Recently, we’ve had one poster claiming that the word “harpie” (sic) is offensive in and of itself. OTOH, a different poster claimed that “no problem” ISN’T offensive, because that wasn’t the intent behind the remark.
So which is it? The word, or the intent, according to the moderators?
Here we have, again, a fine example of where context is king and fuzzy lines are very very important for moderating things.
In short, you’ll get no clear definition out of me. Perhaps it would be best to avoid being close to offensive at all.
I will admit, though, that I see no path by which ‘no problem’ would offend. Perhaps I’m missing something.
Invalid comparison.
“Harpy” is loaded language whereas “no problem” is not.
Links would be helpful.
I must agree that this question makes absolutely no sense in the absence of context.
Is that what this is about? Yeah, that remark seemed to me to be a complete non sequitur.
Given that context, I’ll point out that the “forbidden words” in question are ones where intent can be inferred from usage alone. They have few if any legitimate uses. Thus, to claim no bad intent, one would have to make an extraordinary claim, and an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence.
On the other hand, those offended by “no problem” insist it has a meaning that is legitimate–to convey that it was not a problem to do whatever they were thanked for. The meaning that they find offensive is almost never the intended meaning.
The problem is, IMHO, just a reaction to changing norms. It feels wrong to them because it’s not what they grew up with as the proper response to “thank you.” That makes it feel rude. So confirmation bias leads them to believe that it must also be rude in intent.
Or just having an itch and scratching the wrong place; but it happens more often than you would think around here.
Just which moderator action is being objected to, here?
No one ever said you have the right NOT to be offended. If words are directly aimed at you, then you have a point, but trying to get the mods to act just because you’re offended by a word in general usage, that’s just stupid and overly PC.
How is “no problem” offensive? When did that happen? Did I miss another memo?
There is some discussion of whether the word “harpy/harpie” is a sexist insult or not in this current ATMB thread. There is some reference to a warning issued three years ago for a post in which the word “harpy” was used. However, the warning (for being a jerk) was actually for telling other posters to “shove your accusations of sexism up your ass,” and had nothing to do with the word “harpy” or the intent with which it was used.
As noted in post #6, the OP received a mod note for hijacking/inappropriate discussion for the forum in a thread where some of the discussion was whether “no problem” in response to “thank you” might be considered rude. Again the mod note had nothing to do with the intent of that phrase, but rather the hijacking.
The fact that intent should be taken into account with regard to the use of a word is so obvious that it’s puzzling why it’s being questioned. Using “harpy” is perfectly OK in discussions of Greek mythology or certain eagles. In other contexts it is definitely insulting.
I think the OP needs to explain what the moderation issue is here, with a link to specific examples. Otherwise the discussion of “harpy” is ongoing in the other ATMB thread, and “no problem” in the Cafe Society thread, so discussing those issues here seems to be redundant.
Tom Scott has a great, short video on why phatic expressions can be perceived of vastly different rudeness depending on audience. To me “you’re welcome” almost seems rude, at least strange, because of my age.
Oh, whoops, should’ve taken it to the CS thread, sorry.
Turns out, different people have different ideas about stuff.
Why is this in ATMB?
This might be the worst attempt at a gotcha that I have ever seen.
I see the smilie, but to answer seriously, Chronos told him to take it to ATMB if he was talking about the opinion of moderators on the issue. Yet the OP only references the opinions of posters, and does not explain why this is a moderation issue.
The possible “gotcha” attempt I see is if the mods say, “intention matters,” the OP could argue that intent, that slippery, evanescent concept, should stop other posters from objecting to racist, sexist, homophobic language because after all, the poster just has to say, "I didn’t mean it that way; if mods say, “words matter,” then there’s a demand for a bright line list of words, and any other words that mean the same thing would be allowed.
I hope I’m wrong.
