THUNDERDOME!!

[GandalfPC]

I love science, even when its over my head - perhaps especially when its over my head…

[theCapraAegagrus]

Unless someone is omniscient, I don’t think we can definitely say something is true without a doubt. We can conclude that based all the the evidence and information we currently have, something is the most likely answer. But as has been demonstrated throughout time, perceived facts change, as our information changes. Common knowledge is proven wrong. We can’t say for certain what we currently believe to be facts now won’t be debunked in the future, but we can conclude what is most likely the truth, based on our current knowledge. Of course, this is all just philosophical mumble jumble. I really don’t know much philosophy, just enough to be dangerous.

We absolutely can, using the scientific method. Just because there are mutant variables in the way humans can perceive things differently (such as those who are blind cannot see at all) does not invalidate the common experience that proves reality. Just because some explanations change does not mean that facts are changeable. Repeatable experiments are what reveal objective truths. While the explanation of those truths may change throughout time (see: gravity), the existence of such a thing or force is immutably real.

[Sir Toddalot]

I certainly don’t believe facts change, there are objective truths. I just think what we as humans believe to be facts and objective truths change. I also do believe we can know objective truths, we just can’t know absolute truths. I can say the force of gravity is objective truth, however, it isn’t an absolute truth. We can objectively know things, but we can’t ever absolutely prove them. Let me ask you a different question in the same vein, do you believe there are objective moral values?

“I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I’m not absolutely sure of anything.” -Richard P. Feynman

[theCapraAegagrus]

I certainly don’t believe facts change, there are objective truths. I just think what we as humans believe to be facts and objective truths change. I also do believe we can know objective truths, we just can’t know absolute truths. I can say the force of gravity is objective truth, however, it isn’t an absolute truth. We can objectively know things, but we can’t ever absolutely prove them. Let me ask you a different question in the same vein, do you believe there are objective moral values?

“I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I’m not absolutely sure of anything.” -Richard P. Feynman

This is why context matters.

That's why "belief" and "fact" have different definitions. "Absolute" and "objective" truths are the same thing; Uninfluenced by subjective analysis because they can be proven by repeatable experiment. When humans believed that the Earth was the center of the universe, it couldn't be proven. Right now, we cannot precisely prove how the universe was created, but we believe in certain theories that have legs based on a confluence of experiments. The force of gravity is definitely an absolute truth. No matter how many experiments you, I, or anyone else runs, the force of gravity is not a variable; It's a constant.

There is no such thing as an "objective" moral value, because people have different ideas of what "morality" is. There are objective principles based on morals, though, such as one cannot condone murder if they idealize liberty.

[Sir Toddalot]

There certainly is a difference between absolute and objective truths. An objective truth is something that exists independent of anyones perception, feeling, or thought on the matter. However, an absolute truth is something that will never change, no matter what new data we may get in the future. It will always be the same, no matter what. Up until this point, all the experiments and data have proven that gravity is an objective truth. But it is possible, that sometime in the future we’ll get new information or data to completely change how we think about gravity. Some new experiment could prove gravity isn’t as constant as we think. Gravity is an objective truth, because it exists separate from our perception and opinions. But it is not impervious to future rebuttals or revisions, which means it isn’t an absolute truth.

EDIT- I found an article that explains it better that I can.
https://kronstadtrevolt.com/2016/01/29/ ... -absolute/

[theCapraAegagrus]

There certainly is a difference between absolute and objective truths. An objective truth is something that exists independent of anyones perception, feeling, or thought on the matter. However, an absolute truth is something that will never change, no matter what new data we may get in the future. It will always be the same, no matter what. Up until this point, all the experiments and data have proven that gravity is an objective truth. But it is possible, that sometime in the future we’ll get new information or data to completely change how we think about gravity. Some new experiment could prove gravity isn’t as constant as we think. Gravity is an objective truth, because it exists separate from our perception and opinions. But it is not impervious to future rebuttals or revisions, which means it isn’t an absolute truth.

EDIT- I found an article that explains it better that I can.
https://kronstadtrevolt.com/2016/01/29/ ... -absolute/

Okay, that's a fair distinction, but it comes back to the matter of context. Absolute truths still exist, they're simply more rare than objective truths. Example: As we pigeonhole species, homo sapiens will always require H2O to survive.

[th4mo]

In another thread...

If mods are going to allow the above post to stand, you will lose me as a participant on this forum.

This is not about being "woke" (btw nothing wrong with it, being "awake" ... that is to be aware of the impact your words or behaviours have on others) but about someone being intentionally offensive.

I don't know which post exactly Strag was referring to. Maybe it was removed by mods before i saw it? I hope it wasn't one of mine.
In some recent posts, I've been addressing Harvonsgard's use of the word "retarded" with a heavy dose of sarcasm, in case that wasn't clear to anyone.

I'll put my cards on the table plainly.

I do think this word is offensive. And, while that judgement may be subjective, it is society at large, not individuals, that agrees on the meaning of words. Languages are dynamic, English even more than most. Words and phrases that were once considered socially acceptable, even in the recent past, can shift to become abhorrent.

"Retard" was once a legitimate clinical term. It has since been disavowed by the medical establishment. While it is still considered acceptable to describe a (usually temporal) "delay or hold back in terms of progress, development, or accomplishment", most people avoid even this usage in favor of other words. That's because it's most commonly used as a pejorative for something that the speaker considers foolish or stupid.

Now I'm a true supporter of free speech. I don't think Harvey should be banned or censored, or even apologize if he doesn't want to. He clearly thinks his right to use that word is unassailable. But here's the thing: Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from the (social) consequences of that speech. While I'm at your side defending your right to speak, I'll also be right there letting you know how much of an ass you are.

Out of curiosity, I searched posts on UC for this word. Out 234422 posts, "retard" or "retarded" appeared in only 42 (not including this one). Good old Harvey wins the prize with 12 of them, followed closely by 2piece/Capra with 11 (he may have taken the crown had he stuck around). I think those stats speak for themselves.

Here's the other thing: People who speak their mind are interesting, and can be fun to be around! I think our friend Harvey has contributed many thought-provoking posts. But context is everything. Humor, wit, and originality always get more latitude. And sometimes an ass is just an ass, and other people have the right to let them know. This is a social cue that it may be time for some introspection, and recognition of a changing world.

Lastly, contending that people have only themselves to blame when they take offense at something you say or write is a tired and boring defense for people who have no other defense. "Words will never hurt you" is truly an immature mindset.

Be an adult. Take responsibility for your actions.

[STLBluesNut]

well, in your other post you had the idea that this forums standards should be decided by the community. maybe to some degree, but i just wanted to chime in and say, as a community member, i do not find the word retarded as offensive, especially in context of not discussing a person. now if it were used in reference to someone with a disability, calling them retarded, it would be a different discussion and a personal attack which is already against the rules.

i find this word, in particular, to be a word that people are overly sensitive to. in general, its use is generally not used towards a person. in line with '' this deck is stupid'' or ''you are stupid''.

yes, it was once a clinical term. and i was fine with it. there are so many words, or descriptions, that have been changed over the years because someone was offended. it was changed, then someone was offended by that and it was changed again. so on and so forth. take illegal aliens for example. there have been 4 or 5 terms used over the years. all because the previous one got deemed offensive.

not to mention in this case, harv is german. not from the same culture and i believe english is secondary. so your, i am guessing, american standards for language ettiquette, dont even really apply. in the uk, they use smurf (c word) all day long, here in america that is a big no. same with physical gestures in different parts of the world.

anyway, too many people these days are offened by far too much shit.

''This is a social cue that it may be time for some introspection, and recognition of a changing world.'' you may have some merit here but not when the world, socially, is generally changing for the worse. all kinds of messed up shit has become socially acceptable or things that people are trying to normalize. f that. oh no, you cant say that kid who wants to shit in a litter box, because he thinks he is a cat, is weird. hell with that. its weird. knock that shit off. or at least leave it at home and don't demand accommodations for it. litter box kid is only a light example of where society has shit the bed.

now only if ill remeber to check this section of the forum lol.

[acetofive]

No th4mo, not one of yours.

Work within the world of people with disabilities (I do), and you'll quickly see how that word has a very painful history - whether you've experienced it or not - whether you subscribe to it or not. And it doesn't matter if it's against a person or a thing. I like to believe that a mature community is one that has compassion for others and accepts the necessity to adapt to change. In this case, it's not to use that word any longer to assail something or someone as "idiotic" or "stupid." When I see that word I cringe. There are plenty of other ways to get your point across.

Do you want this forum to be a safe place for EVERYONE to discuss our love of playing cards? If you want to call this "wokeness," or whatever, then give me more of it.

[STLBluesNut]

dont get me started on ''safe places'' or ''safe spaces''.

sure, EVERYONE, should be welcome to be here. however, the forums shouldnt be moderated, imo, to fit EVERYONES offendable senses. i feel like it should be even less moderated than it is. if someone is offended, the world and internet is a big place. i agree, in general, that the problem generally lies with the person that is offended. no one else is responsible for ones emotions but themselves.

''When I see that word I cringe.'' see the common denominator in that statement? you.'' There are plenty of other ways to get your point across.'' it is not the responsibility of anyone to make points only in the way you deem acceptable.

i see a lot of irony in you saying you believe in free speech then going on to describe ways how people need to frame what they say to suit you or anyone else because it makes ''YOU cringe.''

[GandalfPC]

Hard for me to see in a forum about playing cards that has a “no personal attacks and no politics” credo should every find a need to be offensive to anyone, though its certainly expected to happen from time to time - the actual need for it escapes me.

We are not exactly “child friendly” here, and I love some good salty talk as much as the next guy - but actually making someone else feel poorly with words coming out of my mouth is something I have been trying to reduce ever since I left high school 40 years ago.


And while it is true to some extent that the moderation depends on the community using it, it is the moderators job to maintain the integrity of the board for future as well as current users, keeping the standard at a certain level that is not free floating.

[Harvonsgard]

In some recent posts, I've been addressing Harvonsgard's use of the word "retarded" with a heavy dose of sarcasm, in case that wasn't clear to anyone.

There was no sarcasm in my description of how (most) old standard courts look to me.

Words and phrases that were once considered socially acceptable, even in the recent past, can shift to become abhorrent.

Absolutely correct and that's exactly the game I'm not interested in playing.

He clearly thinks his right to use that word is unassailable.

I don't think that at all. You are more than welcome to attack or question my usage of words. It just doesn't bother me... like at all. If that makes me an ass in your opinion than I'll kindly take that badge of honour. At the end of the day it's just a word from someone on the internet that never got to know me, never met me in person and never had a pint with me. So I can't take offense even if I would really try to.

Hard for me to see in a forum about playing cards that has a “no personal attacks and no politics” credo should every find a need to be offensive to anyone, though its certainly expected to happen from time to time - the actual need for it escapes me.

I seriously don't get that statement. If that refers to my post that th4mo took offense on, there never was a need or urge for me to be offensive. I simply use my language as I'm used to, period. If someone then wants to lecture me what is acceptable or not just because they personally take offense while there is no consensus (as shown by STL or Capra) within the U.S. yet alone the world... well, that's called an agenda and I kindly refuse to subscribe to agendas.

On another (much, much more interesting - one might add) note:

that man is still superior to machine,

They're two different thing and none is superior. One is better at certain tasks and the other is better at different tasks and that is how it always will be.

[GandalfPC]

There was no intent to pin ill intent on your comment harvonsgard, it was simply a statement that I don’t see the “need” for offensive language in a card forum - and one can expect me to assert some level of moderation whether it attacks a single person or a general group, whether intended or not, to establish some floor of welcomeness and avoid twitterness.

Where the line is, that is always the question - and frankly I think we can manage to find it without having to put in too much effort.

[Harvonsgard]

Yah but isn't that exactly the point we're going back and forth with, isn't it?
Someone uses a word. A finds it offensive, B finds it cringe or outdated to use and C has no problem at all. So where does that leave us? If 50.1% of people find it offensive and 49.9% don't, does it get on the offensive list? 60-40? Then there is the imho huge problem of people not effected at all by a word but are offended on behalf. Do they have a vote as well? This is such a subjective topic imho.
I have no problems at all to assess my language but only when I see fit. I grew up when everyone used the word eskimo for the most northern folks. Now I use inuit because A) it's shorter, sounds better and B) is the self desription so if I ever met an inuit he'll understands it better than a term that was coined by foreigners. But I don't walk around and lecture people to not use eskimo.
I for my part just go through life with assuming the best in humans when it comes to communication. Solved that riddle quite well for me .

[GandalfPC]

That leaves us with removing the word that A finds offensive and B finds cringe or outdated regardless of C having no problem if D judges it appropriate.

I am D.

In this case, let’s examine “retarded” to make it less hypothetical. Do we expect the mentally disabled to grow a thick skin so that we can continue to use the word regardless, as it’s so important that we do so?

Call it lecturing or not - its my job to maintain the peace and moderate the language here.

“I for my part just go through life with assuming the best in humans when it comes to communication.” isn’t enough I’m afraid -as we still have decorum to contend with. You can’t shout in a library or curse a blue streak in church, intentions aside.

I also make such assumptions as often as I can, but as moderator I can’t let language stand based upon assumption of intent and expect the general public to ignore the language and trust we are better than our words.

In a perfect world everyone would understand we meant no harm and would take no harm - but lets all give a look around for a moment and see if we think its a perfect world…

[STLBluesNut]

for the sake of everyone's mental health can i suggest at least 2 careers to stay away from? mechanic and fire safety.

[GandalfPC]

That is the actual word - still in use - and is why we don’t apply that to human beings.

Using that word in its proper context is not off the table, so should you be discussing a similar sentence here you will be able to use it. That is the benefit you get from a human moderator rather than a word filter.

There are other words that are similar - perfectly appropriate to dig in the garden with a spade or talk about the pip - but we don’t use that word when speaking of human beings anymore. Its not a new thing to put an old use of a word out to pasture.

Box of crackers - just peachy - in context.

Other words are easier to discern as they have no use.

[STLBluesNut]

well, it wasnt used to reference nor applied to a human being.

i am not necessarily fighting to use the word myself and it further illustrates that some are selectively offended by things. the statement was 'When I see that word I cringe.'' wonder if he would ''cringe'' reading that ad or timing excerpt.

[GandalfPC]

I don’t know, but I don’t moderate Amazon - so at least it’s someone else’s problem. My guess is they would not.

In this case the word retarded was being used in a manner not Amazon product related, so it qualified for misuse. And again - I understand the misuse - I misuse plenty of worlds plenty of the time - until brought to my attention - and I’m not always the one deciding whats ok - but here it is my job.

The question is which side is better to err on. Is it better for me to let more language through, despite people feeling uncomfortable and having a reasonable argument as to why, or better for me to err on the other, having a few extra words that are debatable be discouraged or removed?

My calculations show that erring on the side of a bit more moderation to keep it a welcoming place for all is best - and to disregard the worlds fascination for culture wars and other political banter that we simply don’t need to discuss cards or converse in a friendly manner on a plethora of topics.

Were this a forum on politics, culture, religion, free speech - it would be a whole different matter I imagine - just like it would if it were Amazon.

[Strag]

It is because of certain users and their defense of being offensive that I have decided to decrease my participation in this forum and move whatever small value add I might have to the playing card community to another forum. I find it's a very small amount of users that are decrying "woke" and insisting on their ability to say whatever they want and then "someone else's problem they get offended" that this place has become one where I no longer feel I belong here.

Yes I have previous muted those individuals, but that doesn't stop others from quoting them and I find it all just extremely distasteful and unnecessary.

Enjoy your lives. You might still see my comments around here, but it will decrease or even go to zero, haven't decided yet.

[GandalfPC]

I think that there is a proclivity to not want your language censored that is quite natural. I remember more than one occasion that I have used a word and had my son call me out on it, him being much more up to date than myself one should understand that it is inevitable, and it being ones son it would come with the assumption that they don’t think you racist or a worse person for saying it - but frankly I always got the feeling (and sometimes the outright statement) that I was racist - and it did cause me to push back a bit - another natural proclivity.

It is not “someone else’s problem” if they get offended here, its a moderator and admin problem, and we will do our level headed best to do our level headed best.

[GandalfPC]

I think that Strag’s post does point out a sticky bit or two as well, the above discussed bit I think being less sticky.

When it comes to decrying “woke” and his inability to mute quotes - first, I think we should figure out a way to mute quotes.

Second - there is a reason I allow the level that I allow when it comes to such things - and I am not the only mod here, with an admin above, and there is a general “allow what can possibly be allowed” vibe - but the reason I personally feel the need to allow some is that I do not feel that all firmly held positions that oppose should be separated as the best solution to learning to live together, and I have seen a lot to be hopeful about.

We can’t be so overly sensitive or we will never learn to live together - but at the same time I do understand why some people may not want to come here and read things on this forum if they find a lot of people not caring if they offend other people needlessly, of if they find a culture war that they can discuss on the rest of the internet all day long and decided not to.

But I am going to let people step off the path and tread on the flowers from time to time - knowing that they will get back on the path and stop stomping around - its not about manhandling, no offense to the men (or would that be offensive to women?).

I also understand why harv wouldn’t want to come here to be lectured, and why people don’t want their speech moderated or ideas made forbidden - there is no solution to make everyone happy, unless of course everyone agrees that some degree of happiness is worth pursuing.

And let’s also find a way to not discriminate against the grumpy

The downright impertinent I have less patience for though

[Strag]

We can’t be so overly sensitive or we will never learn to live together - but at the same time I do understand why some people may not want to come here and read things on this forum if they find a lot of people not caring if they offend other people needlessly, of if they find a culture war that they can discuss on the rest of the internet all day long and decided not to.

I am far from overly sensitive. I hold some strong opinons and more than happy to have people debate me on them. But to find vile and hurtful words on a forum about playing cards, words that those who use them KNOW are offensive and use them for shock value, to troll, or whatever and to do it on a playing card collectors forum of all places? I mean why? Go to the hellscape that is Twitter if that's what you want, there's tons of people who feel the way you do and will happily engage with you.

And it's a very clear minority of the users here, and the same ones over and over. It's not like there are 20 people "stepping off the path" occasionally, it's those same users over and over.

I moderate myself, for places with thousands of users. I make it very clear that toxicity, politics and hurtful language are not appropriate, because that is not what the venues I moderate for are about. There are places where that is welcomed, but my areas are not them. If you violate, you get a timeout. Continue to violate, a ban. Not so hard.

It's not censorship. Just use a word that you KNOW will not offend people. It's really not hard at all. Get your point across without being childish or inflammatory. And yes, this forum is welcome to make their own rules. Just as I am welcome to choose to not spend my time here if that sort of language will be welcomed. It would be the same if a friend of mine did the same, I would ask them to stop and if they didn't they would no longer be my friend. I wouldn't have to say it to someone at my place of work, because the R-word would not be welcomed there and would be considered HR actionable. I just do not understand under what circumstance, in any way shape or form, it would be considered acceptable here. And so this is no longer the place for me.

[GandalfPC]

Didn’t mean to say you were overly sensitive - I was putting you more in the “I understand why you don’t want to read that stuff” group, and as much as I would like to either completely quell it or toughen you up to withstand it, I just understand your choice and wish I could have avoided your need to make it.

Perhaps the general community will just grant my wish and act respectfully towards everyone else.

[STLBluesNut]

at any rate, i feel like i have stated my thoughts on the topic and this likely to go around in circles from here. it doesnt matter to me if that word is allowed or not really. i have expressed it is a bit silly to ban it when used not referring to a human and that at least one person that raised issue is probably not cringing just simply seeing it but only offended selectively.

what is done here on this forum, in terms of moderation, doesnt address the societal problem of people being way too easily offended over silly stuff anyway. i appreciate the conversation.

edit- sorry i wrote this and did not send before the last 3 or 4 responses.

[STLBluesNut]

''I just do not understand under what circumstance, in any way shape or form, it would be considered acceptable here.''

well, gandalf used it multiple times in his postings (twice that i count, 2 more times than me actually yet i sense im one of those you are speaking about). where those not acceptable? Gandalf, i guess by the definition '' I just do not understand under what circumstance, in any way shape or form, it would be considered acceptable here.'' you are hereby censored. maybe you should be removed from moderation for using ''vile and hurtful words on a forum about playing cards.'' sounds a bit silly doesnt it. perhaps one shouldn't be so absolutist, or perhaps not so selectivly offended.

''Just as I am welcome to choose to not spend my time here if that sort of language will be welcomed. ... I wouldn't have to say it to someone at my place of work, because the R-word would not be welcomed there and would be considered HR actionable.''

well, it certainly wasnt welcomed, in fact, it was censored. so what is your point? it was censored just like you wanted. now, in a separate section intended for this kind of discussion, we are discussing it.

[GandalfPC]

I actually did think of that when I used them, and should it be an issue for anyone I am fully prepared to edit those words out.

I am not above moderation myself, be it self moderation or that of other mods or admins.

Were I the type that wanted to be put my foot down over such a statement and resist moderation I might find the admin and mods tossing me.

As it should be.

[Timmargh]

Going back a bit: to me, there is a gulf between "It wasn't my intention to offend" and "I don't care if I offend" / "It's your fault if you're offended."

[STLBluesNut]

lol, gandalf, that wasnt really the point, but i think you know that.

[GandalfPC]

The argument was made in ghostbusters, and as a New Yorker at the time I certainly agreed with him - didn’t work out to well in the movie as it opened the gates of hell, but I digress