martine wrote:Phew - good job we agree on that one then!
trashbat wrote:Silk wrote:I note that the complainer wasn't actually offended himself, but was worried others may be. Typical Guardian reader, in other words.
Do you? How do you know this, exactly?
MGF wrote:It isn't viable to define words according to intended meaning or opinion as to what they should mean. There needs to be a standard definition. Dictionaries are useful in this context.
Silk wrote:I very much doubt that using the word "pikey" in a members' area of a low-traffic forum is likely to cause offence. Especially when it wasn't directed at a member of the forum.
martine wrote:Can I just say the only reason it was edited was because we have a responsibility to the author and ADUK not to be open to potential legal problems (racial hatred twitter case quoted).
Really guys, it was a passing 'jokey' comment by silk and not exactly fundamental to the thread...this is all getting rather tedious, can we move on?
gannet wrote:Silk wrote:I very much doubt that using the word "pikey" in a members' area of a low-traffic forum is likely to cause offence. Especially when it wasn't directed at a member of the forum.
I read the post and was more than a little surprised and upset to see it on the forum.
Silk wrote:MGF wrote:It isn't viable to define words according to intended meaning or opinion as to what they should mean. There needs to be a standard definition. Dictionaries are useful in this context.
I disagree. With a few possible exceptions, you can only judge a word in context. Also, just because someone says something is offensive, doesn't mean it's actually caused offense. Sometimes people claim offence for financial gain, to avoid justice or to simply make mischief. I don't believe we should pander to these types.
Return to General Car Chat Forum
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests