Is it time for mods to review prohibited words?

[Lisa558]

Dang, it got censored. A perfectly innocent name.

Yeah, that’s my point. A cutesy name is prohibited, but real offensive words are not.

 

[MarathonMike]

Libtard, Lefty, Marxist.

False equivalence. Those terms do not dehumanize as MAGAT, NAZI and HITLER do.

 

[Lisa558]

Thank you for a thoughtful and interesting topic Lisa. I regret that it generated so many negative responses because it didn't deserve that.

The problem with censoring this or that word on any venue is that the hateful will just find another word to use. Or they'll make one up.

There is probably no law, no regulation, no legal provision that won't have a downside. The downside to free speech is that the immature, ugly, hateful, malicious will use speech that is hurtful. But at least when they do that, the mature, reasonable, intelligent people will see them for what they are.

Those using rhetoric that provoke or inspire the criminal or mentally unbalanced to do violence is the huge risk of free speech. But suppressing opinions is even worse and gives license to government to do violence to people who do not deserve that.

Our duty as moral people I think is to lead by example, promote decency, civility, constructive debate. We should consider the childish ugly stuff for what it is, i.e. the language of the poorly educated or those too unintelligent to formulate and actual valid argument.

I can't imagine a mentality that uses the most vile and hateful/hurtful words they can think of to address other members here at USMB. But many do that. It has become a blood sport here. Maybe some have fun doing that here because they wouldn't ever do it in real life. Some are immune to such attacks. Those that are hurt by them probably won't ever say that.

But the alternative is to take away an unalienable right of the people to express their opinions. The precise words used do not matter. Either those people are decent and constructive in their speech or they aren't.

I was giggled on a 'Christian forum' for using the term Democrat instead of Democratic. That was considered 'harassment' on that forum. Once you start censoring words, it can get that silly.

I could go for a rule that you could not call another member a 'Nazi' or some other derogatory term. That would restore an element of civility. But in reality, it would just change into "Your post is Nazi-like because. . . ." The childish and uncivil will continue to be that way no matter how much you change the rules.

One of the laws of management drilled into me long ago:
--You can't change bad people by changing the system.
--You can't change a bad system by changing the people.

So no easy solution for this particular problem. We need to change the culture and the mindset of most of the people to fix it I think. I don't want to take away rights in a futile effort to accomplish that.

And, I would not have to like to consult a word list before I made a post and I think that would add another burden to the mods in keeping the board as sane as possible.

The problem is….that allowing hatred to spread via vile names - you’re like Hitler! You’re a Nazi! - has reached such a fevered pitch that a decent young man was assassinated yesterday for his conservative views.

So, there is a limit to free speech. When it incites violence, it no longer has 1st amendment protection.

 

[norwegen]

Yeah, that’s my point. A cutesy name is prohibited, but real offensive words are not.

Yes, that's kind of bizarre.

Profanity is not banned, which I think is okay. I kind of think that words like NAZI and Fascist are okay, too. Their use just reveals some of the gaslighting from the left.

 

[Foxfyre]

Is it that hard to remember not to call a Jew a Nazi? It’s reprehensible.

You would have to assume that everyone knows that the Jew is a Jew. It isn't like any of us wear signs identifying who/what we are. Calling a Jew a Nazi is not really all that different though than calling anybody else a Nazi when that is absurd and the slur is intended to be hateful/hurtful. Survivors of the Ten Boom family, who as Christians hid and sheltered their Jewish neighbors and suffered unspeakable horrors when the Nazis discovered and arrested them for doing that, would be just as offended at being called Nazi.

I want to be able to treat everybody the same regardless of the skin color, creed, ethnicity, whatever. And I want a civil world in which the crude, rude, hateful, hurtful are relegated to the disgusting element of society.

I probably won't get what I want. But I can say I want it.

 

[Lisa558]

Yes, that's kind of bizarre.

Profanity is not banned, which I think is okay. I kind of think that words like NAZI and Fascist are okay, too. Their use just reveals some of the gaslighting from the left.

Yes, but the danger is that unstable, deranged individuals can actually BELIEVE that people who support Trump, or Trump himself, or Charlie Kirk, are actually evil, vile people who deserve to die.

Leftists have said as much on the Kirk thread, actually calling him evil.

So the broader discussion is: where is the balance between allowing vile names to be reigned down on one’s political opponents and trying to curtail the hate that is generated as a result that can lead to violence?

 

[Foxfyre]

The problem is….that allowing hatred to spread via vile names - you’re like Hitler! You’re a Nazi! - has reached such a fevered pitch that a decent young man was assassinated yesterday for his conservative views.

So, there is a limit to free speech. When it incites violence, it no longer has 1st amendment protection.

Which is why I advocate for civility to be the rule, not censorship. In the words of Cinderella's mother, we should all have courage and be kind and we will have more power than all the hateful ugly words the childish and malicious people can think up.

We should limit what public rhetoric/imagery etc. is acceptable maybe. Not sure how that could be structured though.

I promote changing the culture back to civility though. That's our best bet to fix the problem.

 

[Lisa558]

You would have to assume that everyone knows that the Jew is a Jew. It isn't like any of us wear signs identifying who/what we are. Calling a Jew a Nazi is not really all that different though than calling anybody else a Nazi when that is absurd and the slur is intended to be hateful/hurtful.

I want to be able to treat everybody the same regardless of the skin color, creed, ethnicity, whatever. And I want a civil world in which the crude, rude, hateful, hurtful are relegated to the disgusting element of society.

I probably won't get what I want. But I can say I want it.

Actually, I think calling a Jew a Nazi is worse given how Nazis tried to exterminate Jews. And the word is used against Jews, when the hater knows he’s speaking to a Jew, to inflict as much fury and offense as possible.

I would say the same thing about the N word, which I have never used in my life. When someone calls a black that, it has the same purpose: to be as offensive as possible.

So to me it seems to be the same - one insults Jews and one insults blacks. But only one is prohibited.

P.S. This is a good discussion. I hope the haters vacate the thread.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Use of those words you propose to be added is better used as an indicator that the person has no intrinsic human value and should simply be ignored.

 

[Lisa558]

Use of those words you propose to be added is better used as an indicator that the person has no intrinsic human value and should simply be ignored.

Then half of the Democrats would end up my ignore list.

But maybe that’s not a bad thing.

 

[Papageorgio]

The three words I know that are prohibited are the n-word (reprehensible), the c-word (also reprehensible), and w-ie (sort of mild, but whatever).

But now that we’ve seen how the vile rhetoric the left uses against the right can gin up such hate that it results in a political murder, now might be the time to consider how the message board is allowing the hate level to spread and thus might also prohibit the following:

1) MAGATS - this of course is calling Trump supporters “maggots” and reminds me of how Farrakhan called the Jews “termites.”

2) NAZI - this awful accusation should not be allowed to be leveled against posters, and the word should be reserved for discussions about real Nazis

3) HITLER - same as above

4) Direct racist terms - posters should not be allowed to address blacks as “black boy” or “black man” or make reference to “your black ass.” In fairness, posters should not be allowed to address whites as “white boy” or say “your white ass.”

There could be more, but this would be a start.

I’m not in favor of banning words or censoring free expression. People should be free to speak their minds, even when they choose harsh or offensive terms. In fact, the words people reach for say a lot about them, their reasoning, and their ability (or inability) to make a strong case.

When someone falls back on insults like “magats,” or drags out comparisons to “hitler” or “nazis,” it tells me more about their motives and insecurities than it does about the person they’re targeting. I don’t even capitalize those words, because to me they’re not proper nouns — just derogatory slurs meant to bring others down instead of raising the level of discussion.

Allowing this kind of language to surface puts light on the dark. It reveals who lacks confidence in their own arguments, who can’t defend their positions with facts, and who feels the need to demean rather than persuade. In the end, it weakens their credibility, not mine.

 

[Natural Citizen]

When someone falls back on insults like “magats,” or drags out comparisons to “hitler” or “nazis,” it tells me more about their motives and insecurities than it does about the person they’re targeting.

I agree with your thought here.

But it isn't limited to just that particular brand of so-called insults that you referenced.

The same concept with regard to revealing motives and insecurities rings true whenever people arbitrarily and openly refer to anyone as terrorist or a terrorist supporter or a Hamas or an anti-semite whenever they don't like any disagreement with subject matter.

Unfortunately the old rules for thee but not for me mindset in which some seem to have adopted seems to always be excluded from any grievances.

 

[Papageorgio]

I agree with your thought here.

But it isn't limited to just that particlar brand of so-called insults tht you referenced.

The same concept rings true whenever people arbitrarily and openly refer to one as terrorist or a terrorist supporter or a Hamas or an anti-semite whenever they don't like any disagreement with subject matter.

Unfortunately the old rules for thee but not for me mindset seems to always be excluded from any grievances.

I agree, the non-thinkers resort to the lowest common denominator and that’s how I view them.

 

[AyeCantSeeYou]

When at least ONE of you becomes as "big" as Google, you can tell us what words offend you so that we add them to the word filter list. Until then, you get to live in the REAL world with the rest of us.

 

[Zincwarrior]

When at least ONE of you becomes as "big" as Google, you can tell us what words offend you so that we add them to the word filter list. Until then, you get to live in the REAL world with the rest of us.

What about 'Vegan?' I find that word pretty offensive!

 

[Unkotare]

What about 'Vegan?' I find that word pretty offensive!

 

[Foxfyre]

Actually, I think calling a Jew a Nazi is worse given how Nazis tried to exterminate Jews. And the word is used against Jews, when the hater knows he’s speaking to a Jew, to inflict as much fury and offense as possible.

I would say the same thing about the N word, which I have never used in my life. When someone calls a black that, it has the same purpose: to be as offensive as possible.

So to me it seems to be the same - one insults Jews and one insults blacks. But only one is prohibited.

P.S. This is a good discussion. I hope the haters vacate the thread.

I will respect your feelings about that knowing your background and a bit of your history and ethnicity. I cannot put myself into your shoes other than just having normal empathy about that.

But you think the hateful names the numbnuts, idiots and other exercises in futility call me here on USMB are not intended to be hateful, insulting, offensive, hurtful? I pretty much ignore them and choose not to allow numbnuts, idiots and other exercises in futility determine how I am going to feel about anything. (IMO, ONLY numbnuts, idiots and other exercises in futility do that kind of thing. Why should good people give them any power to affect us in any way?)

We can choose to be hurt and offended when they intend to hurt or offend us. Or we can choose to see such people as what they are which is definitely not flattering.

Personally I think the "n" word has lost all its power to hurt anybody except maybe kids too young to utilize critical thinking and who are susceptible to bullying. But the bullies who can't use that word will find others just as offensive and abusive.

I've seen people claiming to be black who are vicious toward other black people they disagree with. Why are they allowed to be that way but other people are not? Why can black rappers use the "n" word to refer to other black people or that word is included in 'gangsta' lyrics a lot but it is legally inappropriate for others to use?

If we are to be one people, one colorblind society, one in which all are seen as equal in value and ability to use whatever opportunity they can, then everybody should use the same language and what is censored for one is censored for all.

But again whatever is censored must be for very good reason and we must be very careful to be sure there is very good justification for the censorship in the interest of the common welfare and apply it uniformly without regard for skin color, ethnicity, creed, country of origin, gender or whatever.

 

[Cassandro]

The three words I know that are prohibited are the n-word (reprehensible), the c-word (also reprehensible), and w-ie (sort of mild, but whatever).

I would like to prohibit "reprehensible." It is a word used to connote a faux sense of moral superiority.

 

[BS Filter]

"SELECTIVELY OUTRAGED CENSORSHIP"





How predictable from someone who is entirely unable to refute Zionist genocide and war mongering.

How about banning the following words:

1. "MUZZIES"- So popular with ignorant and brainwashed anti Islamic bigots.

2. "ANTI SEMITE" - Another desperate slur so frequently abused as to be absolutely meaningless. (1)

3. "HOLOCAUST DENIER" - Another meaningless buzzword coined by anti German bigots who can't refute the facts about history's most profitable and crassly exploited event.

4. "ISLAMO-NAZIS" - Just plain stupid.

------------------------------------------

Best of all, allow bigoted fools to demonstrate their hate filled ignorance by showing their inability to articulate an honest and civil rebuttal.

Finally:

“Censorship is the child of fear and the father of ignorance.”
― Laurie Halse Anderson, Speak



(1). "False accusations of antisemitism"

"Creating panic over a false accusation of antisemitism does nothing to stop real antisemitism from taking root."

False accusations of antisemitism

Creating panic over a false accusation of antisemitism does nothing to stop real antisemitism from taking root.

rabble.ca

EXCERPT "As one of the more public Jews in Canada, I have often experienced antisemitism at moments when Israel is in the news, but I have never experienced antisemitism in the Palestinian marches. In fact, this march as many others had a large contingent of Jews opposing Israel’s attacks on Gaza.

The rise in antisemitism pales in comparison to the anti-Palestinian attacks we’ve seen since October 7. Yet political leaders don’t seem concerned that meetings on Palestinian issues have been cancelled for no good reason, that students who want to speak out for Palestine have been threatened with sanctions and a few people feel they lost jobs or engagements because of their views. Yet there is little concern for incidents of anti-Palestinian racism expressed by those in power." CONTINUED

Mohammed is a goat ****** and child molester.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Free speech.

Why isn't saying the N word free speech? C word ? Are their other words that fall under the same verboten classification?