ADUK Archive

Phew - good job we agree on that one then!

martine wrote:Phew - good job we agree on that one then!

I don't. Agree with you that is. I'm increasingly fed up with everything being a "ism" and everyone being and "ist". If this forum wishes to go down this route, then it's no surprise it's dying a death.

I note that the complainer wasn't actually offended himself, but was worried others may be. Typical Guardian reader, in other words.

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?

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?

Isn't that what you meant? If not, what did you mean?

What did I mean by what?

You seem to have assumed that I've taken offence on behalf of others, rather than being more personally displeased by your choice of racial epithet. AFAIK you don't have any reason to think so. Why I find it distasteful is my own business and I don't really care to share the reasoning with you.

FYI I probably am a typical Guardian reader but it doesn't seem to have any bearing on the matter.

Well now, without wishing to criticise any particular individuals, if this is the tone we're going to have on this forum, I must say I'd be inclined to stay away.

I don't know about the forum dying, but it's certainly becoming a bit poorly in some way.

trashbat wrote: your choice of racial epithet.

There's nothing racial about living in a caravan in the middle of a rubbish dump at the tax payer's expense.

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.

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.

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.

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.

How can you judge that? I read the post and was more than a little surprised and upset to see it on the forum - in whatever section. Clearly someone else did to and objected to it.

And it was indirectly directed at people on the forum - several of us will be staying in the location mentioned - and have stayed before without issue.

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?

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?

Martin,

I take your point, but I worry that it's a slippery slope. We're getting to the stage where we have to worry about everything we say, no matter how innocent, just in case it may offend someone. More often than not it's more about compensation or avoidance of justice, than any real offence. As I'm not in a position of power or particularly wealthy, I doubt anyone will be knocking at my door.

You know things have gone to far when people are calling for a television presenter to be sacked because of something he deliberately didn't say - I assume that means he was guilty of thinking it. "1984", 30 years too late.

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.

You are joking? Upset? Really?

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.

Which is why a dictionary is useful. No need for subjective views of what is offensive and no need to pander.