ThunderBunk, go fuck yourself.

124678

Comments

  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    Art. Beautiful, transcendent, irreducible art.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    RooK wrote: »
    To consistently decide to be involved for improvement is commendable, technically.
    Technically. But as others have noted, starting a thread entitled "x, go fuck yourself" is not a good way of being "involved for improvement", still less a good way of being consistently involved.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    edited June 2019
    It is interesting that the descriptive/medical words ‘penis’ and ‘vulva’ are not used to swear, curse, offend or insult.

    That certain words for an act (sex) which is amazing, joyful, endorphin-releasing and (sometimes) pro-creative are used to swear, offend and curse.

    Yet words for the very worst of humanity (murder, torture etc) are used in the politest of company, without a thought “The traffic was murder on the way here.” “It was a torturous meeting.”

    The words describing darkest, most terrible things of humanity are not taboo in our language and yet the most joyful, exciting and amazing things are.

    Bodily function swearing is odd too as it can’t separate us - we all have rectums and we all use them to eliminate waste (unless we’ve had medical problems).

    What an odd species we are.

    This thread (as many do in Hell) has become the trading of insults about very small things and baffling nuances of offence - by people who, just across the corridor behind another door, are praying for each other with heartfelt empathy.

    What an odd old bunch of Shipmates we are.

    🤔🧐😷
  • PatdysPatdys Shipmate
    What about me, it isn't fair
    I've had enough now I want my share
    Can't* you see I wanna live
    But you just take more than you give.

    And now I'm standing on the corner, all the world's gone home
    Nobody's changed, nobody's been saved
    And I'm feeling cold and alone
    I guess I'm lucky, I smile a lot
    But sometimes I wish for more than I've got.

    *Be very careful how you pronounce this.
    Boogie wrote: »
    This thread (as many do in Hell) has become the trading of insults about very small things and baffling nuances of offence - by people who, just across the corridor behind another door, are praying for each other with heartfelt empathy.

    What an odd old bunch of Shipmates we are.

    🤔🧐😷

    Isn't it great? Family, complete with dysfunction! Just brilliant.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Ruth wrote: »
    Once you're told a word isn't all that offensive, taking offense is optional. I'm not going to start dropping the word "cunt" into my everyday speech, but I'm not going to be offended when I see it used by a Brit on the Ship.

    I am. Regardless of the fact that it can mean the nastiest kind of person, and in truth I have used it on myself in that way, it is a sexual assault word; its use by a heterosexual male in public is a form of verbal sexual assault, actual intimidation.

    Oh no... the thread lasted long enough to summon Martin.

    Ok, I'll bite. Why do the men in question have to be heterosexual?

    It's more threatening.

    In what way? Are gay men weak and effeminate and incapable of being threatening?

    Sorry?

    To gay men it is not an object of desire whose owners are despised.
  • Following this post:
    LeRoc wrote: »
    Doing a quick search through Ye Olde Shippe™ (Hell and Limbo) I found a couple dozen instances of the c word. They were mostly directed at UK politicians, and in most of those cases the use of this word went unchallenged. There have been reactions when someone called another Shipmate the c word directly.
    I went to look too, and there are some really surprising Shipmates using cunt or variants on threads, not just in Hell, over the years covered by Oblivion, which only goes back to 2012 now. Ignoring obviously provocative or aggressive Hell threads (although the one on depression was worth reading):

    I haven't looked through more than Oblivion, but this evidences the range

  • LeRocLeRoc Shipmate
    I have to say that I'm not a frequent speaker of the c word, although it is often on the tip of my tongue.
  • sionisaissionisais Shipmate
    For what it's worth, I'm far more worried about what people do, rather than what they say.
  • Boasting again, @LeRoc?

    I'm amused to note, I didn't feature at all in that search. I only searched for the full word in Oblivion, not any of the elisions or euphemisms - and poor old Scunthorpe appeared frequently.
  • 2016 me came up with hoofwangling bunglecunt? I peaked too soon, clearly.
  • LeRocLeRoc Shipmate
    Boasting again, @LeRoc?
    Nah, just going 'round in circles.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    There was me thinking I was on record as a frequent flier.
  • @KarlLB You were definitely there, but I wasn't pointing that out by linking to threads. I was trying to show the breadth of use across the years.
  • LeRoc wrote: »
    I have to say that I'm not a frequent speaker of the c word, although it is often on the tip of my tongue.

    When I read that, I broke out in a sweat. Damn, I thought old age would be a brake on carnal thoughts.
  • LeRoc wrote: »
    I have to say that I'm not a frequent speaker of the c word, although it is often on the tip of my tongue.
    :blush:
    mousethief wrote: »
    instead of actually engaging with the people who matter.
    You see, the implication of that is that @Doublethink @fineline @anoesis @Ruth @Tubbs @Curiosity killed etc. don't matter, because they're women with 'wrong' perspectives.

    I have a lot of sympathy for @Ohher and @Huia (agreed: awesome) and the other women who raised this issue, and I've tried to avoid or censor the word in question for that reason, because they're on this thread. But there is a bigger picture, of which plenty of women and men have pointed out the nuances.
  • TubbsTubbs Admin
    edited June 2019
    mousethief wrote: »
    instead of actually engaging with the people who matter.
    You see, the implication of that is that @Doublethink @fineline @anoesis @Ruth @Tubbs @Curiosity killed etc. don't matter, because they're women with 'wrong' perspectives.

    I have a lot of sympathy for @Ohher and @Huia (agreed: awesome) and the other women who raised this issue, and I've tried to avoid or censor the word in question for that reason, because they're on this thread. But there is a bigger picture, of which plenty of women and men have pointed out the nuances.

    We're now so deep into mansplain territory, I fear there is no way back.
  • Marvin the MartianMarvin the Martian Admin Emeritus
    Following this post:
    LeRoc wrote: »
    Doing a quick search through Ye Olde Shippe™ (Hell and Limbo) I found a couple dozen instances of the c word. They were mostly directed at UK politicians, and in most of those cases the use of this word went unchallenged. There have been reactions when someone called another Shipmate the c word directly.
    I went to look too, and there are some really surprising Shipmates using cunt or variants on threads, not just in Hell, over the years covered by Oblivion, which only goes back to 2012 now. Ignoring obviously provocative or aggressive Hell threads (although the one on depression was worth reading):

    [<<<el snippety>>>]

    I haven't looked through more than Oblivion, but this evidences the range.

    I'm slightly disappointed that my calling Dogwonderer a cuntburglar some years ago didn't make the list. He took offense of course, but that was to the (unintended) implication that he was a rapist rather than to the word itself.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    Tubbs wrote: »
    We're now so deep into mansplain territory, I fear there is no way back.
    It's not deep, it's bottom right without a doubt.

  • CaissaCaissa Shipmate
    This seems to be more of a pond issue than anything else. Are there swear words in the UK that are considered much more offensive than they are in North America?
  • Not more offensive, per se, but we find your "fanny pack" highly amusing.
  • But @Marvin the Martian I did include your adaptation of a hymn as quoted by Albertus. You did feature, but I was finding entries that amused me or made the point of widespread use as those links originally came from The Styx, Heaven, Purgatory, All Saints, Purgatory and Hell for certain. I'm not sure I found any from Dead Horses, but they are almost certainly there.

    @Caissa The words that come up regularly in these discussions are spaz and retard which are really offensive in the UK and rarely heard
  • Caissa wrote: »
    This seems to be more of a pond issue than anything else. Are there swear words in the UK that are considered much more offensive than they are in North America?

    "Trump"??
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    Caissa wrote: »
    This seems to be more of a pond issue than anything else. Are there swear words in the UK that are considered much more offensive than they are in North America?
    Not a swear word, but apparently the title of the second Austin Powers movie was seen as problematic in various places, including the U.K.

    Norway leaned into it, though, giving it a title corresponding to a dirtier version of “The Spy Who Ejaculated On Me”.

  • CaissaCaissa Shipmate
    Thanks, Curiosity killed. The former is rarely heard in my part of Canada but the latter is considered offensive on this side of the pond, as well.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Hell's bells on a raft in mid-ocean. What have we learned from this thread? (Is learning anything whatsoever from this thread even possible?)

    1. No one has requested the banning of any words.
    2. No word-bans will be imposed (ruling from On High).
    3. Some people state they are offended / triggered by the use of a certain word.
    4. Some of these same people request that others refrain from a certain word's use.
    5. Other people state that the offending word isn't especially offensive.
    6. Still other people state that, regardless, they find it so.
    7. General outrage ensues over the never-requested banning of the more-or-less offending word.
    8. The less-offended people accuse the more-offended people of cultural imperialism.
    9. The more-offended accuse the less-offended of sexism, rudeness, insensitivity, etc.
    10. More general outrage ensues.
    11. One person rises to the defense of the more-offended and is promptly trashed.
    12. Now we have accusations of mansplaining, though it's unclear that anything at all has changed since #2.

    So where are we here? Here's my take:

    1. Nobody is entitled to decide what is/isn't offensive for somebody else.

    2. An offended person has options: (A) ignore the offense; (B) mention the offense; (C) explain the offense; (D) request that the offense not be repeated. An offended person has NO right, however, to suppose that the rest of the human population automatically knows or agrees with him/her about what is offensive, or to what degree.

    3. An offending person, notified that offense has been given (however inadvertently), has options: (A) refrain from the offense in future; (B) state that as no offense is intended the offense is likely to continue; (C) state that as no offense is intended the offense will be discontinued; (D) state that the offense is intentional and will continue.

    4. Again, no ban is being imposed. Self-censorship (something most of us do quite unconsciously much of the time) is not a ban; it's adaptive behavior (as when we use different word choices when describing an event to the elderly pastor's wife than when we describe the same event to our best mate).

  • sionisaissionisais Shipmate
    Like I said upstream, I worry less about what is said than what is done. Maybe that is a Pond difference too?
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    edited June 2019
    Ohher wrote: »
    11. One person rises to the defense of the more-offended and is promptly trashed.
    No, one person rose to invite somebody they disagreed with to go fuck themselves, in a whole new thread of that name.

    Plenty of other people of both sexes (so far as I can tell) were doing the defending without shit-stirring.

  • TubbsTubbs Admin
    edited June 2019
    Ohher wrote: »
    Hell's bells on a raft in mid-ocean. What have we learned from this thread? (Is learning anything whatsoever from this thread even possible?)

    1. No one has requested the banning of any words.
    2. No word-bans will be imposed (ruling from On High).
    3. Some people state they are offended / triggered by the use of a certain word.
    4. Some of these same people request that others refrain from a certain word's use.
    5. Other people state that the offending word isn't especially offensive.
    6. Still other people state that, regardless, they find it so.
    7. General outrage ensues over the never-requested banning of the more-or-less offending word.
    8. The less-offended people accuse the more-offended people of cultural imperialism.
    9. The more-offended accuse the less-offended of sexism, rudeness, insensitivity, etc.
    10. More general outrage ensues.
    11. One person rises to the defense of the more-offended and is promptly trashed.
    12. Now we have accusations of mansplaining, though it's unclear that anything at all has changed since #2.

    So where are we here? Here's my take:

    1. Nobody is entitled to decide what is/isn't offensive for somebody else.

    2. An offended person has options: (A) ignore the offense; (B) mention the offense; (C) explain the offense; (D) request that the offense not be repeated. An offended person has NO right, however, to suppose that the rest of the human population automatically knows or agrees with him/her about what is offensive, or to what degree.

    3. An offending person, notified that offense has been given (however inadvertently), has options: (A) refrain from the offense in future; (B) state that as no offense is intended the offense is likely to continue; (C) state that as no offense is intended the offense will be discontinued; (D) state that the offense is intentional and will continue.

    4. Again, no ban is being imposed. Self-censorship (something most of us do quite unconsciously much of the time) is not a ban; it's adaptive behavior (as when we use different word choices when describing an event to the elderly pastor's wife than when we describe the same event to our best mate).

    Oh, can I play?!

    1) If you're requesting a convention that a word is never used, you’re asking for a ban under another name. (You might not have, but others did. They just kept insisting this wasn’t really a ban. Just a convention).

    2) We all agree that certain words are offensive. We disagree about what those certain words are.

    3) We all acknowledge the problem and agree this can be extremely upsetting. We disagree about how to solve said problem.

    4) … But the Crew aren’t doing it.

    5) One person rises to the defence of the more offended. (Which is good). By SHOUTING, dropping N-Bombs and telling the less offended why they are wrong. Repeatedly. (Which isn’t).

    6) The defender is a man. He arrives unasked after things had been sorted. The majority of people he is attacking are women. Who really need a man telling them about sexism. Hence the accusation of mansplaining. Given the subject matter, the prosecution rests milady.

    7) @huia is awesome. As are @goperryrevs and @Doublethink. @leroc is very naughty. @Alan Cresswell has a potty mouth. @Curiosity killed knows how the search engine on the old Ship works. :shocker!
  • And if mousethief hadn't said
    mousethief wrote: »
    TLDR: The word in question is not a general part of the ship's vocabulary, it's not woven into the history and fiber of the deck and rigging and hull the way other epithets are. So a request to refrain from it is a different beast from general distaste for coarse language.

    I wouldn't have gone out of my way to show how widespread the use has been on the Ship over the years. I could have linked to many, many more posts. The ones I chose were to do with pointing out the prevalence across boards and more unexpected people's usage.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    edited June 2019
    42) @Alan Cresswell is my niggah.
  • Anyone would think that this language is something to be proud of.
  • Anyone would think that this language is something to be proud of.

    The Wannsee Protocol contained no swearing at all.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Anyone would think that this language is something to be proud of.

    The Wannsee Protocol contained no swearing at all.

    No swearing is easy - in writing.

    It’s only an expletive when spoken, writing will always be a considered response.
  • NicoleMRNicoleMR Shipmate
    Oh for crying out loud, the difference between a ban and a request not to use it is perfectly simple. If there's an official ban, which, again, NO ONE is asking for, then violators get in trouble, a hostly warning at the least. If there's simply a request not to use it, then people who do just get looked at askance, and no worse.
  • Hmmmm ...

    I'm pretty sure I've seen Mousethief use the c-word in the past, referring to a certain medieval English street name. Is he telling us that he would never refer to this ever again as he is a reformed character?

    On Pond differences, I'm not sure how common 'Mother Fucker' is in the US these days but I've always thought of that as a particularly offensive Americanism. That doesn't let us Brits off the hook with our potty-mouths, of course.

    My guess would be that it's contextually conditioned in its usage in the US in a parallel way to how swearing works here in the UK - only governed by different cultural mores and norms.

  • We all know that Jesus really said: "Father forgive these cunts for they know not what they do", which was later translated as "assholes" because of disputes in translation. Some hipsters like it as "nigger" and "shark bait". Thankfully the Legion of Decency cleaned it all up. True story.

    So it's really okay to use these words, because Jesus.
  • The argument is whether it is OK to ask for a ban (which the Admins have said is not going to happen) on various words, however that is phrased. Particularly when the request is triggered not by any casual use of the word in question, but by usage in a verbatim report, on a Hell thread, indicated by quotation marks, not addressed to anyone.

    The problem with "a request not to post certain words" is that it's unenforceable. The next n00b Brit who wanders on to a Hell thread and uses cunt in a tirade of invective or posts a comment about Jeremy Cunt will then get a similar response to this from all those who believe that the word should be banned, whatever the context or how the word is used.

    This is not a debate as to whether words are offensive or not, but whether a ban or voluntary restraint from posting a word that is very commonly used as a swearword in the UK and has been part of board culture for some years is achievable. Those who are requesting that others should "not post certain words" want cunt not to be used on the boards ever. That request may be heard by those posting now, but how anyone not part of this discussion could be aware of any "request not to post certain words" without a ban that isn't going to happen is unclear.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited June 2019
    Anyone would think that this language is something to be proud of.

    Sometimes it is. Sometimes we need to rage against the oh so polite callous public schoolboys who are trashing our country, leaving millions needing food banks in one of the richest countries on earth. And sometimes we need to banter and bond.

    I am sick and tired of having to be fucking polite.

  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Those who are requesting that others should "not post certain words" want cunt not to be used on the boards ever. That request may be heard by those posting now, but how anyone not part of this discussion could be aware of any "request not to post certain words" without a ban that isn't going to happen is unclear.

    First, I'm not sure anybody ever specifically asked that any word not be used ever. (I may have missed such a request, if it was made.) Second, surely "enforceability" is a quality unrelated to "requests." Laws and rules issued by proper authority are enforceable; requests aren't. That's what makes them requests and not rules. If you're standing in a doorway I'd like to get through, I can ask that you step aside, and you can do so or you can refuse. What happens next probably depends on whose doorway it is and who, therefore, is entitled to make rules about it passing through it. Isn't that pretty much settled?




  • NicoleMR wrote: »
    Oh for crying out loud, the difference between a ban and a request not to use it is perfectly simple. If there's an official ban, which, again, NO ONE is asking for, then violators get in trouble, a hostly warning at the least. If there's simply a request not to use it, then people who do just get looked at askance, and no worse.

    How is what you're proposing different to what happens now?
  • jbohnjbohn Shipmate
    Tubbs wrote: »
    We're now so deep into mansplain territory, I fear there is no way back.

    Well, actually... ;-)

    Sorry.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    Ohher wrote: »
    Hell's bells on a raft in mid-ocean. ...

    1. Nobody is entitled to decide what is/isn't offensive for somebody else. ...

    4. Again, no ban is being imposed. Self-censorship (something most of us do quite unconsciously much of the time) is not a ban; it's adaptive behavior (as when we use different word choices when describing an event to the elderly pastor's wife than when we describe the same event to our best mate).
    Thank you, @Ohher.

    Once again, I very much regret starting all this over that particular example from that particular Shipmate.

    To avoid otherwise repeating myself, I will simply note that I do not use any of the words cited here as offensive, and it's not just because I prefer the stiletto of sarcasm to the blunt force of (what is sometimes called) obscenity.

  • @Ohher the quotes below are all saying, in various forms, that either cunt should be censored, that people should refrain from using it and it should be avoided. That's just from this thread, not including the Styx thread.
    mousethief wrote: »
    If some people react negatively to a word, then the courteous thing to do is use some different word, and if one must use the word (say as in a direct quotation of somebody else's speech), it is courteous to censor it.

    NicoleMR wrote: »
    It's one word. You're only being asked to refrain from one word that hurts and upsets a goodly number of your fellow shipmates. Why is this the hill you choose to fight on?
    NicoleMR wrote: »
    Well it's the same thing with the "c" word. It is VERY offensive to some people. A lot of whom are on the ship. It is impolite at the very least to us to continue to use it, even if it doesn't mean very much to you.
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    What people have asked is that posters bear in mind how others may read their words, to avoid words that they know may cause serious offense if possible, and if not possible or workable in a particular context to avoid using the word, to exercise some care in how it is used, such as by making very clear that it is a quote, by some replacement convention or at least by a warning of a possibly offensive (or triggering) word to follow. That’s not a ban. That’s just asking for some basic courtesy.

    I’m really baffled that this is seen as anything else.

    NicoleMR wrote: »
    What is so hard about the basic courtesy of not using a word that for a good number of your fellow shipmates is insulting, derogatory, and just awful? Why is that difficult?
    NicoleMR wrote: »
    SO WHY THE FUCK CAN'T YOU NOT USE C**T??????
    mousethief wrote: »
    Some women: Please don't use this word, we find it offensive.
    mousethief wrote: »
    the really quite polite requests that we refrain from using it -
    <snip>
    So a request to refrain from it is a different beast from general distaste for coarse language.

    which brings us back to:
    This is not a debate as to whether words are offensive or not, but whether a ban or voluntary restraint from posting a word that is very commonly used as a swearword in the UK and has been part of board culture for some years is achievable. Those who are requesting that others should "not post certain words" want cunt not to be used on the boards ever. That request may be heard by those posting now, but how anyone not part of this discussion could be aware of any "request not to post certain words" without a ban that isn't going to happen is unclear.

    This whole argument started from one posting on a Hell thread, not addressed at anyone, in a verbatim report, marked by quotation marks. If that usage is not allowed, then when can the word be used? Because if that is beyond the pale, then it looks like never.
  • PatdysPatdys Shipmate
    I rather like the 'stiletto of sarcasm'.

    Hmm?
    The combat boot of obscenity...

    Personally I like the flipflop of flippancy.
    And the slipper of sloth.

    YFMV*

    *Your footwear may vary.
  • Anyone would think that this language is something to be proud of.

    Sometimes it is. Sometimes we need to rage against the oh so polite callous public schoolboys who are trashing our country, leaving millions needing food banks in one of the richest countries on earth. And sometimes we need to banter and bond.

    I am sick and tired of having to be fucking polite.
    It is possible to be VERY impolite without swearing. Mind you who defines what "politeness" is or should be?
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    @Curiosity killed, do you truly not see any difference between obeying a rule handed down by an authority (i.e. Ship's Admin stating that XYZ is no longer permitted aboard this Ship) and deciding for yourself that, because XYZ upsets someone you care about, you won't engage in XYZ in situations involving that individual? Especially since you also retain the freedom to decide otherwise? And you can make this decision over and over, and decide differently each time on a case-by-case basis?
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Ohher wrote: »
    @Curiosity killed, do you truly not see any difference between obeying a rule handed down by an authority (i.e. Ship's Admin stating that XYZ is no longer permitted aboard this Ship) and deciding for yourself that, because XYZ upsets someone you care about, you won't engage in XYZ in situations involving that individual? Especially since you also retain the freedom to decide otherwise? And you can make this decision over and over, and decide differently each time on a case-by-case basis?

    Except we've been told, as Curiosity's quotes show, that we must never decide differently.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    This whole argument started from one posting on a Hell thread, not addressed at anyone, in a verbatim report, marked by quotation marks. ...
    ...for which I have repeatedly said I was wrong.


  • Rossweisse wrote: »
    Ohher wrote: »
    Hell's bells on a raft in mid-ocean. ...

    1. Nobody is entitled to decide what is/isn't offensive for somebody else. ...

    4. Again, no ban is being imposed. Self-censorship (something most of us do quite unconsciously much of the time) is not a ban; it's adaptive behavior (as when we use different word choices when describing an event to the elderly pastor's wife than when we describe the same event to our best mate).
    Thank you, @Ohher.

    Once again, I very much regret starting all this over that particular example from that particular Shipmate.

    To avoid otherwise repeating myself, I will simply note that I do not use any of the words cited here as offensive, and it's not just because I prefer the stiletto of sarcasm to the blunt force of (what is sometimes called) obscenity.

    You won't like this, but I rather like the stiletto irony of the ancient joke about the bloke who sees his friend reading a book called, 'Quick-Fire Repartee.'
    'What's that about then?'
    'It's about how to use verbal wit and sarcasm to get the better of anyone who is hassling you.'
    'Does it work?'
    'It worked for my brother.'
    'In what way?'
    'Well, he went to the circus and while he was watching the show, the clown came up to him and said, "Sir, have you ever been the front end of a Pantomime Horse?" "No," my brother says. "Then have you ever been the back-end of a Pantomime Horse?" "No I haven't," says my brother. "Well, sir, in that case, you've been no end of an ass."'
    'So what did your brother say?'
    '"Fuck off you red-nosed cunt.'"

    I also quite liked the spoof book list in an issue of one of the rivals to the highly scatological Viz magazine which included, 'Adolf Hitler, What a Cunt: The Definitive Biography.'

    The humour in both cases lies in the hyperbole.

    I confess to finding both jokes funny. What that says about me I'll leave others to decide.

    I find the jokes funny because they are deliberately over the top. I don't like the c-word and don't go round using it unless I'm quoting or on those few occasions when I was angry and depressed and had too much to drink. I'm not proud of that.
This discussion has been closed.