I the amount of compensation is partly linked to the degree of damage caused to reputation as well

That may be correct Incrementalist, but I was concerned with "to cause" in that it had been asserted that offence is not caused, but taken.
A defamatory or libelous statement causes damage to a person's reputation & I emphasise that it "causes" damage to a reputation. The damage to the reputation is not "taken"
That is my point.

Libel and defamation require a statement to be a public misrepresentation; they have nothing to do with whether a statement is offensive or not.

In fact using an offensive value judgment instead of making a statement of fact is a way to work around libel laws; the reason Penn & Teller's TV show is called "Bullshit" is because if they called it "That's Not True", people would be able to sue. (They might not win, but the lawsuits wouldn't be automatically invalid).

I think i might have made an assertion that Octavious agrees with when I disagreed with C&D's post that offence cannot be given, but only taken.
I would surmise that C&D uses this proposition that offence cannot be given, only taken to somehow justify some form of license for him to make offensive comments yet claim he has caused no offense, that is, he can say whatever he wants with no responsibility for any offence that is caused.
If his ridiculous proposition was correct, then there would be no laws against libel and defamation.

The moderation of this thread has been pretty good, I'd say.

MajorMitchell wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 26, 2018 4:01 am

Maybe the Almighty Mods have allowed this thread to run to see if we can behave like reasonable adults ?
I disagree with C&D's assertion that offence is not given but taken. I would suggest that offence can be given ( and then might be taken or not taken by differing individuals ) and that offence can be incorrectly taken when it was not given.

When you speak you can try to offend someone or not. When you listen you can take offense or not. Depending on who you are you can be offended by an awful lot of things or very little. The important point is that being offended isn't particularly important. It would be an extremely dull life if you lived it without encountering anything that offended you, and you'd be an extremely dull person if you never said anything that could offend someone.

ssorenn wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 26, 2018 12:38 am

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 25, 2018 11:11 pm

ssorenn wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 25, 2018 10:57 pm

But as soon as they hit the site they are. Annnnnd, therefore why did it still exist?

Because the Mods don't patrol the forum 24 hours a day, you prick.

Will the mods please silence this guy. I believe Zultar should get involved as there was an agreement from a few years ago about this.

Hahaha don't be such a sensitive snowflake.

Maybe the Almighty Mods have allowed this thread to run to see if we can behave like reasonable adults ?
I disagree with C&D's assertion that offence is not given but taken. I would suggest that offence can be given ( and then might be taken or not taken by differing individuals ) and that offence can be incorrectly taken when it was not given.

Incrementalist wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 26, 2018 2:44 am

It's a brave form of moderation that allows things to head in a bad direction until they actually arrive in a bad place.

Brave,stupid , idiotic ,worthless——-they all fit

It's a brave form of moderation that allows things to head in a bad direction until they actually arrive in a bad place.

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 25, 2018 11:11 pm

ssorenn wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 25, 2018 10:57 pm

But as soon as they hit the site they are. Annnnnd, therefore why did it still exist?

Because the Mods don't patrol the forum 24 hours a day, you prick.

Will the mods please silence this guy. I believe Zultar should get involved as there was an agreement from a few years ago about this.

ssorenn wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 25, 2018 10:57 pm

But as soon as they hit the site they are. Annnnnd, therefore why did it still exist?

Because the Mods don't patrol the forum 24 hours a day, you prick.

But as soon as they hit the site they are. Annnnnd, therefore why did it still exist?

ssorenn wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 25, 2018 8:48 pm

My question is why would the mods allow this thread to start. Everyone knows it won’t lead to a good place for all.

Uhhhhhhh... the creation of threads is not pre-moderated...?

My question is why would the mods allow this thread to start. Everyone knows it won’t lead to a good place for all.

Yes I'm sure that needs to be clarified. I'm so confused about why Croak was silenced. Not.

Yoyoyozo wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 24, 2018 1:01 am

Croak has already been silenced for calling another member a racially derogatory term.

People please follow common sense. I’m not even going to cite the rule he broke.

Just so we’re clear, would it be okay to use the word if we’re not referring to another member of this site?

@ phil

I did so earlier, phil. And as the use of the word is rather important to race relations, and considering the condition of race relations in the US right now, I think it's very much the business of all society.

I gave a reason for why the word is not the same when used by a white person as it is when used by a black person. I also gave a reason for why it should not be used by white people, and it is a reason that doesn't generally apply to black people. I gave a possible frame of reference for how the word is used by black people, but it is not essential to my argument.
You will need to give your own reason for it being wrong for black people to use the word. Personally, I have little interest in finding or assessing arguments about whether black people should or should not use the word. It is none of my business, because I am white. From what I gather, you are white as well, so it is none of your business either, but have fun I guess. Just don't go around lecturing black people on whether they should use the word. Your opinion on this does not matter.

Most people who participated in lynch mobs probably didn't do it as part of a "political stand". They did it because their friends/family participated in lynch mobs.
Everyone in the US (and on the anglophone internet probably) knows by now that white people are not supposed to use that word, because it's racist. If you do so anyway, you are necessarily doing it as a political stand.
If you're used to using the word, and you are white, stop using the word. It turns out there are no non-racist sentiments that cannot be expressed easily without using it. You might slip up, like, once or twice, but it's really quite easy on the whole. Whenever you would say it, instead, don't. That's all it takes.

phil_a_s wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 23, 2018 10:34 pm

A black person using the word is defying white supremacy, by taking its tools away.

How, exactly? In what sense are the tools taken away? If a white supremacist in a position of power calls a black person a nigger how has previous examples of the black person calling his friends nigga in a jovial manner made that have any less impact?

Let's be honest, here. Most people who use the word don't do it as part of a political stand. They do it because it's a word their friends/family use and it's a word they're used to using. We should also be very cautious of saying that the word is being reclaimed by the black community. A great many black people loathe the word being directed at someone regardless of who's saying it, and are profoundly distressed by its use in rap, films, and by other blacks in the street. There have been plenty of high profile calls by black people to stop using the word, and that opinion is echoed by a great number of the general population.