilege of the youth to use words/cloths/music/whatever there parents are ashamed of. This had been done by us, by our parents and grandparents. They just don't remeber it any more.

The times changes and what had been unbelievable some years ago is common sense now.
So all the expresions used by Han and others will be common sense or even boring in the generation of their kids.

But some of these expressions are insulting for the generation of their parents, and that is the problem: Here in this forum, there are members who are 72 trying to speak with guys who are 27 or 17.

There are highly civilized people and people without any manners (both of all ages).

So maybe the older generation must simply give the youth some leeway and the youth must try to avoid at least some expressions which may insult senior citizens.

And for Hans use of eyecatchers as thread names: I truely believe that just the name of the initator of the threat makes it worth looking, so espacially Han needs no names for a threat at all.

[Al_U_Card]

I apply my standard method where others use of anything is presented to me.

I take what I can use and I leave the rest. If I leave all of it then so be it.

[kenberg]

Firstly I agree with everything Codo said. Along the lines of trying to remember when we were young:

My father gave a great if unplanned boost to my social standing by having a pit in the garage. In the fifties we all had cars, they were all cheap, they all frequently needed work and so the garage became a social center. One day one of the neighbors stopped by to see me and asked, very nicely, if I could do something about the language. Folks had young kids, and they were not happy. So I put up a sign "No Foul Language, by Order of Neighbors'". Of course someone came by and said "Who the ***** put up that dumb ***** sign" but in fact he and everyone else accepted the new standards. The pit was very useful.

As often, I'm not sure I really have a point. Something about different generations maybe. Various people often stopped by to chat with us including a really ancient old guy, meaning someone whose age then was about mine now.