Posted by Larry Hoover on March 6, 2006, at 15:20:14
In reply to Re: hurt feelings » Dr. Bob, posted by Larry Hoover on March 6, 2006, at 14:05:34
You punish, to the fullest extent, with blocks of up to a year, for saying simple words like f*rt or sh*t. Why? Because it might upset somebody. Not in civil company.
However, you don't acknowledge the upset that is caused by people saying simple things like explicitly describing an assault, or an attempt on one's life.
Why isn't the latter uncivil?
You could not possible f*rt on me enough to make me really care, because it's such a minor slight. But, the other is stomach-turning upset, and you refuse to acknowledge it with the same civility protections afforded f*ck and sh*t.
I'm not asking people to not talk about it, but to acknowledge the sensibilities of members of the audience. To be civil with the content of their discourse.
I am baffled that you don't see what looks like a double standard from over here.
I repeat, I am not seeking censorship, as your existing language rule has in fact come to represent. People may say all that they've ever said, and sought all the comfort here that we've always offered. Just a little advertisement at the entrance to the arena. That's all I ask.
I can almost promise you, no one will ever end up blocked over this. We'll police it with an open mind and open heart. I can't understand your resistance to what is blatantly obvious to me.
I'll help you write the FAQ, Bob. We'll get this worded right.
This is one of those things where there is no half-way. You can't be a little bit pregnant, and you can't be a little bit protected from triggering. It's all or nothing. Your proposal is as good as nothing to me, and that is not me spitting out sour grapes. It just happens to be the way it is.
This is education, Bob. The disabled man calling you on your failure to treat me fairly. To treat the sensitized with the same empathy as those exposed to vulgar language. Just as there is a core group of words which are restricted, but not all words, I'm asking that a core form of language, the graphic or explicit description of violence, be similarly acknowledged as uncivil. But it doesn't even have to be sanitized, as your current language policies require. No, just acknowledged for what it is.
No surprises. Is that too much to ask?
Lar
poster:Larry Hoover
thread:614568
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060225/msgs/616696.html