What's in a user name?

Remove all ads!

My name on some other forums is 'satanstesticles.' Is that offensive?

 

I always knew you were a nutsack....

That doesn't offend me, but I can see how it *could* offend the overly religious types.

 

Although I'm French I've never liked Voltaire and I've always thought there was too much of a poser in him. I do have a deep respect for the ideals of the revolution however I don't think ideals work (hence the reason why we disagree). I remember not long ago after 911 when 150 songs (including Lennon's Imagine) were banned from the air. Of course that had nothing to do with the First Amendment.

Exactly. I don't see why society should be any different. We live in an organized society within a set of rules that are meant to enforce some lawfulness and protect the interests of citizens. "Complete" freedom of speech is at best unpractical and at worst probably detrimental (something along the lines of what Barmy posted above).

I'm not offended either but you have to consider the fact that you'd be classified as a "nutsack" by many (that's a good one Kitrax).

 

May I ask why you choose that name?

On another note, I choose "Blades of Vanatar", as it was the name of an NPC in the long going Forgotten Realms campaign I used to DM with my childhood freinds. It lasted for about 15 years. "Blades" was the mover and shaker behind the scenes of the entire campaign, a "Regular" if you will. My favorite character and the PCs go to guy.

For me, nobody here at SP will probably ever get to meet me in person and I joined this site for the gaming ideas, originally anyway. By I do like the other topics discussed on the boards and occasionally jump in with my two cents. But I feel it would of been stupid of me to choose a handle that could be controversial. Why? Well, for me this site is for gaming info 1st and foremost. Why would I want to piss anyone off? Or insult them? I rather be a part of a fun group and have some laughs while discussing serious topics. Nothing from these boards will ever amount to much other than the babble that it is outside of the forums, so why try to be controversial? If you want freedom of speech, why do it here or in any other gaming community? If you want to go crusade against some religion or topic that you disagree with on that type of site, go for it, standout and choose a username that inflames others. But I will never understand why those who do choose to do so. There is way too much in life to do and experience, so why waste it by intentionally trying to insult others? Such a waste....

 

The problem is if you want to draw a line at what is an acceptable nickanme because of fear of offending someone, where exactly do you draw the line? There's almost no nickname that will be offensive to everyone, so does it have to offend 90% of people to be disallowed? 50%? Only 10%?

Here's an example for you: I had a friend a few years ago who's nick on a fantasy football message board was "Taking Snaps from Anna Kournikova". Some people might find that misogynistic - and thus offensive - whereas I found it hysterical.

 

The reason regular society shouldn't be as strict as these boards is simple: we choose to participate in these boards, and if we don't like the rules we can just leave. We can't do that in society. Mandatory laws must err on the side of caution, or they can quickly become abusive and offensive themselves.

 

I find many user names particularily offensive, but I can get over it. I wouldn't want someone censored for their name. However, that refers to the government doing censoring. Private groups are free to limit membership and fellowship based on any number of criteria. So if Tal decided to ban someone because of a name he decided was offensive, well, it's his site and his call, freedom of speech be buggered.

 

It's an exclamation I use when I am frustrated sometimes, particularly when playing online games. Not sure why; it just rolls off the tongue well I guess.

I use it for giant forums where most people don't really discuss anything serious, like movie forums and such.

Haha and I never thought about being considered a nutsack either...

Edit: Used the wrong vowel in a key word...

 

I have used "Cheese and Crackers" in the past, a "curse" word my father would use when us kids were present, otherwise he would yell "Oh, Jesus Christ!!". I always thought that comical of him....

 

Was 'nutsuck' a Freudian slip???

 

Hahaha, oops. I meant 'nutsack', in reference to Kitrax's earlier comment.

 

If you think words can't hurt then you must have been very lucky in life.

Respect should be a prized value and not something that is discarded because one feels entitled to do so in the name of freedom. One man's freedom should not hinder another man's freedom.

Deliberately insulting or hurting an individual or a whole community to make a statement is certainly disrespectful to say the least.

Avoiding to offend anyone can be trying and sometimes difficult (I don't think anyone will dispute that) and political correctness can sometimes be utterly silly but it doesn't prevent anyone from being articulate nor from expressing one's ideas.

Is freedom of speech not reconcilable with tolerance and respect?

These are valid questions. Hence my earlier comment on political correctness. Is "Taking Snaps from Anna Kournikova" comparable to "satanstesticles"? In one case you directly refer to an individual and in the other you coin an expletive (that being said most compounds based on [any religious name + testicles] would have been even more offensive). Of course you can change perspective and defend the point that "Taking Snaps from Anna Kournikova" can be seen as a homage. Intention matters, although her fans would probably find it offensive it can be construed as a testament to her attractiveness (I'm deliberately stretching that point here).

I don't know where most people would draw a line but I know that as far as I'm concerned that line tends to draw itself when Nazi Germany gets mentioned in such a manner that it can be construed as a praise of the values and ethos it represents.

 

No, no I really haven't. I know exactly how words can hurt, but it's a shadow of how actions hurt. There's an inherrant difference between the two.

Agreed, but it should also be a choice, not a mandate of law. Respect should be earned precicely because it should be valued.

And yet that seems to be exactly what you're advocating. You want someone's freedom to not be insulted (a stupid freedom if I've ever heard one) to hinder another's freedom to express his beliefs and opinions.

Actually, it can. Furthermore, mandating it as an issue of law is the first step to further restrictions of speech that definitely do prevent people from being articulare or expressing their ideas.

Tolerance and respect are individual choices. You cannot legislate them any more than you can legislate love or belief. Given that, it is best to legislate freedom of speech and then encourage tolerance and respect. Again, though, it is my firm belief that respect should be earned, not given out of hand.

You've disected the issue rather well, but I still don't see a conclusion? Do you object to the name? If so, why? Because someone has been offended? Because someone may be offended?

Why draw the line there? Why not object to anyone advocating communism, or condemning prostitution, or criticizing Green Peace?

Ultimately, trying to establish a freedom from hate, a freedom from offense, a freedom from insult is a useless and counterproductive action. Every attempt will only result in those same people choosing something else to hate, something else to offend, something else to insult. At the same time, it will vastly restrict the very reasonable freedom of speech, potentially restrict other freedoms (can I still preach that homosexuality is a sin?), and severely limit open discussions. Most importantly of all, who is to decide what should be limited and what shouldn't, because you're giving that person or persons a MASSIVE amount of power.

 

You have to EARN respect. It's not something you automatically get.

Freedom of speech trumps both any day of the week.

I saw the existence of the pedophilia political party in the Netherlands as good news. As disgusting as they are, it shows whatever society they're in truly respects freedom of speech.

 

Even if the "speech" is treasonous? That's some odd values you got there...

 

I agree with NOG. Any line drawn is arbitrary. And it's not illegal to say that you support/agree with/condone Nazism. It's not even illegal to say that you think Hitler was the best thing that ever happened to Germany. And then you risk the slippery slope that NOG outlines above.

How is saying that a nation that supports the existence of a pedophilia party in a freedom of speech context tantamount to condoning treasonous speech?

 

US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.: "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."

This is also a foundation in freedom of speech. Once your actions (or words) cause harm to another person, you have violated their rights and freedoms. I believe this is direct harm (slander) and does not extend to a person being offended by what another says. If there is no harm, there is no violation.

There are also requirements for 'treasonous speech' to be considered an actual criminal offense.

 

That's not what I was saying. They were 2 seperate statements. 1st being a question, the 2nd was my opinion of Taza's values on his statement on "I saw the existence of the pedophilia political party in the Netherlands as good news. As disgusting as they are, it shows whatever society they're in truly respects freedom of speech. " I find that very disturbing. I would never vote for litigation on allowing or supporting pedophilia in the nation that i preside in.

 

Advocating a peaceful change in the laws of a country is not treasonous. It may be disgusting, and you may be advocating a change in the law to recognize what is now considered an illegal act, but it's not treason.

Now, if you advocate the violent overthrow of the government or society, that IS treason and should be dealt with with swift and brutal force.