We then understand the individually offensive words to be necessary.

Why not learn a new language?

In graduate study, in American Psychological Association publication style, there was so much emphasis on avoiding individual offense, ad hominem arguments, it got drilled in.

Graduate study in liberal arts, social sciences, advanced concepts of written English, to be sure.

How about a bunch of "stock" (canned) phrases to address violators through progressive discipline?  (Offense 1, offense 2, offense 3, you're otta here....)

The reason people use individually offensive words is because they don't know any other words.

I am confused.  Do you want us to learn a language, invent a language, practice our debating skills or make up stock phrases?

Me sorry, it is 2 AM.  I am just wondering if maybe

a. we can learn to substitute individual language for something more abstract.
b. or at least, substitute some stock phrases.

I mean, do we have to fight fire with fire, or can we fight fire with water?

Me thinking of Metallica song, Fight Fire with Fire, roughly contemporaneous with Nena 99 Luftballons, both of them against the idea of fighting nuke fire with nuke fire.

Shrek, I took the liberty of copying the inspiration for this thread unto this thread. To me it makes your purpose more clear. My comment is below the quotes.

Post: #155RE: Unwritten AFF rules...

I think it is precisely because of what Tigger says that your idea will be very hard to follow. Some people can be very offensive without one offensive word.

It stays a way of close reading I think. Also because of a lot of cultural differences here on AFF. I suppose I do miss some offenses because things offensive in the USA might be OK, and not offensively meant here.

Also AFF has a lot of new members. Drilling them in the ways to respond to offensive language might be a problem. A problem even bigger because some of us just are very bad in following rules.

I do appreciate what you are trying here. But I seriously doubt that it will be possible. Also because often people feel hurt (and rightly so in many cases) when the person posting never intended to hurt. An explanation is more appropriate then than a "Offense 1, offense 2, offense 3," rule in those cases.

Maybe unraveling the offensive language time and time again can be compared to dismantling the nuke bombs.

So long as the darn thing doesn't blow up in your face or you get poisoned by it. Seriously, use of written language in posts could be vastly improved upon, it would beat trying to defuse situations.

See? That statement -- aside from being totally and obviously untrue -- is offensive without using a single offensive word.

You consider yourself a master of inoffensive writing, yet you offend people constantly.

Perhaps I have been warped by actually studying linguistics, semantics, and epistemology, but there is no such thing as an "individually offensive word".  There are people who choose to take offense when they see or hear certain words used.  No word is, in and of itself, "individually offensive" without the choice of an individual to take offense at it.  The choice to take offense may be based on quite valid criteria, or it may rest on utter poppycock.

I call as evidence back when Dad and I yelled at each other and it hostile aggression spiraled to him punching me and me responding with some level of physical response short of violence, because I hadn't heard of the strategy of withdrawal as a conflict management mechanism.  When he started that up again about a month before he died, I simply went for a walk.  I didn't have to go for a walk again.  Maybe he wanted me around in his last five weeks alive.

You are quite the warrior for human rights Max but not every word needs to be a weapon to insult.   Indeed the sword from your mouth may make things worse.

I wish confrontation were the answer and the Superfriends (including Supermax, ocampo, Batman, LMAO) would save the day.  Alas, with hostile aggression spirals, confrontation often makes things worse.

The Challenge of the Superfriends episode History of Doom comes to mind.  Three aliens come to a depopulated planet Earth (like when National Geographic had that If We Weren't Here), newspaper blowing by says End of the World.   The aliens check the Justice League computer and find that Superman was the last survivor.  By checking that computer and the Legion of Doom computer, they were able to reconstruct a chain of events of the history of the Legion of Doom vs. Superfriends, and how the Legion of Doom tried to kill the Superfriends by directing a solar flare onto the Hall of Justice.  Superman intercepted the solar flare just as Luthor prepared a surprise, turning the sun and solar flare red, nullifying Superman's powers.**  The last thing the Superfriends did was deploy the Earth's defense shield: the interaction between the solar flare and the shield set off atmospheric and seismic calamities, and killed everyone, Superfriends, Legion of Doom, and everyone caught in between.

The aliens reveal themselves to be omnipotent, asking if this planet's race deserves a second chance.  Manitu (a spirit name from American Indians) the leader says everyone deserves a second chance, and resets time back to the solar flare, and as a final act, causes the moon to intercept the solar flare.

The aliens (gods) leave, never noticed, as Superman makes a reference to luck going the way for the side of good.



** Plot failure.  The Green Lantern could have attacked the red solar flare with his Power Ring, because it was no longer yellow.

Shrek you made my day

Who did write it for whom???

(sense of humour has been impaired by heath)

I'm also of topic now.

I was illustrating for Supermax and a lot of people who bicker (sometimes using direct language) that maybe hostility spirals aren't the answer and only lead to destruction.

Hostility spirals only happen when an insult is directed at someone. The insulter is asked, usually politely but not always if the insult is very severe, to withdraw the insult and apologise.

If the insult was a genuine error, or the insulter has a change of heart, result: apology, and potential for understanding between all parties.

If the insulter instead seeks to justify the insult then they will face the consequences.

As this is a forum to which anyone has access unless previously banned, it is important that insulting behaviour is called out and not left to stand or casual readers may think that the insulting behaviour is the policy at AFF.

We have had racist, homophobic, bigotted and separatist trolls on here. I, for one, am not going to allow (for instance) a holocaust denier the chance to use this forum as a springboard for his brand of hate speech.

'Turn the other cheek' is only a reasonable strategy when the offence is between two individuals. Not coming to the aid of someone else being attacked is to side with the attacker.

Oh, and DogBrain - when I called certain words 'individually offensive' I wasn't blaming the words; those are mere collections of letters.

Every word I have ever posted here or, you imply, spoken in my life is an insult.

You think that is true, Chris? Or is it offensive and insulting?

No, Max, just that maybe your words are a little heavy on occasion.  

I apologize phrasing it as every word as an insult.  That was too much on my part and sorry.

Is confrontation always the answer to gay-hostility or the perception thereof?  Could you be wrong about the perception thereof and overreact when there is not a genuinely hostile person on the other end?  We are people you have never seen and you may never see us ever, and you only have our own words to judge us by.

I laugh off some of your jibes, I respect you, like I respected every academic teacher I had in high school.  Come to think of it I had a high school Latin teacher do for me because I am Aspie very much what you do for your students.  

I am 38 years old and I try to behave like one.