Unacceptable User names:

Is there, / should there be if there isn't, / a list of unacceptable user, (nick) names that shipmates would be refused if they submitted them when coming aboard?

If there isn't, I feel there definitely should be. I hope that sets the tone for what I am about to write.

I am wanting to explore the tension between the freedom to call oneself whatever one likes, and the obligation to others to avoid offense on what is, after all a public forum.

Individual freedom vs public responsibility in an environment of political correctness. i.e sensitivity to the feelings of others.

I can understand the necessary restrictions that may be legitimately, even legally, imposed upon the individual in what is effectively a journalistic environment. But should this be logically extended to every possible circumstance in general where a nick name might be affectionately used between friends well known to one another?

'Social Progressives', however Russ and others may struggle to define the term, have the reputation of being very much against the use of any nick name that they have listed as offensive to somebody/anybody. They have a list.

I spent some years of my early life in the Royal Navy and nick names were prolific. Generally if you had a nick name, (even comparatively insulting ones like 'Tubby' or 'Whitey', if your name was Chalk, or 'Chalkie' if your name was White and many even worse), were an indication of social acceptance, not rejection. It indicated that you were generally 'liked' and regarded as an ok shipmate. One of my classmates, an Australian of dark complexion, was affectionately known by his rugby playing New Zealand classmates as 'Abbo'.

My nicknames in different ships were, 'Fred', 'Tiger' and 'Ramblin'. Inoffensive you might think but 'Fred' was just a corruption of my real surname. Tiger was because 'sleeping tigers should be allowed to lie or lay' referring to my ability to sleep anywhere and at any time of day whenever the opportunity presented itself. (Probably a mild sleep apnea, which has got worse over the years) and 'Ramblin' because as a fairly accomplished folk guitarist and singer I was compared to a radio comedy character from 'Round the Horn', called 'Ramblin' Sid Rumpold', a hilarious caricature of a rather stupid and droneingly boring folk singer.

I could have been brittlely (not a spelling mistake), offended by any one of these nick names, but was sensible enough to realize that though mildly derogative, they actually expressed the fact that I had been accepted by the tribe and my new 'label' was my badge of acceptance, not an insult.

So should I stop calling 'Lofty' by his well known nick name and start using only the name on his birth certificate, risking hearing the question from my dear friend, when met with "Hello Colin", when by chance we might meet. "What's the matter with you then, where's Lofty gone, what's up with you then mate"?

And what if a friend has willingly accepted This nick name and has no problem at all with it, as many well integrated service personnel have over the years. Is he no longer allowed to accept it? Does he now have to suddenly be offended by it, when endearingly used by his friends?

Is not the 'Kingdom of God' a more tolerant and less legalistic place than this?
___________________________________
In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. 2 Cor. 5:19. Love covers a multitude of sins. 1 Pet. 4:8.
«134567

Comments

  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Dead Horses Host
    RdrEmCofE

    I think this is a Styx topic so I'm going to ask Admin to confirm and if so move the discussion

    Barnabas62
    Purgatory Host
  • EutychusEutychus Purgatory Host
    edited July 10
    RdrEmCofE wrote: »
    Is not the 'Kingdom of God' a more tolerant and less legalistic place than this?
    Given the choice between the recipient of a nickname being obliged to tolerate the one chosen by others for them, and opting to allow the intended recipient to be called by the name they prefer to be called by rather than the one others insist on imposing on them, I think that without question the second one is the most like the Kingdom of God.
  • Alan Cresswell Alan Cresswell Administrator
    Just to quickly state Ship policy (please, if there are any questions about this start a Styx thread) as the OP also raises interesting questions about general social attitudes to nick names that would be best placed here in Purgatory.

    We have a small list of names that will be automatically blocked (names used by Shipmates who have passed onto glory). We also vet all registrations and people registering with clearly offensive names will be asked to select a different name. A racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic etc name will contravene Commandment 1 (don't be a jerk) on every post that is made. Longer serving Shipmates will probably remember some instances when it was possible for users to change their names when we instructed people to change them again after picking an offensive name.

    Alan
    Ship of Fools Admin
  • RdrEmCofERdrEmCofE Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    RdrEmCofE wrote: »
    Is not the 'Kingdom of God' a more tolerant and less legalistic place than this?
    Given the choice between the recipient of a nickname being obliged to tolerate the one chosen by others for them, and opting to allow the intended recipient to be called by the name they prefer to be called by rather than the one others insist on imposing on them, I think that without question the second one is the most like the Kingdom of God.

    A person who wants to choose his own nick name would be regarded by his shipmates as astonishingly vain and rather arrogant. He would probably never be given a nick name. A worse state of affairs for them than patiently suffering the slight indignity of accepting the opinion of his fellow shipmates on what they think characterises him most aptly.

    Your theoretical nick name selecting individual would probably not even get a derogatory nick name, since that implies acceptance rather than toleration.
  • finelinefineline Shipmate
    @RdrEmCofE - are you talking specifically about rules regarding what names people can actively choose for themselves on this site? There are names that are not allowed - someone posted recently that names like ‘Hitler was right’ are not allowed, because the person is likely to be a troll. I’m not a host or admin, but a host or admin could probably give more detail.

    Or are you wanting to discuss more broadly the implications of certain words becoming offensive over time and how that impacts somone who has been called a certain word all their life, so it has become part of their identity? This is an issue. Working with disabled people, I have seen how the terminology has changed over the years, and we do acknowledge that for someone who has been called handicapped all their life, and accepted that term without question, to suddenly be told that the word handicapped is offensive can be difficult and confusing. But equally many younger people (and indeed older people) don’t like the word, do not want it applied to them, and prefer ‘disabled.’ So the rule of thumb is, while the terminology has changed for general usage, the individual has a right to decide what word is used for themselves. Is is the individual who gets to choose.

    I imagine it’s harder to make that call in a forum setting, because someone who creates an account calling themselves the n-word, for instance, may well be a troll and trying to cause a shock reaction. So I would imsgine perhaps the admin would err on the side of caution, because it’s very different from a face-to-face setting of someone explaining to you that this is the name they like to be called.
  • RdrEmCofERdrEmCofE Shipmate
    Just to quickly state Ship policy (please, if there are any questions about this start a Styx thread) as the OP also raises interesting questions about general social attitudes to nick names that would be best placed here in Purgatory.

    We have a small list of names that will be automatically blocked (names used by Shipmates who have passed onto glory). We also vet all registrations and people registering with clearly offensive names will be asked to select a different name. A racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic etc name will contravene Commandment 1 (don't be a jerk) on every post that is made. Longer serving Shipmates will probably remember some instances when it was possible for users to change their names when we instructed people to change them again after picking an offensive name.

    Alan
    Ship of Fools Admin

    I had no doubt whatever that what you say is the establish policy, and quite rightly so, for both moral and legal reasons. SofF is legally liable for everything which appears on its website and would be foolish indeed if it did not effectively police its output.
  • EutychusEutychus Purgatory Host
    We are not talking about Ship policy here.

    The question I took up was about what is most like the Kingdom of God.

    Which for me starts with respect for others.

    I said nothing about people choosing their own nickname, I said in the perspective of respect for others, people should be allowed to be called by the name they prefer.

    The view that being constantly called by a nickname is a "slight indignity" is very much in the eye of the beholder.

    Do you really think the Kingdom of God is about accepting the opinion of everyone else on what they think characterises you most aptly?
  • RdrEmCofERdrEmCofE Shipmate
    edited July 10
    Eutychus wrote: »
    We are not talking about Ship policy here.

    The question I took up was about what is most like the Kingdom of God.

    Which for me starts with respect for others.

    I said nothing about people choosing their own nickname, I said in the perspective of respect for others, people should be allowed to be called by the name they prefer.

    The view that being constantly called by a nickname is a "slight indignity" is very much in the eye of the beholder.

    Do you really think the Kingdom of God is about accepting the opinion of everyone else on what they think characterises you most aptly?

    I am not talking about ship policy here either. I am talking about the camaraderie that exists within a closely knit team of real shipmates, used to trusting their very lives to each other, when 'fighting the ship'.

    No I think Jesus didn't ask Peter if he wanted to be called 'Rock'. Peter just had to put up with it. Just as the 'Sons of Thunder' did. Tough! Eh!
  • mr cheesymr cheesy Shipmate
    I don't think it is ever acceptable to call someone by their colour. Whatever might have happened in the military years ago, it is very hard to imagine that this continues in the British military - never mind anywhere else - now.

    Times have changed.
  • At the moment I'm collecting a lot of nicknames because I cannot go outside without a very obvious SPF 50+ sunblock which is white and opaque. No, I'm not enjoying any of it because I'm fed up enough that I'm so limited going outside in the first place, without attracting a whole load of name calling based on this too. The name calling is just adding insult to injury. And no, I do not feel that I should accept these names as a way of being accepted.

    Lots of people choose the name they are going to be called - deed polls, telling everyone that their name is their preferred name. My mother is mostly known by a nickname given at childhood; her mother hated her real baptismal name and used another name all her life. Lots of people choose to be known by their second name rather than their first name. Many others very rapidly lose their family or school nicknames when they move away from home - lots of memes about that one in films and books, when the nickname or the name they are formally named becomes known. People often hate the names they are given.
  • EutychusEutychus Purgatory Host
    edited July 10
    RdrEmCofE wrote: »
    No I think Jesus didn't ask Peter if he wanted to be called 'Rock'. Peter just had to put up with it. Just as the 'Sons of Thunder' did. Tough! Eh!
    You have no idea how Peter took it, though, and I notice that when things got serious, that's not how Jesus referred to him, either.

    You cannot extrapolate from cameraderie in certain specific contexts with certain specific people to assert that in no circumstances can a nickname be demeaning for the bearer.

    (The only way of knowing if they don't speak up is, as has been pointed out to you at least three times in Hell, to ask the person in such a way that their answer is not given under duress).

    You admit yourself that it can at the very least be a "slight indignity". Where does imposing indignity fit into the Kingdom of God in your book?
  • mr cheesymr cheesy Shipmate
    edited July 10
    The whole "is it acceptable for anyone to tell me whether I should refer to other people by racial nicknames" discussion seems pretty daft.

    How, really, are we supposed to discuss it?
  • RdrEmCofERdrEmCofE Shipmate
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    I don't think it is ever acceptable to call someone by their colour. Whatever might have happened in the military years ago, it is very hard to imagine that this continues in the British military - never mind anywhere else - now.

    Times have changed.

    Well, yes. I can appreciate that, and don't just see it as being irrelevant. But nick names are not intended to preen people's pride in themselves. Peter was not called 'Rock' because he was dependable, and James the son of Zebedee and John the brother of James did not get their nick names because they were so placidly patient. Mk.3:17.

    They none of them asked to be called that and if they objected they just had to put up with it. That was the price of being part of the select group of Jesus' special people. Not being vain and brittle over how we are regarded by others members of the team.

  • finelinefineline Shipmate
    It’s true there are situations where people are assigned nicknames. As a kid, I was once as in a school where everyone in my class was assigned a nickname by the other kids. It was a friendly thing, and if a person didn’t like the nickname, they could say. There was usually a friendly discussion about it. It wasn’t a rigid ‘You get this name whether you like it or not!’ But then, it was a friendly class.

    Obviously not all situations are as friendly, and I’ve been in situations where I’ve been given nicknames I didn’t like, and people haven’t cared that I didn’t like them because they thought it was fun to make fun of me.

    And then the in-between types of nickname, where someone thinks they are teasing you in a friendly way, but you don’t like it - but if you say so, they just laugh and tell you not to be a spoilsport, that they are being affectionate, that they tease other people and those people don’t mind, etc. Those situations ar perhaps the hardest - because these people are your friends, you don’t want to lose their friendship, and people can be quite resistant to being told that what they intend as friendly is not being received that way. They can see it as an attack on their character. Such conversations can be difficult.

    As for online forums, well they are a bit different, as in you choose your own user name, and that itself is a nickname - usually not your real name. People may shorten it or call you something familiar, but in my experience (not just here) if someone doesn’t like their name being altered this way, they can say. Same as in real life when a Jennifer, for instance, will say she hates Jenny and won’t answer to it. It’s a two-way conversation usually, if it’s being done in a genuinely friendly way.
  • EutychusEutychus Purgatory Host
    edited July 10
    RdrEmCofE wrote: »
    They none of them asked to be called that and if they objected they just had to put up with it. That was the price of being part of the select group of Jesus' special people. Not being vain and brittle over how we are regarded by others members of the team.
    We might conceivably allow Jesus who is after all the Word of God to name as he sees fit, but I don't think that translates into a contemporary management policy whereby all team members must be given a nickname by the boss so as to feel special. The only times anything like that has happened to me, I can assure you it was to be "lorded over".

    But then again perhaps that's what you think the Kingdom of God is about?
  • finelinefineline Shipmate
    Hmm... maybe it’s just me, but I’d see receiving a new name from Jesus, who loves me, died for me, and has my best interests at heart, as quite different from receiving a nickname from peers who may have a variety of motives, often their own amusement. My relationship to Jesus is a bit different!
  • finelinefineline Shipmate
    I also believe Jesus knows us deeply and fully - which no human can, not even ourselves. Humans often make wrong assumptions about what we are thinking and feeling, or what our motives are. Jesus doesn’t.
  • RdrEmCofERdrEmCofE Shipmate
    edited July 10
    Eutychus wrote: »
    RdrEmCofE wrote: »
    No I think Jesus didn't ask Peter if he wanted to be called 'Rock'. Peter just had to put up with it. Just as the 'Sons of Thunder' did. Tough! Eh!
    You have no idea how Peter took it, though, and I notice that when things got serious, that's not how Jesus referred to him, either.

    You cannot extrapolate from cameraderie in certain specific contexts with certain specific people to assert that in no circumstances can a nickname be demeaning for the bearer.

    (The only way of knowing if they don't speak up is, as has been pointed out to you at least three times in Hell, to ask the person in such a way that their answer is not given under duress).

    You admit yourself that it can at the very least be a "slight indignity". Where does imposing indignity fit into the Kingdom of God in your book?

    I think you are arguing for arguing's sake now.

    I am not 'arguing that in no circumstances can a nickname be demeaning for the bearer'. I am saying it quite possibly can, to start off with. And some nick names are quite cruel and inappropriate and should not be applied to others.

    Jesus probably got a big laugh though, from the rest of the tightly knit group when he named the Zebedee brothers 'Sons of Thunder'. They probably felt that he was taking the piss, and he probably was, but he loved them both nonetheless and wanted to gently introduce them to how others might see them. I have no doubt though, because it is an event recorded for us in scripture, that it was never forgotten by either of them, or any of the other disciples.

    Had Jesus taken them both to one side and whispered in their ear, "I hope it's OK if I call you both 'Sons of Thunder', if you don't mind too much that is. I'll leave it it to you though if you don't like it".

    Can you imagine that? WE certainly would have known nothing about it, no one would have heard, and therefore no one would have remembered, and therefore no one would have recorded it for us all to read about.
  • LeRocLeRoc Shipmate
    Jesus will give us a new name? The name my parents have given me will do perfectly well, thankyouverymuch.
  • RdrEmCofERdrEmCofE Shipmate
    fineline wrote: »
    I also believe Jesus knows us deeply and fully - which no human can, not even ourselves. Humans often make wrong assumptions about what we are thinking and feeling, or what our motives are. Jesus doesn’t.

    True. But he sill gives nick names without asking us if we think they are suitable.
  • EutychusEutychus Purgatory Host
    edited July 10
    @RdrEmCofE: frankly, I think you're trying to set a precedent for you to be entitled to call anybody anything you like without having to worry about checking whether they find it offensive or not, and somehow say that doing this is a manifestation of the Kingdom of God - you brought that up, not me. And on that point I call bullshit.
  • finelinefineline Shipmate
    It’s all speculation really. I personally don’t imagine Jesus announcing ‘I hereby name you Sons of Thunder!’ and everyone roaring with laughter while James and John squirmed with embarrassment. That doesn’t fit with what I see of Jesus’ behaviour in the gospels. I imagine it might have started as an analogy, maybe in private conversation with them, as they and Peter were Jesus’ closest friends, and sometimes went with him when others didn’t. I don’t even see it as derogatory. Thunder is powerful. I suspect it may have been part of a discussion about how power can be used wisely and unwisely.
  • finelinefineline Shipmate
    RdrEmCofE wrote: »
    fineline wrote: »
    I also believe Jesus knows us deeply and fully - which no human can, not even ourselves. Humans often make wrong assumptions about what we are thinking and feeling, or what our motives are. Jesus doesn’t.

    True. But he sill gives nick names without asking us if we think they are suitable.

    Yes. That is my point. He can. He knows me. If he is naming me, it is with deep understanding of me, and it is for good. But then I don’t believe Jesus names people to take the piss.

  • mr cheesymr cheesy Shipmate
    RdrEmCofE wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    I don't think it is ever acceptable to call someone by their colour. Whatever might have happened in the military years ago, it is very hard to imagine that this continues in the British military - never mind anywhere else - now.

    Times have changed.

    Well, yes. I can appreciate that, and don't just see it as being irrelevant. But nick names are not intended to preen people's pride in themselves. Peter was not called 'Rock' because he was dependable, and James the son of Zebedee and John the brother of James did not get their nick names because they were so placidly patient. Mk.3:17.

    They none of them asked to be called that and if they objected they just had to put up with it. That was the price of being part of the select group of Jesus' special people. Not being vain and brittle over how we are regarded by others members of the team.

    Peter is a bit different. But I can't see that this is a negative nickname.

    The Sons of Zebedee is less complimentary, but I don't know that Jesus used that name, do we?

    Either way, this is a pretty weak way to justify one's own behaviour.

  • finelinefineline Shipmate
    It does say in the Gospel of Mark that Jesus called James and John Boarnerges, which means sons of Thunder.
  • FirenzeFirenze Heaven Host
    I daresay the Royal Navy is a hotbed of affectionate camaraderie, but there are places where nicknames are meant to deride or exclude. I take it we’re all been to school? (And not just inter-pupil: I expect you can all gauge the popularity of the teachers known repectively as Miss Onion and Buzz Fuzz Schickelgrüber).

    Naming is a powerful tool. It defines, it fixes, it often affects how the person is viewed, even their life chances. Imposing your view of what someone should answer to is not to be done lightly.
  • RdrEmCofERdrEmCofE Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    @RdrEmCofE: frankly, I think you're trying to set a precedent for you to be entitled to call anybody anything you like without having to worry about checking whether they find it offensive or not, and somehow say that doing this is a manifestation of the Kingdom of God - you brought that up, not me. And on that point I call bullshit.

    What you think is what you think, not what is. Take some responsibility for your opinions and don't offend me by suggesting that I "want to be entitled to call anybody anything I like without having to worry about checking whether they find it offensive or not, and somehow say that doing this is a manifestation of the Kingdom of God".

    I have been offended by what you have just suggested. How about an apology?
  • LeRocLeRoc Shipmate
    I've worked with street children in Brazil, and the nick names they use among each other are often derogatory. I've insisted on using their real names in the activities.
  • @OP. A 50 year old story for you.

    You may be right, you may be wrong about camaraderie and nicknames. I told a teacher in my boarding school that he was a "fast fucking walrus could eat shit" in front of the class when he used an insulting nickname I sort of accepted from peers. It was in the days of physical punishment so I held my knees and called out "walrus" alternatively with "fucking" as he swatted my buttocks in front of the class. The head master was more sympathetic.
  • RdrEmCofERdrEmCofE Shipmate
    fineline wrote: »
    It’s all speculation really. I personally don’t imagine Jesus announcing ‘I hereby name you Sons of Thunder!’ and everyone roaring with laughter while James and John squirmed with embarrassment. That doesn’t fit with what I see of Jesus’ behaviour in the gospels. I imagine it might have started as an analogy, maybe in private conversation with them, as they and Peter were Jesus’ closest friends, and sometimes went with him when others didn’t. I don’t even see it as derogatory. Thunder is powerful. I suspect it may have been part of a discussion about how power can be used wisely and unwisely.

    You can see it that way if you wish. I don't. Which of us is right? I don't know I wasn't there.

    What I do know is how to live in a closely knit community where one's very life depends upon trusting and liking one's companions. My life might have depended entirely on Abbos actions in an emergency. A band of brothers where over-sensitivey to any perceived attack upon one's vain image of their own perfect personality and attributes will be rightly seen by one's comrades as 'getting seriously up oneself'.
  • RdrEmCofERdrEmCofE Shipmate
    Firenze wrote: »
    I daresay the Royal Navy is a hotbed of affectionate camaraderie, but there are places where nicknames are meant to deride or exclude. I take it we’re all been to school? (And not just inter-pupil: I expect you can all gauge the popularity of the teachers known repectively as Miss Onion and Buzz Fuzz Schickelgrüber).

    Naming is a powerful tool. It defines, it fixes, it often affects how the person is viewed, even their life chances. Imposing your view of what someone should answer to is not to be done lightly.

    So all nicknaming must stop, just in case some dick-head lacks the common sense not to be deliberately insulting? Is that it?
  • RdrEmCofERdrEmCofE Shipmate
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    RdrEmCofE wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    I don't think it is ever acceptable to call someone by their colour. Whatever might have happened in the military years ago, it is very hard to imagine that this continues in the British military - never mind anywhere else - now.

    Times have changed.

    Well, yes. I can appreciate that, and don't just see it as being irrelevant. But nick names are not intended to preen people's pride in themselves. Peter was not called 'Rock' because he was dependable, and James the son of Zebedee and John the brother of James did not get their nick names because they were so placidly patient. Mk.3:17.

    They none of them asked to be called that and if they objected they just had to put up with it. That was the price of being part of the select group of Jesus' special people. Not being vain and brittle over how we are regarded by others members of the team.

    Peter is a bit different. But I can't see that this is a negative nickname.

    The Sons of Zebedee is less complimentary, but I don't know that Jesus used that name, do we?

    Either way, this is a pretty weak way to justify one's own behaviour.

    It is you who is seeing to imply that I am justifying my own 'behaviour', what ever you might be surreptitiously accusing me of. I'm offended.

    I would like an apology from you too.
  • RdrEmCofERdrEmCofE Shipmate
    fineline wrote: »
    RdrEmCofE wrote: »
    fineline wrote: »
    I also believe Jesus knows us deeply and fully - which no human can, not even ourselves. Humans often make wrong assumptions about what we are thinking and feeling, or what our motives are. Jesus doesn’t.

    True. But he sill gives nick names without asking us if we think they are suitable.

    Yes. That is my point. He can. He knows me. If he is naming me, it is with deep understanding of me, and it is for good. But then I don’t believe Jesus names people to take the piss.

    So you think 'Sons of Thunder' was a compliment!

    It was a joke! or do you have such a buttoned up, prim and proper, goody, goody, Jesus in your head that you are unable to contemplate such a thing as a joking Jesus?
  • RdrEmCofERdrEmCofE Shipmate
    edited July 10
    Russ! Come and give me a hand here will you. I seem to have a dogpile coming down on me. :smiley:
  • EutychusEutychus Purgatory Host
    RdrEmCofE wrote: »
    I have been offended by what you have just suggested. How about an apology?
    I apologise for questioning your motvies.

    Please explain how your OP promotes Kingdom of God values in view of my challenges.

  • finelinefineline Shipmate
    RdrEmCofE wrote: »
    fineline wrote: »
    It’s all speculation really. I personally don’t imagine Jesus announcing ‘I hereby name you Sons of Thunder!’ and everyone roaring with laughter while James and John squirmed with embarrassment. That doesn’t fit with what I see of Jesus’ behaviour in the gospels. I imagine it might have started as an analogy, maybe in private conversation with them, as they and Peter were Jesus’ closest friends, and sometimes went with him when others didn’t. I don’t even see it as derogatory. Thunder is powerful. I suspect it may have been part of a discussion about how power can be used wisely and unwisely.

    You can see it that way if you wish. I don't. Which of us is right? I don't know I wasn't there.

    That is what I meant when I said it is all speculation. We can’t use speculation of behind the scenes stuff in the Bible to prove a point.

    RdrEmCofE wrote: »
    What I do know is how to live in a closely knit community where one's very life depends upon trusting and liking one's companions. My life might have depended entirely on Abbos actions in an emergency. A band of brothers where over-sensitivey to any perceived attack upon one's vain image of their own perfect personality and attributes will be rightly seen by one's comrades as 'getting seriously up oneself'.

    I believe this very point was made previously, elsewhere on the Ship - that if one person in this tightknit community is in a minority group, and is given a nickname that draws attention to them as different, in a way that they find derogatory, they are simply not in a position to protest. Whether that is a good or a bad thing seems to be the point at which we differ.

    I don’t see objection to being referred to by, say, skin colour or disability, as being about a vain image of one’s own perfect personality. The kind of nickname where offence might be about one’s personality would be something like ‘Wimp’ or ‘Bigot.’ Though I could equally see genuine reasons why a person wouldn’t want their nickname to be Bigot in a closeknit group of people they wanted to get on with and had to rely on for their life. But yes, as you say, in that situation, they have no choice but to accept it.
  • EutychusEutychus Purgatory Host
    RdrEmCofE wrote: »
    So all nicknaming must stop, just in case some dick-head lacks the common sense not to be deliberately insulting? Is that it?
    A concern that you appear to have missed, repeatedly, is that lack of intent does not mean a nickname is not insulting.
  • RdrEmCofERdrEmCofE Shipmate
    @OP. A 50 year old story for you.

    You may be right, you may be wrong about camaraderie and nicknames. I told a teacher in my boarding school that he was a "fast fucking walrus could eat shit" in front of the class when he used an insulting nickname I sort of accepted from peers. It was in the days of physical punishment so I held my knees and called out "walrus" alternatively with "fucking" as he swatted my buttocks in front of the class. The head master was more sympathetic.

    I'm sorry to hear you suffered such inexcusable abuse from such abominably behaved and authority abusing pariahs.

    You did not experience camaraderie, you were abused.
  • EutychusEutychus Purgatory Host
    RdrEmCofE wrote: »
    What I do know is how to live in a closely knit community where one's very life depends upon trusting and liking one's companions. My life might have depended entirely on Abbos actions in an emergency.
    Has it ever occurred to you that your companions might have found it even easier to trust and like you had you not adopted potentially derogatory nicknames for them?

  • jbohnjbohn Shipmate
    RdrEmCofE wrote: »
    Russ! Come and give me a hand here will you. I seem to have a dogpile coming down on me. :smiley:

    <gets out popcorn>
  • EutychusEutychus Purgatory Host
    RdrEmCofE wrote: »
    You did not experience camaraderie, you were abused.
    Camaraderie does not require the use of nicknames; nicknames can aid and abet abuse.
  • RdrEmCofERdrEmCofE Shipmate
    LeRoc wrote: »
    I've worked with street children in Brazil, and the nick names they use among each other are often derogatory. I've insisted on using their real names in the activities.

    Quite right too. You are not part of their 'team'. You have no right to use their nick names for each other. Only team members have that right.
  • EutychusEutychus Purgatory Host
    RdrEmCofE wrote: »
    Only team members have that right.
    Which team members have which right, exactly? You have the right to call anybody anything you like provided you personally don't think it's derogatory? They have the right to call you anything you like on the same terms, and this can never constitute abuse? How does this work exactly, and how does it uphold Kingdom of God values?

  • RdrEmCofERdrEmCofE Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    RdrEmCofE wrote: »
    What I do know is how to live in a closely knit community where one's very life depends upon trusting and liking one's companions. My life might have depended entirely on Abbos actions in an emergency.
    Has it ever occurred to you that your companions might have found it even easier to trust and like you had you not adopted potentially derogatory nicknames for them?

    Has it occurred to you that you have not yet offered me an apology yet for offending me?
  • Soror MagnaSoror Magna Shipmate
    RdrEmCofE wrote: »
    fineline wrote: »
    I also believe Jesus knows us deeply and fully - which no human can, not even ourselves. Humans often make wrong assumptions about what we are thinking and feeling, or what our motives are. Jesus doesn’t.

    True. But he sill gives nick names without asking us if we think they are suitable.


    So if Jesus gets away with it, then we can too. Is that really an argument you want to make? Here?
  • EutychusEutychus Purgatory Host
    edited July 10
    RdrEmCofE wrote: »
    Has it occurred to you that you have not yet offered me an apology yet for offending me?
    No, because I already have.

  • RdrEmCofERdrEmCofE Shipmate
    RdrEmCofE wrote: »
    fineline wrote: »
    I also believe Jesus knows us deeply and fully - which no human can, not even ourselves. Humans often make wrong assumptions about what we are thinking and feeling, or what our motives are. Jesus doesn’t.

    True. But he sill gives nick names without asking us if we think they are suitable.


    So if Jesus gets away with it, then we can too. Is that really an argument you want to make? Here?

    No. Are you trying to imply that I am. If so, an apology from you too would be in order.
  • Soror MagnaSoror Magna Shipmate
    And now I'm thinking of going into the office this morning and yelling, "Good morning, cunts!" What's the big deal? My coworkers have cunts.
  • LeRocLeRoc Shipmate
    RdrEmCofE wrote: »
    Quite right too. You are not part of their 'team'. You have no right to use their nick names for each other. Only team members have that right.
    No, you don't understand how this relationship works.
  • RdrEmCofERdrEmCofE Shipmate
    LeRoc wrote: »
    RdrEmCofE wrote: »
    Quite right too. You are not part of their 'team'. You have no right to use their nick names for each other. Only team members have that right.
    No, you don't understand how this relationship works.

    Oh! but I do. It goes like: "you are what I say you are or accuse you of". So I disagree with what I think you are saying and therefore I am so much more liberal than you".
This discussion has been closed.