Behavior Issues

[JohnJMS]

Is it inappropriate to use the words "Jesus Christ" out here when frustrated? I just want to know because I didn't think that phrases that you here in PG movies or on network TV shows since the 1970's were off limits, or that this was such a religious site.

Reason being I got a message from a mod about that phrase. It wasn't a warning or anything (I didn't read it that way at least), but more of a request. It kind of caught me off guard.

EDIT: Changed 'admin' to 'mod'

[billms]

I'd guess that it depends on how it is used but should probably be avoided.

I've used a much cruder abbreviation related and never been asked what it means - thankfully.

Assuming you were just saying it out of exasperation I'd think somebody might have suggested you not do it in the future.

[djhutch]

It offends me.

[RedRamage]

I would prefer it not used myself. I'm speaking here as a member, not a moderator. I don't think MWG has officially weighed in on the idea.

[JohnJMS]

Again, I don't know how people get through life if something like this offends them. I mean - where do we draw the line? Is "Good Lord" allowed? Can I say "God"? I just didn't realize that the site was so puritanical. I look forward to every post here being rated "G" from now on.

[sinister porpoise]

Ahem... just add new word filters

[Mark The Shark]

Again, I don't know how people get through life if something like this offends them. I mean - where do we draw the line? Is "Good Lord" allowed? Can I say "God"? I just didn't realize that the site was so puritanical. I look forward to every post here being rated "G" from now on.

What's the harm in being courteous? Its not a matter of "getting through life without being offended," the fact is that a limited number of people post on the political discussions board. If you and your buddies were hanging out and one repeatedly said something that bothered you, you would probably say something and he'd probably knock it off. Same principle applies here, I think.

[JohnJMS]

What's the harm in being courteous? Its not a matter of "getting through life without being offended," the fact is that a limited number of people post on the political discussions board. If you and your buddies were hanging out and one repeatedly said something that bothered you, you would probably say something and he'd probably knock it off. Same principle applies here, I think.

Good point. I just hope it's a request that's being made across the board, and not selectively. Maybe it is, maybe I'm wrong. But I do talk with friends, some of whom are extremely religious, (I'm religious - just not extremely) and they have never once asked me to not use certain words or language. Primarily because unless I was being really vulgar, they respect my right to use certain phrases - while they choose not to. It's kinda a 2 way street. Really vulgar language I can see being edited. But if we have to watch things to this level, I think some people could show a thicker skin. Again - maybe I'm wrong. But I don't think so. It's not like it's a daily occurrence out here. But to answer your question - what's the harm in being courteous? I'm kinda cracking up about courtesy on the political boards. I've been directly called so many names out here it's not even funny (and I've reciprocated). Politics and courtesy rarely meet, unfortunately, especially when you toss in the anonymity of the internet.

Ok - I'm rambling now..........

[Buddha]

Is it inappropriate to use the words "Jesus Christ" out here when frustrated? I just want to know because I didn't think that phrases that you here in PG movies or on network TV shows since the 1970's were off limits, or that this was such a religious site.

Reason being I got a message from a mod about that phrase. It wasn't a warning or anything (I didn't read it that way at least), but more of a request. It kind of caught me off guard.

EDIT: Changed 'admin' to 'mod'

What did you say?

[Buddha]

I had originally written I had been contacted by an admin. I was contacted by a moderator. Since MWG is the actual admin, I didn't want people to mistakenly think he was the one who contacted me when it wasn't. I should have been clearer.

But what did you say that got you contacted in the first place?

[JohnJMS]

But what did you say that got you contacted in the first place?

I used the phrase "Jesus Christ". Also, the word that is a another word for 'donkey'. I lost my cool with billms. I think it was the post you reacted to by saying "Good Lord".

[Mark The Shark]

Good point. I just hope it's a request that's being made across the board, and not selectively. Maybe it is, maybe I'm wrong. But I do talk with friends, some of whom are extremely religious, (I'm religious - just not extremely) and they have never once asked me to not use certain words or language. Primarily because unless I was being really vulgar, they respect my right to use certain phrases - while they choose not to. It's kinda a 2 way street. Really vulgar language I can see being edited. But if we have to watch things to this level, I think some people could show a thicker skin. Again - maybe I'm wrong. But I don't think so. It's not like it's a daily occurrence out here. But to answer your question - what's the harm in being courteous? I'm kinda cracking up about courtesy on the political boards. I've been directly called so many names out here it's not even funny (and I've reciprocated). Politics and courtesy rarely meet, unfortunately, especially when you toss in the anonymity of the internet.

Ok - I'm rambling now..........

I think you can see how somebody who is extremely religious might react more negatively to Jesus's name as a curse word than a "regular" curse word.

As for your "politics and courtesy rarely meet" point; I think this board is different (and better) than others because there is a core group of a couple dozen people who argue the issues all the time. So we "know" each other about as well as the anoymity of the Internet would allow. In other words, I might argue with Couga or billms or pfife or Buddha or whomever and might even say they are full of crap and call them names in frustration; but were I saying something that offended them and they asked me to knock it off, I would do so out of politeness toward the people I'll be arguing with on the outrage of the day tomorrow.

[billms]

What's the harm in being courteous? Its not a matter of "getting through life without being offended," the fact is that a limited number of people post on the political discussions board. If you and your buddies were hanging out and one repeatedly said something that bothered you, you would probably say something and he'd probably knock it off. Same principle applies here, I think.

So far two people have spoken out in favor of being politically correct and they are both conservative republicans. Noted.

[billms]

I used the phrase "Jesus Christ". Also, the word that is a another word for 'donkey'. I lost my cool with billms. I think it was the post you reacted to by saying "Good Lord".

Don't look at me - I didn't complain to anybody.

[Buddha]

So far two people have spoken out in favor of being politically correct and they are both conservative republicans. Noted.

I noticed that as well.

[JohnJMS]

I think you can see how somebody who is extremely religious might react more negatively to Jesus's name as a curse word than a "regular" curse word.

As for your "politics and courtesy rarely meet" point; I think this board is different (and better) than others because there is a core group of a couple dozen people who argue the issues all the time. So we "know" each other about as well as the anoymity of the Internet would allow. In other words, I might argue with Couga or billms or pfife or Buddha or whomever and might even say they are full of crap and call them names in frustration; but were I saying something that offended them and they asked me to knock it off, I would do so out of politeness toward the people I'll be arguing with on the outrage of the day tomorrow.

Fair enough. Which is why I don't use that type of phrase very often.

[Mark The Shark]

So far two people have spoken out in favor of being politically correct and they are both conservative republicans. Noted.

No, I'm arguing about being polite with people who are at a minimum acquiantences when they identify something that specifically bothers them. For example, more than one poster has stated that it bothers them when someone uses "retarded" as an insult. It's not "political correctness" to have some damn courtesy to those people and use another phrase. If that's "political correctness" the term has no meaning whatsoever.

Are manners really that far gone?

[Buddha]

No, I'm arguing about being polite with people who are at a minimum acquiantences when they identify something that specifically bothers them. For example, more than one poster has stated that it bothers them when someone uses "retarded" as an insult. It's not "political correctness" to have some damn courtesy to those people and use another phrase. If that's "political correctness" the term has no meaning whatsoever.

Are manners really that far gone?

In a larger sense, that's what "political correctness" is, at least as the term is thrown around on message boards.

[Oblong]

John, if you were contacted by a moderator via a PM, it's not appropriate to take that public. You should have responded private to the moderator or to another moderator for clarification. Your question about whether it was appropriate is not for users here to answer but for us to answer.

[billms]

As for your "politics and courtesy rarely meet" point; I think this board is different (and better) than others because there is a core group of a couple dozen people who argue the issues all the time. So we "know" each other about as well as the anoymity of the Internet would allow. In other words, I might argue with Couga or billms or pfife or Buddha or whomever and might even say they are full of crap and call them names in frustration; but were I saying something that offended them and they asked me to knock it off, I would do so out of politeness toward the people I'll be arguing with on the outrage of the day tomorrow.

I think thats exactly right. I used the non-word effed up multiple times in a post - where speaking I would have just as likely used messed, or screwed. But it got a very strong reaction - stronger than I expected. OK, noted. Wish I had said messed up or screwed up. Not because I think the word I chose is 'wrong' or offensive but because people I want to be friends with and have discussion with thought so.

[JohnJMS]

John, if you were contacted by a moderator via a PM, it's not appropriate to take that public. You should have responded private to the moderator or to another moderator for clarification. Your question about whether it was appropriate is not for users here to answer but for us to answer.

Very well. But if whether or not behavior/language are appropriate or not is not for users to discuss, then I think this entire thread should be locked/closed. Honestly, I don't want to argue about it, but I'm confused. If we aren't supposed to discuss behavior (which I think has been a pretty cordial discussion here so far), then I don't understand the need for this special sticky and open thread titled "Behavior Issues". If the issue was I mentioned the contact from a mod (whose name I kept out of it intentionally so as to preserve anonymity), then I'm sorry I crossed some line I was unaware of and won't repeat it.

[Blue Square Thing]

It offends me.

Bunch of stuff offends me, but no-one'd ever think about censoring that.

[Blue Square Thing]

I think you can see how somebody who is extremely religious might react more negatively to Jesus's name as a curse word than a "regular" curse word.

To be an awkward sod, it might depend upon their religion.

[apabruce]

If a poster said some phrase offended him/her, and I had never seen that person post before, I would tend to ignore it. If someone who is a regular poster says a word or phrase offends him, I will try to accommodate him out of courtesy. I would hope for reciprocation, should I ever object to a word.

[Mark The Shark]

To be an awkward sod, it might depend upon their religion.

Don't be obtuse.

[Buddha]

As a larger point on offending people, why is it that a person's religion is treated with more respect than a person's political and moral philosophy? If someone says something that offends or even questions a person's religious beliefs, it's considered way out of bounds. However, if someone continually derides liberalism and those who believe it as idiots and stupid, that's considered fair play.

For instance, if I started a thread on why the Bible is nothing more than a piece of historical propaganda and that all Christians are just living a lie, many would find that to be in bad taste. But if someone starts a thread calling liberals hypocrites or liars, then that's all well and good. If I'm passionate about my liberalism to the point where it's a big part of who I am as a person, why is it not treated with the same respect as those who think Jesus is their personal savior?

I'm not advocating for it to be equated, I'm just posing the question.

[Mark The Shark]

As a larger point on offending people, why is it that a person's religion is treated with more respect than a person's political and moral philosophy? If someone says something that offends or even questions a person's religious beliefs, it's considered way out of bounds. However, if someone continually derides liberalism and those who believe it as idiots and stupid, that's considered fair play.

For instance, if I started a thread on why the Bible is nothing more than a piece of historical propaganda and that all Christians are just living a lie, many would find that to be in bad taste. But if someone starts a thread calling liberals hypocrites or liars, then that's all well and good. If I'm passionate about my liberalism to the point where it's a big part of who I am as a person, why is it not treated with the same respect as those who think Jesus is their personal savior?

I'm not advocating for it to be equated, I'm just posing the question.

Since this is a political discussion board, a person's political philosophy is obviously open to scrutiny. If you go on the Tigers board and someone "continually derides liberalism and those who believe it as idiots and stupid" the would be quickly slapped down. In other words, when you come onto the Political forum, you open your political ideas and philosophy to examination by others -- including others who disagree with them or even think they are "stupid." So, if you participate in a political forum OF COURSE YOUR POLITICS ARE FAIR PLAY. If you are offended by that, you can avoid such insults by restricting yourself to the non-political parts of motownsports or joining an all-liberal forum.

But this is NOT a religious forum. Neither I nor anyone else entering the political forum voluntarily opens their religious beliefs to examination by other posters. Thus, those beliefs are not "fair play" -- one who would be insulted by your opinion cannot participate in the political forum at all under your apparant standard because they would have no way to know how to avoid any "offensive" statement that might take place.

[Blue Square Thing]

Don't be obtuse.

Actually I'm not - I'm not offended at all by people saying anything about Jesus Christ at all because I'm not a Christian. Otoh the trivialisation of samhain annoys the heck out of me.

But I'm a big enough boy to realise that that's the way it is and get on with it for the most part.

[Mark The Shark]

Actually I'm not - I'm not offended at all by people saying anything about Jesus Christ at all because I'm not a Christian. Otoh the trivialisation of samhain annoys the heck out of me.

a) then you weren't the one who was bothered by John using "Jesus Christ" as a swear word. But your non-offense has no bearing at all on whether somebody else was offended and, therefore, whether other people on the board should be respectful of that.

b) the next time I trivialize samhain*, let me know and I will endeavour not to do so. Out of politeness.

*which the Internet helpfully tells me is a "neopagan" festival around halloween. This is actually quite instructive. If you wanted to make a political point about how people are trivializing samhain (or a Christian wanted to make the same point about trivializing Christmas) that would be a perfectly appropriate topic. But discussing the correctness or incorrectness of the faith underlying that "holiday" (for lack of a better term) would be out of bounds.

[hueytaxi]

Question my political views. Question my moral values. But please never question my relationship with God. We've got something special I wish more people had. That mentorship defines my moral values and allows me to better accept political views.

[Mark The Shark]

Question my political views. Question my moral values. But please never question my relationship with God. We've got something special I wish more people had. That mentorship defines my moral values and allows me to better accept political views.

Well put as always.

And it really is that simple -- which is why I'm so stunned that people I know to be intellegent don't seem to get it. There are places where you can go and debate the finer points of religious beliefs and where you can even challenge whether those beliefs are legitimate. This is not one of those places.

[shabba4detroit]

As a larger point on offending people, why is it that a person's religion is treated with more respect than a person's political and moral philosophy? If someone says something that offends or even questions a person's religious beliefs, it's considered way out of bounds. However, if someone continually derides liberalism and those who believe it as idiots and stupid, that's considered fair play.

For instance, if I started a thread on why the Bible is nothing more than a piece of historical propaganda and that all Christians are just living a lie, many would find that to be in bad taste. But if someone starts a thread calling liberals hypocrites or liars, then that's all well and good. If I'm passionate about my liberalism to the point where it's a big part of who I am as a person, why is it not treated with the same respect as those who think Jesus is their personal savior?

I'm not advocating for it to be equated, I'm just posing the question.

If you started a thread as such, I think it would be appropriate. I further think that most of the Christians around here would love to take a crack at changing your mind.

Further, I think there have been plenty of posts in the history of this board insulting the religious for being religious. I think there probably have been more posts insulting liberals for being wrong -- er -- liberals. But that's due to the fact that this is a political forum, not a religious forum. I know there have been plenty of posts dismissing opinions because they may be based in someone's religion. However, that's just the nature of typing when you talk.

But I think what we are talking about here is more along the lines of using the Lord's name as a curse word. I think that it is patently offensive. And I try not to use it, either here or in real life. But I fail sometimes. I think dropping an f-bomb is patently offensive too. And I do that too. So is drawing cartoons of Mohammad. And I don't do that. Partially because I know it to be offensive. Partially because I don't draw cartoons. And partially because I like to keep a cool head on my shoulders. So yes, I think if we know, or have been led to believe that something is offensive, per se, I think it should be avoided. Especially if there is no compelling reason not to avoid it.

[billms]

Since this is a political discussion board, a person's political philosophy is obviously open to scrutiny. If you go on the Tigers board and someone "continually derides liberalism and those who believe it as idiots and stupid" the would be quickly slapped down. In other words, when you come onto the Political forum, you open your political ideas and philosophy to examination by others -- including others who disagree with them or even think they are "stupid." So, if you participate in a political forum OF COURSE YOUR POLITICS ARE FAIR PLAY. If you are offended by that, you can avoid such insults by restricting yourself to the non-political parts of motownsports or joining an all-liberal forum.

But this is NOT a religious forum. Neither I nor anyone else entering the political forum voluntarily opens their religious beliefs to examination by other posters. Thus, those beliefs are not "fair play" -- one who would be insulted by your opinion cannot participate in the political forum at all under your apparant standard because they would have no way to know how to avoid any "offensive" statement that might take place.

I agree with you. However, I think that Buddha's point is valid in the broader world outside of just this political forum. I think he was asking why religion gets special treatment for civility while other factors do not. Which I think is an interesting question.

[JohnJMS]

Buddha's proposed thread might question people's beliefs, but uttering the phrase "J.C." is not questioning anyone's belief in God. I get it - it offends some people and I'll try to watch it out here. But I hope none of these easily offended people watch shows or movies with language like J.C. in it or worse (which BTW - appears in some G rated films - which are governed by the following: Some snippets of language may go beyond polite conversation but they are common everyday expressions.). Otherwise it strikes a feeling of selective offense for allowing themselves to be entertained by that phrase and worse in other formats, yet offended when it's used on a political board in a heated exchange.

I think I should probably sign off on this subject. I'll try not to offend - and it wasn't my intent to offend anyone's religious beliefs (beliefs which I share). Nor was it my intent to break any MTS code. I hope you all can take that at face value.

[billms]

Well put as always.

And it really is that simple -- which is why I'm so stunned that people I know to be intellegent don't seem to get it. There are places where you can go and debate the finer points of religious beliefs and where you can even challenge whether those beliefs are legitimate. This is not one of those places.

That is not what he said - I saw no restriction on his comment to this forum.

Huey, am I right in assuming you were suggesting you don't want anybody questioning your relationship with God anywhere?

[apabruce]

Well put as always.

And it really is that simple -- which is why I'm so stunned that people I know to be intellegent don't seem to get it. There are places where you can go and debate the finer points of religious beliefs and where you can even challenge whether those beliefs are legitimate. This is not one of those places.

I disagree with this, and I'm not sure I can adequately express what bothers me about it, but let me try.

Religion, or the lack, informs how we view the world and all the activity within it.

For example, djhutch wrote about the murder victim in Owosso "I do know where Jim is now." I assume Dennis was saying Jim is in heaven because of his faith and his good works on behalf of the anti-abortion view. He was making a statement about the murder victim couched in religious, specifically Christian, terms. And if I am misrepresenting djhutch, I apologize.

Are we who are not Christian allowed to express things in accordance with our non-belief? Would you think it appropriate for me to mention that people who die don't go anywhere? I think some might find that offensive. If I am required to soft pedal my view of the world, you have a situation where Christian beliefs are favored over non-Christian ones.

I don't think expressing my own views of events can possible question Roger's relationship with God. Roger's belief is personal, and I respect it. But please don't censor my interpretation of events, which are viewed through a lens which does not involve a god.

[hueytaxi]

That is not what he said - I saw no restriction on his comment to this forum.

Huey, am I right in assuming you were suggesting you don't want anybody questioning your relationship with God anywhere?

Certainly you may ask. Depending on the question you may not receive an answer. I don't equate asking about my beliefs with challenging them. I'm not a "churcher". I can't tell you where my Bible is right now. I won't disparage your beliefs. I almost went into too much detail, so I'll leave this as it is.

[Mark The Shark]

Are we who are not Christian allowed to express things in accordance with our non-belief? Would you think it appropriate for me to mention that people who die don't go anywhere? I think some might find that offensive. If I am required to soft pedal my view of the world, you have a situation where Christian values are favored over non-Christian ones.

You're "required" to do nothing of the sort. Would it be grossly uncivil to do so? Yes and I expect that you know that. Would I think you were a an ******* if you replied that the man who was murdered today wasn't going anywhere? Yes, because I very much doubt you would say such a thing to djhutch if we were at a bar instead of on a message board.

And I would think the same thing if someone said on the board that you were going to hell for your lack of beliefs. This is not the place for either conversation.

[apabruce]

You're "required" to do nothing of the sort. Would it be grossly uncivil to do so? Yes and I expect that you know that. Would I think you were a an ******* if you replied that the man who was murdered today wasn't going anywhere? Yes, because I very much doubt you would say such a thing to djhutch if we were at a bar instead of on a message board.

And I would think the same thing if someone said on the board that you were going to hell for your lack of beliefs. This is not the place for either conversation.

I knew I wouldn't be able to express it very well. I agree that it would be uncivil to express my disbelief about something happening to a friend. That personalizes the discussion, and I agree that's off limits.

[billms]

But mark is mixing apples and oranges which is muddying the conversation. What is appropriate in the political forum is different from what is appropriate in general.