BS: Mudcat 'language!'

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 12 May 14 - 10:22 AM

Oh I don't know, Jim. I often mutter, "Dickhead!" or, "What a prick!" when furious with a bad driver on the road. I don't (I think) intend any sexism, neither do I have personal relationship problems with men. I also mutter, "Silly cow!" if it's a woman carving me up. However I certainly wouldn't swear at the doctor's surgery or in the local library. One has to be appropriate, but not mealy-mouthed either. On Mudcat it's the context and the inherent intention to insult or wound which matter. If one swears just for fun or to underline a point a bit forcefully, I reckon that's okay.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 May 14 - 10:59 AM

I have just come across something that causes me confusion. Can anyone tell me which they would rather read on here?

A: Fuck off

or

B: People who enjoy something I don't are idiots.

A is bad language. B is insulting to, I suspect, more people. I'll start the ball rolling. A doesn't annoy me in the slightest. B gets up my nose!

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 May 14 - 11:03 AM

"Oh I don't know,"
It's only one particular word Eliza
An old tradeseman who taught me when I was an apprentice summed it up for me.
"Why make something we all dropped out of, and spend a great deal of our lives trying to get back into, a term of abuse?"
Makes sense to me
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Rapparee
Date: 12 May 14 - 11:05 AM

If your copulating ideas ever took copulating hold an awful copulating lot of copulating glans would have nothing at all to copulating post! Swive 'em all, I say! Let their tongues and fingers continue to reside within their turbinal, lodged firmly in their ampulla recti.

As for me -- stand back, I have a vocabulary and I know how to use it!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 May 14 - 11:13 AM

Nah - Sorry, rap, no cigar. Too much fucking use of 'copulating'.

:D

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 May 14 - 11:33 AM

Dave the Gnome: "I have just come across something that causes me confusion. Can anyone tell me which they would rather read on here?

A: Fuck off
or
B: People who enjoy something I don't are idiots."


Dave the Gnome: "Janie, you are trying to psychoanalyse the undefinable. I think. Give over or you will find yourself wondering whether you are daft or of it is everyone else. Trust me. It is the others..."

You might have just answered your own question!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 May 14 - 11:40 AM

I don't understand the relationship between the two, GfS. Please explain.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Musket
Date: 12 May 14 - 11:49 AM

Personally I don't understand Goofus. I understand what he puts forward though, and it ain't nice.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: akenaton
Date: 12 May 14 - 02:21 PM

I also think that there is quite a difference in cursing while under stress or pain; and using foul language on an internet forum as an intimidation tactic.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 May 14 - 03:22 PM

Jim, I share your views on race hate and would be very angry if I ever saw it on here.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 May 14 - 03:58 PM

"Jim, I share your views on race hate and would be very angry if I ever saw it on here."
Y'r 'tis again, back to bite your bum again, as it will continue to be every time you pay lip service to hating racism.
Time for you to get "angry"
Jim Carroll

"Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency" but only because of the testimony of all those knowledgeable people, and always acknowledging that only a tiny minority succumb."
Quote from Keith the "anti racist.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: The Sandman
Date: 12 May 14 - 04:30 PM

I prefer the admonishments of the MGM such as booby, it has a certain "je ne sais quoit" and style, to be insulted by MGM is akin to having a ride with the "creme de la creme", to quote Jean Brodie.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 12 May 14 - 06:04 PM

I think I might make some points.

M the GM. If, at your age, you should be accused of being FIRMLY up someone's arse, I think you should accept the compliment gracefully.

Secondly - did you mean to speak of a phenomenon or a number of phenomena?   

Thirdly, I am surprised that you should say "smashed up". Is that not an American construction when an Englishman should say "smashed"?

Fourthly, a 01:19 Mudcat time on the 10th May, surely you intended to say "were" not "was". It looks as if a residual subjunctive would have been more proper.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Musket
Date: 12 May 14 - 06:10 PM

Wot Bridge said.

I think.

He don't speak rate like wot we do. (His years in Nottingham may come in handy there.)

I have to agree with the worm. Homophobic language is indeed intimidation on an Internet forum.

Well..   Fuck me! Is that the time? I should be on the nest. Tatty bye.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Airymouse
Date: 12 May 14 - 06:45 PM

Seems to me there are three uses:
1) Sometimes unacceptable language is well used. For example, Andrew Marvel's "Then worms shall try thy quaint virginity" is fun even though the pun is stolen from Chaucer. Lord knows you can't read 3 pages of Shakespeare without encountering "foul" language. Mercutio's "The bawdy hand of the dial is now on the prick of noon" comes to mind.
2) Words like "fuck" are used as expletives and to me this use is no less or more annoying than other filler words" eh, you know, you see.
3) There's a real problem with unacceptable language in singing. If you sing a "coon song" do you explain that that's what it is? There doesn't seem to be a problem with The YELLOW rose of Texas. How about,
"John Hardy was standing in the poker room
Didn't have no interes in the game
Up stepped a YELLOW gal, with a dollar in her hand
Says deal John Hardy in the game"?
Then of course there's the N word.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Donuel
Date: 12 May 14 - 08:50 PM

Pissing aside, the best guests now have other engagements such as TED talks which were not around 10 years ago. People still come here to be informed or bemused or simply show off. Instead of coming to a dinner for World Peace it appears they almost all to a person still come to BS for drinks and canapés.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 13 May 14 - 12:40 AM

Richard ~~ Could I please have refs for these linguistic solecisms you allege? I recall none of them except for 'was/were', and suspect you may be confusing some others' posts with mine. The use of subjunctive 'were' in place of indicative 'was' is frequently a stylistic choice, rather than a grammatical error.

Airymouse may think he contradicts my main point; but in fact IMO confirms it. It is the reduction of such vocabulary to phatic meaningless, which he identifies, to which I take exception, as a diminution in the meaning and usefulness of such potentially useful words. My objection, i.e, is a stylistic, not a moral, one. Ingenious Metaphysical plays on words are ∴ a separate matter entirely. Ref to Marvell, e.g, would only have relevance if he had written "Then fucking worms would fucking try Thy fucking long-fucking-preserv'd fucking virginity, you cunt!" ~~ a formulation IMO much redolent of the usages of some Cat-posters which are the real [& sole] object of my animadversions on this thread. Other forms of unacceptable usage ['nigger', 'coon'...], also another matter, quite beside the point of this thread.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 May 14 - 01:51 AM

Jim, there are no racists posting on Mudcat.
If there were you would not have to go back over 3 years, only to produce someone saying they have come to accept what some prominent minority people said about their own culture!

If we ever do get racists, I will argue them down.
Just calling them names would have no effect.
They would just call you names back.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 May 14 - 03:25 AM

"Jim, there are no racists posting on Mudcat."
You've just had one of yours presented to you - every time it has been in the intervening years, you have confirmed that you still hold the nauseating views you articulated so clearly three years ago - though you have added the refinement that you only hold your nauseating racist views because "experts" told you they were accurate (an invention of oyur own which only serves to compound the sickening nature of your statement).
Far from "arguing them down" you have made racism and sectarian hatred your hallmark - you are noted for it wherever you post - can 99.9% recurring of Mudcat all be wrong?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 May 14 - 04:39 AM

It is three and a half years old and not racist.
3 Sentences only.
The first states that I do not believe all the things you accuse me of believing.
The second says I have come to accept what eminent people said about their own culture.
The third asks why you think you know more than they do.

Instead of always trying to discredit me, try challenging what I actually say.
Of course if you were capable of that you would not need to keep trying to discredit me with an ancient post!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 May 14 - 05:24 AM

You have your statement - in your own words - it is a racist and cultural slur, whoever makes it.
No public figure has ever made such a statement, and would have been prosecuted, and certainly expelled from any post he or she held, had they done so publicly - that is a fact of British law.
However ancient a post, your reaction to it always indicates you still hold your views, and your intervening posts have added to that fact
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 May 14 - 05:34 AM

Wrong.
People are entitled to be critical of their own culture.
It is not racist to do it or to refer to it.

Can you not produce anything more racist than that from my thousands of posts?

And, when will you get the message that everyone else hates you bringing this up in every thread, forcing me to defend myself from your lies?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 May 14 - 06:06 AM

"It is not racist to do it or to refer to it."
It is illegal to depict an entire racial community as being culturally inclined to having underage sex - that falls under the incitement to race hatred laws - you have even been given the specific law it covers.
I' am overwhelmed by the protest that I should again have to bring this up - don't you dare claim to oppose everything you stand for.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 May 14 - 06:12 AM

A couple of words never appear in my posts except in quotes from someone else's. I'm rather fond of "twat" because it's nice and direct and conveys a certain degree of ridicule. Body function words are pretty mild I reckon. What I can't be doing with is the use of asterisks (except where used correctly, of course, as in "b*ast*ard" or "w*anker", for example). If you don't like the word, don't use it, and don't pretend you're being polite by peppering us with bl*oody asterisks! Even worse is the prissy use of expressions such as "the n-word" or "the c-word". Just s*oddin' say it! One of my favourite films of all time is Blazing Saddles and I'm not going to never watch it again because it has "nigger" in it umpteen times. Context is everything. The most important thing is that one has no right to not be offended.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 May 14 - 06:30 AM

Jim, they all blamed the culture and were reported in all the media.
It is not racist to do that or to refer to it.

When will you get the message that everyone else hates you bringing this up in every thread, forcing me to defend myself from your lies?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 May 14 - 07:36 AM

I have always believed Britain to be a fairly liberal democracy that has constructed its society around protecting cultural and racial minorities from racist smears such as yours with fairly stringent laws.
If you say it is not, I have to take your word for it, I suppose.
"Can you not produce anything more racist than that from my thousands of posts?"
There actually isn't anything more racist than suggesting that the male gender of an entire racial/cultural group of a million and a half people is inclined towards pedophilia by its"implanted" culture, which it has to "resist" in order to prevent its male population from having it off with our underage daughters.
"When will you get the message that everyone else hates you bringing this up in every thread, forcing me to defend myself from your lies?"
When you get it into your thick, twisted skull that you are on your own in your sick Crusade of hate.
And thank you again for confirming that you still hold these views - "every little helps", as the man from Tesco keeps telling me.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 May 14 - 07:53 AM

?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: The Sandman
Date: 13 May 14 - 08:29 AM

booby and nincompoop, are imaginative insults that have style.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Musket
Date: 13 May 14 - 08:46 AM

Mudcat language, lesson 101.

Anyone who disagrees with Keith A Hole of Hertford is referred to as a liar.

Anyone who is turned off this shouldn't be posting as Mudcat is for Keith and anyone who has been posting as long as he has.

My fucking hero, you know...












TC

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Big Mick
Date: 13 May 14 - 09:12 AM

Picking at nits, the lot of you. It is very simple. Use of "salty" language is your business as long as it is used to attack ideas, or in a humorous way. When it is used in a personal attack, it goes. "That is an idiotic fucking idea", while distasteful, would not be deleted. "You are a fucking idiot" would.

Actually I don't know why I explain this, because the usual suspects aren't really interested in knowing this. They prefer to try and claim victim status and tilt at the windmill of "censorship". Amos has it right.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 May 14 - 09:55 AM

Musket,
Anyone who disagrees with Keith A Hole of Hertford is referred to as a liar.

That is, errr, untrue.
Most people disagree with me, but I do not call them liars.
I do not use the word as a term of abuse.
I only use it in response to unequivocal lying.

I have only ever called you a liar for 2 of your posts.
The one where you claimed to have heard a report of Nigerian Christians chopping up Muslim school kids and feeding them to pigs, and the one you claimed to have downloaded a quote from "The Council of Mosques" which does not exist and Google could only find it in your post.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Musket
Date: 13 May 14 - 10:00 AM

But who would say something was a fucking idiotic idea unless they were addressing a fucking idiot?

At the risk of prodding the lion with a stick... Has Amos got it right or does Mick just happen to like what Amos put?

I happen to disagree with Amos. The soup will always taste of piss unless enough people tell the waiter it tastes fucking awful.

I think I get the bit about humorous...

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 May 14 - 10:14 AM

No-one should be subject to this Mick.
Deleting the posts some time later is no help and no deterrent.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: pdq
Date: 13 May 14 - 10:24 AM

Editorial Policy...


"The Mudcat Cafe reserves the right to edit, move, combine, rename, or delete all threads and messages posted in the Forum. We will try our best to edit sparingly, but there are times when we may have to take some action to keep the peace, or to protect the interests of our community. Editorial decisions are made by Max, or under his direction. We follow principles and common sense, and see no need to have everything spelled out in some sort of pseudo-legal code. We don't allow hate, racism, stalking or other intimidation, or personal threats or attacks..."


personal attacks do not have to have "motherfucker" in them to be offensive

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Musket
Date: 13 May 14 - 11:54 AM

Is homophobia hate, intimidation or fair comment?

Is calling a member a liar intimidation?

Is deleting obvious satire editorial policy?








I obviously didn't get the bit about humorous. Still, if the cap is a 7 3/4 " and so is the head, it fits quite nicely.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Big Mick
Date: 13 May 14 - 12:14 PM

Well, Englishman, no, homophobia is not or intimidation. Strictly speaking it is a fear of homosexuals.

I am not going to fall into the trap of debating your predicates. I am simply going to refer you to the very basic and simple rules enunciated in the post that pdq quoted. If moderators examine posts and find that they fall into the categories described, they will be deleted without comment. If you do not like the policy, please feel free to find a forum that allows them. Carry on.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Big Mick
Date: 13 May 14 - 12:35 PM

I use the term Englishman because you folks are constantly moaning about two cultures separated by a common language. You made an assertion about homophobia that was not a correct usage of the term. This poor old colonial just thought he would point it out.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: akenaton
Date: 13 May 14 - 01:35 PM

You are quite correct Mick, neither Sanity nor I have any hatred of homosexuals....in fact I feel very sorry for them, having to go through life without the pain and joy of raising their own family.
I am sorry that their behaviour seems to lead to a huge over representation in the STD figures.
I am sorry for the bad parenting which perhaps led to them taking the path that they did, or the psychological trauma that moulded their sexual orientation.

No hatred, just pity and a desire to see HIV and STD stats brought under control.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 13 May 14 - 01:41 PM

Well done Mick. Sick disgraceful homophobic views suddenly come out of the midden.

The views expressed by Akenaton above are absolutely beyond the pail and even the pale.

Just read them.

For homosexual read repressed bigot. That works far better.

Moderation? Akenaton shows us why it doesn't work far better than respectable people do.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 13 May 14 - 01:45 PM

Oh akenaton, I really MUST protest at such remarks! Do you really really believe that men's homosexual orientation can be determined by 'psychological trauma' or 'bad parenting'?? And many gay men in loving partnerships, and now marriage, have adopted children, so they do indeed have the 'pain and joy' of raising their own family. Your pity is patronising and offensive.
And Big Mick, who are you including in 'you folks'? And what makes you say we English are 'constantly moaning' about 'two cultures separated by a common language'? One surely can't stereotype an entire nation like that. I for one (English and proud of it) am not 'constantly moaning' about anything, least of all Americans and their speech.
Reading some of these posts makes me truly despair. Whatever is going on in your minds? Or hearts for that matter? Good grief. Please please stop it.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 13 May 14 - 01:52 PM

And as his post us full of false facts to back up his awful opinion, I look forward to it being removed under the category hate.

Not holding my English breath.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: akenaton
Date: 13 May 14 - 02:02 PM

Well Eliza, there does seem to be a stereotypical parenting template which applies to many, not all, male homosexuals.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Big Mick
Date: 13 May 14 - 04:35 PM

Eliza, and all, please accept a sincere apology offered without condition. I was making a tongue in cheek comment,monte that I used Englishman as opposed to English men, but my "you folks" comment was far too broad. I apologies for the offense.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 13 May 14 - 04:39 PM

Big Mick, for my part I admire you very much for apologising. Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 May 14 - 06:04 PM

Actually I don't know why I explain this, because the usual suspects aren't really interested in knowing this. They prefer to try and claim victim status and tilt at the windmill of "censorship".

Yeah, right, "usual suspects". How lame. No naming of names, as ever. How many times have we seen that. C'mon, Big Boy, big up why don't you. Name the usual suspects instead of bottling it, but go carefully, cos I know I'm in your sights, yet I never use c*unt, f*uck and I never claim victim status, and I don't give a flying monkey's shite about "censorship". And per-bloody-ease don't give us that "you know who you are" bollox. Nothing but a list will do. I do not hold my breath. And I bet homophobe Ake, mad Goofus and racist Keith aren't on your list! Time to get honest, Mr Mod!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Big Mick
Date: 13 May 14 - 06:41 PM

Steve, you really must think me simple. Your attempts to elevate are very childish. Read the rules, follow them, everything is great. They apply to everyone. The names you mention do not engage in personal attack. They simply state their opinion. I find their opinions on homosexuality and racism to be sickening in my opinion. But I don't bother answering them as that allows them to elevate.

But back to the subject. Debate issues, leave personal attacks home.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 May 14 - 07:25 PM

Well, Big Mick, homophobic and racist posts from Ake, Keith and Goofus are personal attacks on millions of people, yet you always find a way to defend these nasty bigots. They sicken you but otherwise they're OK here. Wow. You'd much rather take the path of least resistance in attacking people who are rather nasty to known bigots (though I still await your list of us). Do I think you're simple? The thought never crossed my mind, old boy. You're probably a luvly feller deep down, but a little less luvliness to bigots and a little more cojones in confronting the b*ast*ards from you and the other forum worthies would be welcome. You know summat, old chap? We read constant bollox here from sanctimonious gits lamenting the good times of old and the loss of the nice guys who have decamped, yet we hear very little criticism, except from one or two of us who really would like to see the place being a lot better, about the horrible people like Keith, Ake, bobad and Goofus who drag this place into the mire. Note correct use of ast*er*isks there, by the way, in keeping with the spirit of the thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,#
Date: 13 May 14 - 07:44 PM

How to become a Saint in easy-to-follow steps.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 May 14 - 09:20 PM

Very entertaining link, guest! The only thing it fails to mention is that your devil's advocate must, deep down, be of like mind with yourself. So, no questions about cover-ups of child abuse, or about doing dirty deals with fascist dictators, or about helping the Nazis to escape or to ship Jews to death camps by the thousand...

Dominic Savio was sainted because (a) he died young, and (b) he wouldn't take his underpants off in front of the other lads! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,#
Date: 13 May 14 - 11:57 PM

It would be a great opportunity for you to correct that deficit. Have at it Mr Shaw.