PotatoKing

Many opinions, including yours, can be taken as an attack. That is exactly my point: why take people in such bad faith as to assume attacks where there might not be any? I fully understanding people can cause harm to each other via insults, uncharitable depictions, belittling, etc., however that does not mean the words themselves caused that harm. It would rather be the actions that caused that harm (insulting, belittling...), no? If that is the case, I apologize for the insistence on this topic and will not be arguing further. Clearly I am in the minority in seeing an issue with this policy; ultimately I do not decide the level of speech suppression applied by this forum. Cheers.

Interesting approach. I agree civility and politeness makes for a better discourse always. Preventing others from using specific words/sentences however, is not very charitable as to how they might use them (maybe in good faith?). I am rather hurt that you would honestly believe I would choose to be hurtful and offensive. I have not, to the best of my knowledge, used any language that would be deemed injurious or offensive. I am simply stating my opinion that I do not think word policing makes for a welcoming environment.

How can intent be "essentially irrelevant"? I cannot accurately predict the impact of my words, as I suspect, not many people can. People can perceive and interpret words in several possible ways, the only way to communicate clearly between each other is to clarify the intent behind those words. Words are just imperfect vessels that help transmit our thoughts from one individual to another. Let me illustrate: I am assuming in good faith that your intent, by replying to me, was simply to voice out your thoughts here, chime in or elaborate on a specific point. But if I was to interpret your words as a personal attack on me, as if you were deeming yourself superior to me and talking down to me, who would be in the wrong? You, for using a sequence of words that hurt me, or me for too quickly assuming you meant to hurt me? Well, that depends on the intent behind your words, does it not? Thanks for the input, much appreciated. ?

My apologies but we'll have to agree to disagree. I do not, and cannot know what may or may not potentially offend someone because offense is taken rather than given. Thanks for explaining your thoughts on the issue however, I appreciate your open-mindedness.

Agreed, it obviously does not mean a serious "that's cheery", but have you considered it could be a sarcastic "that's cheery"? Similar to saying "Well that's grand" after losing the cup. Obviously, that would not mean "that's splendid" either, but I don't think it's a comment on how thousand dollars (grands) are stupid/lame... You say the meaning was obvious but was it? Because right here and now, we're both seeing a different meaning to the same sentence. I could be wrong of course, but I would be interested to hear the side of the offenders in this case rather than to make an assumption on what they really meant.

Stupid comes from the latin word stupere, which meant something akin to being easily stunned or amazed by new information. Its colloquial form which is synonymous with lacking intelligence has not always been the norm. Likewise the word gay has not always been synonymous with homosexual. However, its former origin (cheery, joyous) isn't relegated to a dead language such as latin, meaning both definitions are still considered valid. When someone says of a situation, without any sarcasm, "Well that's gay", it would be easy to interpret it as meaning that the situation is pleasant/fortunate to them. Using the same sentence with sarcasm "Well that's gay" then indicates the opposite of its positive definition, similar to non-sarcastically saying "Well that's lame". Substitute the word "gay" for "grand" and you can also get this effect. Nothing to do with homosexuality, wouldn't you agree? Words more often than not have more than one definition. It's not easy to derive intent behind someone's words without making assumptions, and sometimes these assumptions can fall short if we aren't careful. I'm sorry but I felt I needed to point that out, it doesn't seem right to me to go ahead and assume what people mean to say, rather than what they say. The appropriate response (again in my eyes) to "Well that's gay" could be: "By gay, do you mean to say all homosexuals are stupid or lame?". I suspect the speaker could then inform others of their intent more clearly, which is preferable to me than policing language. I haven't been here for long so take what I'm saying with a grain of salt, but I don't see this kind of practice (punishing words rather than intent) as something productive to do. Just my two cents.

+4

+4

Malmo Seattle Malmo Malmo 5-2 Series leader in points: Matt Thompson Series leader in goals: Matt Thompson Series leader in assists: Ryan Sullivan Jr. Who has the series PIM lead: Hulk Hogan Who scores the series winning goal: Matt Thompson

Harsh series. Well played by the Rush.

1. Who is the Aces MVP this year? For sure Benny Graves! He's really kept up an insane pace all year. 2. We face the Marlins in round one- do you like our chances? We already beat the Marlins by now and are facing the Yukon Rush. I think we have a decent chance but it'll be much harder this time. 3. How has the season been for you? Have you enjoyed your time in Vegas? It's been great. I had a lot of fun being on and off the ice with my teammates. 4. Did your player satisfy your expectations? Or did they underperform? I think I and several other players performed quite well this year. We have quite a few players leading the league in several statistics. 5. Most of you guys are going to the VHL next year. What team do you want to play for/are you excited to play for your VHL team if you were already drafted? I will be playing for Riga next season, it will be an exciting challenge for me to move up to the big league! 6. At the end of the year, we have a team awards show. Besides the obvious awards, what weird awards do you want to be given out? Best playoff beard.

+4

Well played Marlins. Every game was a close call, so it could have gone either way!

Benny motherfucking Graves!

It's all tied up! ?