« first day (2450 days earlier)      last day (2489 days later) » 
00:00 - 15:0015:00 - 21:0021:00 - 23:00

Tonepoet
Tonepoet
12:17 AM
@Færd The problem is that taking the lord's name in vain does not have anything to do with implications and being overly preventative and cautious, at least to Christians. To my limited understanding, it is literally one of the worst sins in the religion, which is expressly listed among the ten commandments. Obviously, that is going to cause offense, and probably more than I think S.E. normally tolerates. That is admittedly less than what I think other websites would tolerate though.
 
 
1 hour later…
Mitch
Mitch
1:27 AM
Oh. My. God.
Look. At. Her. Butt.
 
skullpatrol
skullpatrol
1:43 AM
For all you "gamers."
 
Tonepoet
Tonepoet
1:58 AM
Also, that may also cause offense to Jews as well, who go so far as to replace the o with a hyphen or dash in G-d, although the explanation I hear for that is generally more along the lines of avoiding the creation of an indelible record, since the word isn't typically allowed to be erased.
 
 
3 hours later…
Færd
Færd
5:16 AM
@Tonepoet What if instead of two or three dominant religions we had twenty or thirty, each with its ten imperious commandments? Would any given person have to learn and abide by all the rules lest somewhere somebody was offended? Should every child be brought up to observe all these codes of conduct? What if the rules were (which they already are) contradictory? Would that culminate in a peaceful world and functional online societies? Or to the exact opposite of that?
 
Tonepoet
Tonepoet
5:57 AM
@Færd I don't honestly know the answer to these hypothetical questions, nor do I really understand quite what the point of them are are. I am not suggesting that we should mandate that all people abide by all rules of all religions at all times. I am simply saying that guests of a host have an obligation to graciously abide by their rules during their visit.
The Be Nice policy is a rather well established part of Stack Exchange's own code of conduct and it has rather express provisions for avoiding language that would offend essentially anybody, including an express provision for religion, among other things. If we dislike the requirement to use inoffensive terms, we can leave and conduct our business somewhere where our rudeness will be appreciated, for lack of a better word. 4chan comes to mind...
 
Cerberus
Cerberus
6:18 AM
@Tonepoet Doesn't the "be nice" policy include that we should not demand of other people that they should abide by our private religious rules?
Shouldn't people be free unless some objective form of harm is done?
 
Tonepoet
Tonepoet
@Cerberus I don't see any express provisions for that. It may be implied, but I take it that the expressed terms would override the the implied ones in the case of conflict.
 
Cerberus
Cerberus
I think it's nice to let people be free.
But I must go now, adieu!
 
Tonepoet
Tonepoet
@Cerberus Also, what should or should not be difficult question to answer, but I want to make one thing rather clear: Insults do not cause objective harm and the rule applies to insults, so it can be inferred that the restraint applies to subjective harm as well.
@Cerberus Bye bye.
 
PrzemysławP
PrzemysławP
6:33 AM
Hi! Sentence: If I see a pig or dogs I will tell you about ... should be ended with it or them?
 
Tonepoet
Tonepoet
@PrzemysławP Since the pronoun has more than one antecedent, you would use them. Since one of those antecedents is pluralized, it would also be them. However, the sentence does strike me as odd in that you are using singular form for the pig, and plural form for the dogs.
 
PrzemysławP
PrzemysławP
@Tonepoet it makes more sense for ocean-mountains pair I think. Thank you!
 
Tonepoet
Tonepoet
@PrzemysławP Just a moment, I had a second thought. The or conjunction marks an alternative, so perhaps it would be "it" if both antecedents were singular. I was thinking of what would be the case if the conjunction was and.
 
Fire.
Fire.
 
PrzemysławP
PrzemysławP
@Fire. Thank you!
 
 
1 hour later…
user288256
8:16 AM
@Tonepoet Professor, are you religious? Just asking.
 
user288256
And I haven't seen you around here much. I thought we had scared you in chat. :)
 
terdon
terdon
@Tonepoet That's taking it too far for me. If you feel it is a sin, then by all means don't use the word god. But you (the generic you, of course) can't force us to stop using a common English expression to protect your sensibilities. I think pandering to this level of, frankly, extremism is beyond the scope of the Be Nice policy.
Insulting someone's religion is not cool, but breaking some random rule of some random religion is not something that can be made against our rules either.
And, frankly, if you find any mention of the word god offensive, I honestly don't see how you can survive in the wild.
Hell, I find most mention of religion offensive. You have these ancient, obsolete institutions which have been a source of pain, murder and misery for millennia and we still deal with them as though they were somehow a good thing and completely ignore the atrocities committed by them and in their name. Still, I don't expect people to stop mentioning their religion because it bugs me.
 
user288256
8:34 AM
So that's what's difficult in English. In the past there have been instances where I didn't clear that I am using generic you and people took it the wrong way sometimes. This "you" and "generic you" thing is kind of annoying in English language.
 
user288256
Btw is this sentence correct "... where I didn't clear that I am using generic you"? I mean can I use present tense (am) like that there? Or is only past required?
 
The Raiders of Las Vegas
The Raiders of Las Vegas
The generic "you" is a lot like the royal "we," it's not that commonly used.
 
user288256
9:00 AM
@Tonepoet 4chan comes to your mind. Reddit comes to my mind. In most subs there you can say anything and not get banned. Like even responses like "Shut the fuck up" are tolerated (quite often). I once flagged such a message on a... can't remember the name of the sub... and the flag got dismissed.
 
user288256
It can be fun if you like to fight, argue and not get banned.
 
user288256
I am not talking about myself. Just a general comment.
 
terdon
terdon
@TheRaidersofLasVegas What do you mean? It is very very commonly used. It's by far the most common way of referring to an unnamed third person. Much more common that the only alternative I can think of: one. I mean, who says One must be careful these days? Surely we all say You must be careful.
 
The Raiders of Las Vegas
The Raiders of Las Vegas
Sorry @terdon just a random thought while listening to the linked song :-)
Wars are "us" against "them."
Where "god is on our side."
 
user288256
@Mitch I missed the butt. Where is it?
 
The Raiders of Las Vegas
The Raiders of Las Vegas
9:13 AM
> he likes big butts and he can not lie
 
 
1 hour later…
Færd
Færd
10:37 AM
@Tonepoet Those questions serve to illustrate the fatal flaw in the Be Nice policy that wants to respect all believers.
And I welcome any zealous believer to the gratifying trouble of flagging all these 4000 or so massages that openly flout its policy and endanger its welcoming atmosphere.
(Correction: its policy --> SE's policy)
 
terdon
terdon
@Færd That doesn't flout it. The Be Nice is about treating other users with respect, not about bending over backwards to ensure that your religious prejudices are pandered to. That said, if someone truly finds all those offensive, they can flag and they might be edited or deleted.
It really comes down to simple politeness. If someone I am talking to asks me to please not use the word god, I will comply out of politeness. That doesn't mean I'll never use it again (although I try).
 
Færd
Færd
@terdon I was talking ironically, of course.
 
terdon
terdon
It's just that defining the "Be Nice" is basically impossible.
 
Færd
Færd
Sure.
 
Tonepoet
Tonepoet
@Færd Perhaps be nice is flawed, but that's quite the issue at hand. As long as it's the standing policy at S.E., it's only fair to have it enforced on S.E.
 
skullpatrol
skullpatrol
10:53 AM
You can't force people to "be nice"
 
Færd
Færd
@Tonepoet If you have the general notion of niceness in your mind, that can never be a policy for any society.
 
skullpatrol
skullpatrol
There's a give and take at work here.
Based on respect.
 
Færd
Færd
There have to be limits, exceptions, none-nice measures to be taken against those who aren't nice, etc.
@Tonepoet And if you are referring to a well-defined set of concepts and rules, please introduce me to them, and if they constitute part of SE's policy, as you state, then I will comply.
 
Tonepoet
Tonepoet
@Færd Yes, yes, there are limits, but it's not as if this isn't a very well known issue. It's the very reason we have minced oaths such as gosh and jeeze in the language. I mean surely it stands to reason that we don't mince oaths for inoffensive terms.
 
Færd
Færd
11:11 AM
@Tonepoet The are several reasons for that, none of which is that saying omg is construed as sacrilegious or even simply impolite in this day and age, except for some minorities.
The question is whether everyone must abide by all the rules of all doctrines, or we can use common sense to be polite to each other.
 
Tonepoet
Tonepoet
@Færd I'm not sure if this is actually a reasonable objection. It seems to me that we have to abide by far more than that even. Tell me, how do you assess if a term is offensive or not? I mean, what prevents you from using racist, or sexist language?
 
terdon
terdon
@Tonepoet The only applicable rules are i) common sense and, more importantly ii) stopping the offending action if someone complains.
So just talk as you would when discoursing civilly, and if you cross some invisible line, stop if someone complains
 
Tonepoet
Tonepoet
@terdon Somebody had complained though, and it wasn't even me.
 
Færd
Færd
@Tonepoet I ask people if they find something offensive, or observe to find out if they use a certain term to offend each other. Basically, the way you assess the meaning and connotation of every term.
@terdon I don't like the stop if someone complains rule. I would certainly stop, but demand explanation all the same.
And the practice of religious censorship is a whole other matter, different than stop if someone complains.
 
terdon
terdon
@Tonepoet I was thinking more about chat.
 
Tonepoet
Tonepoet
11:23 AM
@terdon You're underselling point no. 1. I can think of a few words I wouldn't use outside of the established use/mention rule, and probably a few I would avoid unless the context prompted me to say them regardless.
 
terdon
terdon
@Færd You can't generalize, that's the problem. But if someone expresses an honest objection, you should respect that, yes.
@Tonepoet Well yes. Those come under common sense, don't they?
 
Tonepoet
Tonepoet
@terdon Do they? How do you learn just what "common sense" is in the first place?
 
user685252
user685252
@terdon that complaint should be reasonable
 
terdon
terdon
@Tonepoet It's what you, being a thinking being, can imagine you or others would find offensive. Come on.
 
user685252
user685252
yeah, do onto others...
 
Færd
Færd
11:26 AM
Or rather, being a member of society.
 
Tonepoet
Tonepoet
@terdon And you think I'm not applying that rule here?
 
terdon
terdon
@user685252 That's where it gets complicated. Who gets to decide what's reasonable? Yes, if it is completely absurd, you can ignore it (don't mention honey, that offends me) but in general, if someone claims to be bothered by a conversation, that conversation should stop. It doesn't matter if, in my opinion, that person shouldn't be bothered, only that they are bothered.
@Tonepoet To what? To not using language a small subset of theists find offensive? I don't understand what you mean.
 
user685252
user685252
ok, thanks @terdon
 
terdon
terdon
np
 
user685252
user685252
:-)
 
Tonepoet
Tonepoet
11:28 AM
@terdon How small does a group have to be for it not to count?
And is it even that small of a subset?
 
terdon
terdon
@Tonepoet OK, we're talking across each other. What are you referring to? You seem to have a specific example in mind.
And to answer your question, no group is too small. not in chat. If someone asks you to stop doing something that bothers them, common politeness indicates that you should do so.
If someone claims that seeing the word god in writing bothers them, then yes I think that is not something the entire site can pander to. Basically, the way I see it, if the vast majority of the population doesn't find it offensive, then there need be no rule against using the word in a post.
I draw a clear distinction between conforming to requests from someone involved ina conversation and general rules you can apply site-wide.
 
user685252
user685252
So "conforming to requests from someone involved in a conversation" can basically be any reasonable request?
 
terdon
terdon
People: there is no golden rule for ensuring civil discussions between human beings. I'm a mod, not a Nobel peace prize laureate!
That's why we need mods, after all: to exercise their best judgment and make a call.
 
Tonepoet
Tonepoet
@terdon There are a few, but it's not in my best interest to list them all. However, usually when we chat about these matters, our shoes are on the other foot. I know how you felt about the word Black as a racial descriptor for instance, and I know just how offensive you found that catgirl image despite the fact that the other members of chat didn't feel it was quite bad enough to flag.
 
terdon
terdon
@Tonepoet Yes. That last one was a case where my judgment may well have been off. I still stand by it, and I actually went and discussed it with other mods (we have a room for this sort of thing). Some agreed with me, many didn't. I might have let it go this time (although I still consider it quite offensive). But yes, I may well have erred on the safe side there.
No idea what you mean about black, but I must not remember the relevant discussion. I still don't understand what point you are trying to make though.
 
Tonepoet
Tonepoet
11:43 AM
@terdon It was a long and broken up conversation, but I can assure you we had it.
 
user685252
user685252
What exactly is a "tone" poet? Is that a poet who uses tone in a poetic way?
 
terdon
terdon
@Tonepoet Where we both agreed that using the word black to describe black people is OK, right?
 
Tonepoet
Tonepoet
@terdon Eventually we came to that agreement as the result of that link. It took you a long while to concede the point though.
 
user685252
user685252
If so, your poetic ability is severely limited in a text-only chat room environment :-)
 
terdon
terdon
@Tonepoet I find that very hard to believe since that has always been my preferred term. The argument was over the relevance of a dictionary from 200 years ago when discussing language today. As usual.
But what does any of this have to do with Be Nice? We were discussing language, not actually using any of those terms but mentioning them.
 
Tonepoet
Tonepoet
11:52 AM
@terdon My impression of the point you were trying to make may be distorted by time, or by some other misunderstanding. What I can see right right now is that we ended the conversation on the note that it is unlikely that a good dictionary would note the term as offensive though, even though we know that some people would take offense. It's different for the word Jesus though. Collins notes the use of it as an interjection as taboo slang.
So at the very least, the number of people who find using the Jesus in such a manner offensive is considered by lexicographers to be more noteworthy than that.
 
terdon
terdon
@Tonepoet OK. And the point you are making is?
 
Tonepoet
Tonepoet
@terdon Use of the word Jesus in this manner seems to pass a threshold of an inconsiderably small number of people who take offense to the term.
 
terdon
terdon
@Tonepoet Yes. Although I do think the vast majority found the tone of the comment offensive and not so much the blasphemy. I know I did, at least.
 
Tonepoet
Tonepoet
@terdon Yes, I feel that way too a little. It seems to me as if somebody got their wires crossed though, and took an indicator that was supposed to be emphatic as a deemphasizer. If it was simply introduced with jeeze, instead of the full Jesus H. Christ phraseology, would you feel the same way?
 
user685252
user685252
16 mins ago, by user685252
If so, your poetic ability is severely limited in a text-only chat room environment :-)
 
terdon
terdon
12:06 PM
@Tonepoet No. But I would if they had used for crying out loud instead. But then I am not offended by blasphemy and am bemused by people who are, so I'm not the right person to ask.
 
Tonepoet
Tonepoet
@user685252 I'm sorry that I've been neglecting these inquiries. I'm sure you can see that I've been distracted with a small bit of a debate. 'Tis a complete misnomer for me any way you might think to apply it, and it was not something I originally chose for myself, but you might find this article enlightening..
 
user685252
user685252
thnx
 
user288256
@Tonepoet D-d-d-debate? Tone I thought you said "I really just aim to converse, rather than debate."
 
user288256
It is just a lighthearted comment. I am not criticizing you. :)
 
Tonepoet
Tonepoet
@Ghalib I did say that once, but I believe the context was different. Debates aren't always bad, if they are civil.
 
user288256
12:14 PM
okie.
 
user288256
So what did I miss?
 
user288256
I mean... reads the transcript.
 
Tonepoet
Tonepoet
I am not directly offended by taking the lord's name in vain either Terdon. To answer @Ghalib's earlier question, I self-identify as a Buddhist. I only argue the case as a matter of fairness, rather than any express desire to actually prevent the behavior. The matter at hand though, as far as Be Nice is concerned, determining if the language is likely to offend or alienate a group.
So please, tell me if this sort of language is not likely to alienate members of a religion, as expressly provided for, just what kind of terms would qualify under the rule?
 
user685252
user685252
Can we at lease agree that this whole discussion/debate hinges on the vague notion of "in vain"?
 
user288256
@Tonepoet So have you always been a Buddhist or did you become one later in life? Just curious.
 
user288256
12:26 PM
Me? I have always been a muslim.
 
Tonepoet
Tonepoet
@Ghalib Not always.
 
terdon
terdon
@Tonepoet Well, seeing as the vast, vast majority of English speaking Christians do use the interjection Jesus or the word god all over the place, I find it hard to believe that it is that offensive to enough people to merit a ban. As for what would qualify, things like "Christians are stupid" and the like.
 
user288256
@Tonepoet I see. So what changed if I may ask?
 
user685252
user685252
If I said to a deeply religious christian in the christian chat room "God damn you" it would be "offensive" and justifiably flagged, imo.
 
Tonepoet
Tonepoet
@user685252 That's a little different though. Even just damn you is probably flaggable even without any religious relationship.
 
user685252
user685252
12:30 PM
yup
 
terdon
terdon
Pretty much anything that's directed at someone is flaggable. So fuck you, and damn you and anything else.
 
user685252
user685252
How about "damn it" where "it" is nonhuman?
 
terdon
terdon
@user685252 Then it isn't directed at someone, is it?
 
Tonepoet
Tonepoet
@terdon I'm not so sure I can agree with this sentiment, since it's the idea, rather than any inherent property of the language used. It might violate a provision of be nice, but I'm not so sure if it's that provision. Also, if I may say so myself, it seems as if you may have crossed that line if that's the due interpretation of the rule, but I take it that it's not supposed to be interpreted that way.
 
user685252
user685252
"Damn it, what you did was dumb" how about that @terdon
 
terdon
terdon
12:34 PM
@user685252 Work it out.
 
user685252
user685252
@terdon I say yes.
 
Tonepoet
Tonepoet
Granted, this is not to say that such a thing doesn't violate other be nice provisions. I am just focusing on the particular one for now.
 
terdon
terdon
@Tonepoet I did not cross the line there, no. Note that I was referring to the institutions, not the religions themselves (although I hold the same opinion) and certainly not their adherents. That said, I'm sure you'll find loads of cases where I have crossed the line. I never claimed to be perfect. Also note that the Be Nice chat policy has changed very recently and has become much more stringent so older examples are not really relevant.
 
Mitch
Mitch
@Ghalib joins in reading
 
user288256
@Tonepoet Can we please talk about something else now? This is getting boring, professor. =)
 
user288256
12:36 PM
@Mitch Yay.
 
Mitch
Mitch
Holy crap
 
terdon
terdon
And that the organizations behind organized religion have been sources of pain murder and misery for millennia is a matter of historical record, not an opinion. If someone is offended by a statement of fact then we can't really do anything about it.
 
Mitch
Mitch
So Zeus, Odin, and Brahma walk into a bar...
 
user288256
And... ?
 
Mitch
Mitch
a bunch of boring religious stuff happens
 
terdon
terdon
12:38 PM
. . . and then have to be hospitalized. What kind of an idiot walks into a bar? It's not exactly easy to miss!
 
user288256
I have yet to walk into a bar.
 
user288256
looks forward to it
 
Mitch
Mitch
... and then he say "make me one with everything"
 
terdon
terdon
 
Mitch
Mitch
@Ghalib really, you're. It missing anything
It's like the inside of a dog....
It's too dark to read
 
user288256
12:40 PM
That bad huh?
 
user288256
Good to know then.
 
Mitch
Mitch
@terdon honey, you got some problem with bees?
 
terdon
terdon
argh
 
Mitch
Mitch
I was looking forward to discussing the exegesis of blasphemy, particularly the distinction between taboo language and heterodoxy.
 
Tonepoet
Tonepoet
@Ghalib Hmm, I think I can't actually. You see, I'm suffering from a form of amnesia colloquially known as 'tunnel vision' and I have forgotten that other topics even exist, so I completely lack the ability! >_>
 
Mitch
Mitch
12:42 PM
But instead we're changing topic
Hopefully to 'butts'
Like 'how about them butts?'
Or 'Jesus Christ, this is retarded'
 
user685252
user685252
4 hours ago, by The Raiders of Las Vegas
> he likes big butts and he can not lie
 
Tonepoet
Tonepoet
 
Mitch
Mitch
That reminds me of a joke
 
Tonepoet
Tonepoet
@Mitch What doesn't?
 
user288256
@Tonepoet All righty then. Your call. Or more precisely, you are suffering from one track mind professor. =)
 
user288256
12:54 PM
@Mitch Let's hear it.
 
user685252
user685252
in The h Bar, Jul 21 at 15:42, by AccidentalFourierTransform
user image
 
Robusto
Robusto
Did the crest climb on my bike yesterday.
Was worth it for the view.
 
user685252
user685252
nice
how steep?
 
Robusto
Robusto
About 7-8% grade all the way, about 21 miles of it.
But the ride down is easy. ^_^
 
user288256
Quite scenic.
 
Robusto
Robusto
1:12 PM
@user685252 Yes. I do love looking at science's butt.
 
user685252
user685252
:-)
 
Mitch
Mitch
1:27 PM
@user685252 Nice
Nice butt, that is.
@Robusto OMG. Sit down. Have a rest.
 
Robusto
Robusto
I normally ride sitting down.
 
Mitch
Mitch
To each their own I guess
Aren't you ...
tired?
 
Robusto
Robusto
I was after that. But I'm going to ride today. Prolly just an easy spin day.
 
user685252
user685252
Don't you have to get up off the seat when going up a steep grade like that?
 
Robusto
Robusto
@user685252 Sometimes if I want to get up over a steep part, but standing wastes energy.
 
Mitch
Mitch
1:31 PM
@Robusto Wow. Take it easy. Under a hundred miles.
 
Robusto
Robusto
I'll probably just do a flat 30 today.
 
Mitch
Mitch
How long does that take you?
 
Robusto
Robusto
About 90 minutes. Depending on the wind.
 
user685252
user685252
@Robusto Sounds like the way a boxer throws his body weight behind a punch.
 
Robusto
Robusto
It's more like a stair climber.
 
user685252
user685252
1:34 PM
Right, right.
 
Mitch
Mitch
@Robusto nice
> A nun and a priest decide to take a day off, so they go golfing.
The nun gets a hole-in-one, but the priest hits it into a sand trap.
He's so angry, he shouts "God dammit, I missed!".
The nun reminds him not to take the Lord's name in vain, and the priest apologizes and tries again.
He hits it into the rough, and in his anger, shouts "God dammit, I MISSED!".
The nun once again tells him not to take the Lord's name in vain, and he apologizes again.
On his third shot, he hits it into the water and yells "GOD DAMMIT I MISSED!" and before the nun can say anything, a bolt of lightning strikes …
 
Robusto
Robusto
@Mitch The big problem with a hill climb like yesterday is the length of time you're on the bike. It's not the legs and lungs that give out, though they're stressed, but the hands get numb and the ass gets sore from the seat, etc.
@Mitch Lies! That never happened and you know it.
 
Mitch
Mitch
@Robusto Look man, I'm just reporting what I heard
@Robusto I'd take a bus to the the top and then ride down
 
Robusto
Robusto
@Mitch You can do that in Maui.
 
user685252
user685252
@Mitch God can no more damn himself than he can create a rock that he can not lift.
 
Mitch
Mitch
1:44 PM
@Robusto You've probably done one of those 'bike up Mt. Washington' things then?
 
Robusto
Robusto
@Mitch Nah, when I was in New England I didn't have time to get in shape for something like that.
Work cramps your exercise regimen.
 
Mitch
Mitch
I've heard they don't let people bike down because it is so dangerous, no way to ensure control and if you lose control, that's it, over the edge and you don't stop until you stop.
@Robusto Gah...work.
 
Robusto
Robusto
@Mitch I've done the climb in my car, and it's pretty scary even so.
 
Mitch
Mitch
@Robusto Right. potholes and other cars on one side of a hardly more than a one-way lane, emptiness on the other.
@user685252 That's patently false. He just did it, right there in the joke.
 
Robusto
Robusto
If God were a river, I bet he could dam himself. And then he'd install turbines and spillways and stuff. And I'd just tip my hat and say, "More power to you!"
4
 
user685252
user685252
1:48 PM
Well said.
 
user288256
@Mitch Nice! But... God never misses.
 
user288256
If it seems like He missed, then, that has a reason too.
 
user685252
user685252
@Mitch who guarantees that patent is worthy?
 
Robusto
Robusto
2:09 PM
Off to ride. Laterz.
 
user685252
user685252
cya
 
Sayros
Sayros
Hi all
 
user685252
user685252
Hey there
 
terdon
terdon
@user685252 The patent office. Why do you think they had to hire Einstein?
 
user685252
user685252
:-)
 
user288256
2:20 PM
@Mitch Do buses go to the top?
 
Cerberus
Cerberus
@Tonepoet Insults do not do objective harm: that is in some ways true. But how do we distinguish between insults and other remarks that are disliked by someone? We can introduce some element of objectivity here, even though, indeed, it can't be fully objective. For example, is there some objectively negative message in it, such as "you are stupid", "your mother is the illegitimate descendant of a war criminal", "I'm going to kick your arse"?
Another thing that can be tested fairly objectively is whether or not the utterant had a negative intention.
 
SBM
SBM
Hello
 
user685252
user685252
hi
 
Cerberus
Cerberus
Thirdly, we can objectively test whether or not the utterance was aimed at (or mentioned) the interlocutor or not. If not, then surely it will be far less hurtful.
 
SBM
SBM
Oh.
 
user685252
user685252
2:27 PM
Note the change from "harmful" to "hurtful."
 
user288256
@Cerberus People say "I'm going to kick your arse" but a punch or a kick or a slap rarely ends up on arse.
 
Cerberus
Cerberus
@Ghalib Yes, so...?
 
user288256
@Cerberus Nothing. Just a thought that came to mind.
 
user685252
user685252
I think that's just an extension of getting spanked on the arse...
 
terdon
terdon
5
A: Where does "my ass" come from?

Kristina LopezI watch a lot of westerns about cowboys in the old west (US). It seems to me that there are many references to saving hides (of cattle, also heads of cattle, another way to refer to the number of animals) and conjecture that it's possible that the expression "save my ass" started out as "save my...

 
user685252
user685252
2:31 PM
...thus making the comment more primitive.
 
Cerberus
Cerberus
@terdon In real life, there is normally noöne to shut us up when we don't like what the other person is saying. And we wouldn't want it any other way.
Now, I moderate on Latin because it's what we're supposed to do, and very light-handedly.
But sometimes I think, why can't people handle their own arguments?
Why is it necessary for a third person to parent them?
If they don't like the conversation, they can walk away from it.
 
terdon
terdon
@Cerberus So? This isn't "real life" as you called it.
 
Cerberus
Cerberus
@user685252 Quite.
@terdon But why should we make it into something else? Just because we can?
Surely the consequences of a conversation turned sour are even less serious than in real life.
Walking away is even easier.
 
terdon
terdon
@Cerberus Because it's the only way we've found to keep things civil. Is it perfect? Far from it, but unless you have a better idea, we're stuck with babysitting.
 
Cerberus
Cerberus
Physical threats are impractical.
 
terdon
terdon
2:37 PM
@Cerberus But not unheard of. People have been threatened in real life because of chats getting out of hand here, for example.
 
user685252
user685252
Easier said than done.
 
Cerberus
Cerberus
@terdon Isn't it the interlocutors' own responsibility to keep it civil? And, what if they don't, why is that a problem?
@terdon Of course in those cases intervention would be necessary. But that's very rare.
@user685252 Alas!
 
terdon
terdon
@Cerberus Because someone else might not feel comfortable if they walk in on a discussion about, say, raping babies.
 
user685252
user685252
When emotions are running high...
 
Cerberus
Cerberus
@terdon Well, someone can close the tab?
In chat, there is the ignore button anyway.
 
terdon
terdon
2:39 PM
@Cerberus No, we stop the conversation. That isn't the sort of conversation that is welcome here.
 
Cerberus
Cerberus
In comments, you can just close the tab.
 
Tonepoet
Tonepoet
@Cerberus Knowing that precise distinction between insults and other remarks which are disliked isn't necessary because Be Nice isn't restricted to insults. I meant to use them in an exemplary fashion, rather than an exhaustive fashion.
 
terdon
terdon
@Cerberus Great. So we sent an innocuous user away because some idiot couldn't act civilly. That isn't an acceptable solution.
 
Cerberus
Cerberus
@terdon I was actually talking about situations where people are in a fight, but anyway, why is intervention necessary here but not, say, in a pub?
 
terdon
terdon
@Cerberus Whoever said it isn't necessary in a pub? But that's besides the point. The simple answer is because this is a private space, owned by a private company and those are the rules they have imposed. As you said, if you don't like it, close the tab.
 
Cerberus
Cerberus
2:41 PM
@Tonepoet Okay. That's better.
@terdon Sent away: he can just answer the question and ignore a certain comment thread. Or close the tab and answer another question.
@terdon No, no, that's not fair.
I'm not talking about the law, but about the necessity of a certain policy.
 
user685252
user685252
Things get out of control FAST!!!
 
terdon
terdon
@Cerberus Of course it isn't fair. Who ever said it was fair?
If you don't like the policy, please take it up with SE. But they have the right to impose any policy they see fit, just as we have the right to walk away from the site if we don't like it.
 
Cerberus
Cerberus
In a pub, when people at a table are talking about whatever, surely the bartender isn't hovering over every table to make sure the conversation is polite and that no "shocking" subjects are talked about, unless it seems to leading up to illegal actions, such as a physical fight.
 
terdon
terdon
@Cerberus Yes, and in space, when you drop something it just floats away!
What do pubs have to do with anything?
 
Cerberus
Cerberus
@terdon That's really not what I meant. My question was not, "is SE legally allowed to have this policy?", but "is this policy really necessary?".
@terdon Just an example from real life.
 
terdon
terdon
2:45 PM
@Cerberus Yes, and my answer was: necessary or not, that's the policy.
 
Cerberus
Cerberus
Okay, that's fine, but it's not an answer to my question.
 
user288256
@Cerberus What's the main reason of people fighting in a pub or a bar?
 
user685252
user685252
alcohol
 
Cerberus
Cerberus
@Ghalib I wish to distinguish between a fight with words and a fight with physical violence.
The latter requires intervention and even prevention, naturally.
 
user288256
I know. I was genuinely curious.
 
user288256
2:47 PM
But alcohol makes sense, I guess.
 
terdon
terdon
@Cerberus I'm sorry, I've spent so many hours discussing this I'm completely fed up. The simple truth is that too many people behave like eejits and in order to protect the silent majority, some rules of conduct are needed. I have often spoken up against what I see as excessive moderation of chat but have no doubt that some moderation is needed. Because people are idiots and that's why we can't have nice things.
 
Cerberus
Cerberus
I understand, the topic has been exhausted.
 
terdon
terdon
But seriously, if you want to have this conversation, at least read up on the transcript in the TL. We've spent many many hours discussing it.
 
Cerberus
Cerberus
Oh, recently, even?
 
terdon
terdon
@Cerberus All. The. Bloody. Time.
 
user685252
user685252
2:48 PM
TL?
 
Cerberus
Cerberus
The moderators' chat room.
 
Tonepoet
Tonepoet
@user685252 I think that might mean "The Lounge" but I'm not sure.
 
terdon
terdon
We've been spending most of our time moderating chat for the past few months. It basically boils down to: "To hell with this, if they can't act like adults, we'll treat them like children and shut down ugly conversations. Maybe now we can get back to asking and answering questions which was the point of the site!"
We, the moderators, I mean.
 
SBM
SBM
Sometimes things aren't as simple, and moderation is a tough job.
 
user685252
user685252
@terdon The royal "we" :P
 
terdon
terdon
2:50 PM
Yeah, royal pain. :P
 
user288256
I think strict moderation makes a chatting unpleasant just like rudeness etc.
 
user685252
user685252
@terdon thanks for all this info
 
SBM
SBM
But I think some moderation is indeed required
 
Cerberus
Cerberus
@terdon Which ones?
I haven't seen fights in chat for ages.
 
terdon
terdon
@Ghalib I do too. I'm one of the least strict mods on the network, really. I'm almost always the one trying to get the others to back down.
 
user288256
2:52 PM
@SBM It is. But some mods go over the top.
 
terdon
terdon
But some is needed and we also need some rules so as to be able to act in the same way.
 
user288256
@terdon Yeah I know. That's why I like you.
 
Cerberus
Cerberus
I know you are.
 
user288256
=)
 
terdon
terdon
And defining rules for this is impossible. . .
@Ghalib Awww :)
@Cerberus Yes. And why do you think that is? :) They get shut down. Fast.
 
Cerberus
Cerberus
2:54 PM
But I have seen no shut-downs.
 
user685252
user685252
SciFi
by shog
 
Cerberus
Cerberus
But that was ages ago, wasn't it?
 
terdon
terdon
@Cerberus You don't hang out in the relevant rooms and you don't hang out in the TL (where these are usually discussed).
 
Tonepoet
Tonepoet
@Cerberus Some of the more regular users may have learned when it's better for them to hold their tongue than risk being suspended by now.
 
Cerberus
Cerberus
@terdon Indeed not.
But it can't be in every room.
 
terdon
terdon
2:56 PM
@Cerberus Of course not. Why would it be?
Ah, you're not going to give me the "but this room is different" argument, are you?
 
Cerberus
Cerberus
Of the 5 rooms I have open all the time, I have seen no real fights or moderator intervention for ages in any of them.
 
terdon
terdon
Lucky you.
There are several hundred rooms though.
 
Cerberus
Cerberus
So I am surprised to hear that "everyone is spending his time shutting down fights all the time".
I've been in many other rooms too over my SE time.
I have seen fights.
But not many.
Like 99% of the time, everything was fine.
Why did I miss out on all the action lately??
@Tonepoet But Terdon says many moderators have been spending a huge amount of time lately quelling fights in chat rooms.
 
00:00 - 15:0015:00 - 21:0021:00 - 23:00

« first day (2450 days earlier)      last day (2489 days later) »