Remove Vulgar Thread Titles

[Catholic_Lady]

That's fine if you feel that way about them, but that wasn't my point. Neo said nothing offenssive on this thread. He voiced his suggestion respectfully and appropriately. He didn't bring his religious beliefs into it at all, and neither did it have anything to do with religion. The only reason he's getting attacked is because he isn't liked.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Uh...Neo? Care to respond to this?

Threads started by Neo-scholastic.

Tooth Fairy Bullshit

Atheist Douches Object to Gospel Music at MLK Celebration

Of Holes and A-Holes

1) each is indicative of the topic, 2) bullshit and douche are much milder than fucktard, for example, and 3) I do try to play along with the general irreverent spirit of AF but there is difference between bawdiness and mean-spirited degradation.

And I knew someone would dig up old titles of mine to paint me as a hypocrite. I'm proposing a rule that I would agree to follow myself and one I feel would improve the forums. Are you suggesting that someone cannot propose removing unhealthy vending machines from the lunch room just because he ate a candy bar from one a couple times?

[J a c k]

Uh...Neo?  Care to respond to this?

1) each is indicative of the topic, 2) bullshit and douche are much milder  than fucktard, for example,  and 3) I do try to play along with the general irreverent spirit of AF but there is difference between bawdiness and mean-spirited degradation.

And I knew someone would dig up old titles of mine to paint me as a hypocrite. I'm proposing a rule that I would agree to follow myself and one I feel would improve the forums. Are you suggesting that someone cannot propose removing unhealthy vending machines from the lunch room just because he ate a candy bar from one a couple times?

I disagree. Douche is worse.

^^^
And this is exactly what would make a new rule about vulgar language in titles impractical.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Fine. Forget I ever said anything.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Yeah, that's what I meant by "to keep thread titles less vulgar/bigoted", lol.

Please don't make me go to the trouble of explaining the difference between 'less vulgar/bigoted' and 'banning vulgarity'.

Boru

[Shell B]

As something of an English language expert, I call bullshit. You don't have to plumb the depths of your thesaurus to produce forceful, meaningful, concise language. In fact, it is much preferred that you use a more conversational tone in anything short of technical writing.

Generally I agree. Of course there is a continuum, from a private conversation with a friend to an instruction manual. At the same time, a perfectly good and appropriate Anglo-Saxon word from the Basic English lexicon is almost always available. No one appreciates a David Foster Wallace wanna-be.

And just to be absolutely clear I'm only talking about thread titles where it is already the express intent of the staff that titles be descriptive of the subject to be discussed. We already have a  "Click Bait" rule. That's a judgement call also.

Another example is fuck. Fuck can be used a number of ways, none of them are even insulting. They're just too "common" or "vulgar" for the posh types. Fuck can mean to have sex, it can be used as an adjective like very. My point is that the vast majority of swears are completely harmless and carry no extra meaning than their more acceptable synonyms...

Fuck is probably the least descriptive word precisely because it is used as a synonym for a very large number of words with very different meanings. And there is nothing "posh" about avoiding vulgarities. It's about creating a decent environment for all participants. Some graffiti is actually quite evocative and well-executed but I don't want to live in a city where every other building is covered with it.

Buy why is it considered more "decent?" Because it's not the "common" vernacular. It all boils down to people feeling better than other people and being offended for the sake of feeling superior.

---

I really don't get why Chad is getting so much crap slung at him from some people. All he did was make a suggestion in the suggestion subforum to keep thread titles a little less vulgar/bigoted. That's the whole point of the subform, and I don't see why anyone seems to feel personally offended by a suggestion for cleaner language in thread titles.

I have a feeling if it had been either me, mooney, or shadow making this same suggestion, we wouldnt be getting attacked for it.

I would have treated you the same way, for what it's worth.

---

Uh...Neo?  Care to respond to this?

Threads started by Neo-scholastic.

Tooth Fairy Bullshit

Atheist Douches Object to Gospel Music at MLK Celebration

Of Holes and A-Holes

Oh shit.

[Anomalocaris]

That's fine if you feel that way about them, but that wasn't my point. Neo said nothing offenssive on this thread. He voiced his suggestion respectfully and appropriately. He didn't bring his religious beliefs into it at all, and neither did it have anything to do with religion. The only reason he's getting attacked is because he isn't liked.

He brought his smarmy pretense of superiority with him.

[Shell B]

Uh...Neo?  Care to respond to this?

1) each is indicative of the topic, 2) bullshit and douche are much milder  than fucktard, for example,  and 3) I do try to play along with the general irreverent spirit of AF but there is difference between bawdiness and mean-spirited degradation.

And I knew someone would dig up old titles of mine to paint me as a hypocrite. I'm proposing a rule that I would agree to follow myself and one I feel would improve the forums. Are you suggesting that someone cannot propose removing unhealthy vending machines from the lunch room just because he ate a candy bar from one a couple times?

Oh, come on. Who could take that seriously?

This is why people treat him the way they treat him, CL. It's also what makes him less "popular." "Oh, when I do it, it's not as bad, and I was just doing it because you were doing it." Give me a fucking break.

---

Fine. Forget I ever said anything.

Nah, I'd rather remember that you said something.

[Silver]

Are you suggesting that someone cannot propose removing unhealthy vending machines from the lunch room just because he ate a candy bar from one a couple times?

No one's saying you can't propose. We're just disagreeing with your proposal.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Oh, come on. Who could take that seriously?

Let me ask which response should not be taken seriously and why. Is not douche milder and less offensive than fucktard? Do I not try to fit in with the spirit of the forums? Is there not a difference between bawdiness and mean-spirited degradation?

FWIW bullshit is an interesting word in that actually does have a very narrow meaning for which there is no adequate substitute. It applies to statements presented as facts that the speaker knows, or should know, to be unfounded assertions, often with the intent to impress.

I do not dispute that I have said some unwarranted nasty things but I have also been quick to apologize and ask forgiveness. I have traded cutting insults with other forum members but more often than not with people who already know that I otherwise respect them.

Theists are second-class members on AF and always will be. I'm a big boy and can accept that. I expect people to assume the worst. A the same time, CL correctly pointed out that I started this suggestion thread without any religious motivation. Is it really so inconceivable that I have different notions of decorum that have nothing to do with my religious beliefs?