sccsux Posted October 27, 2010 Share Posted October 27, 2010 However, it is worthwhile to note that for some, even with the historical basis, the term remains offensive. Who are you to judge what people mean by the terms they use? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted October 27, 2010 Share Posted October 27, 2010 Who are you to judge what people mean by the terms they use? I don't. Nobody said anything about judging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted October 27, 2010 Share Posted October 27, 2010 It's the proliferation of text speak, lol. X is an abbreviation for Christ, arising from the Greek term Christos, which starts with a Greek Chi, written as X. This usage dates back to the 1500s. Thus, the usage is not an attempt to "blot out" the name, or be offensive. However, it is worthwhile to note that for some, even with the historical basis, the term remains offensive. My contention is that most people are unaware of that, as I'm happy to admit I was. If most people are unaware but still use it, it literally becomes ''exmas' or 'exian' because to them the X has no meaning, the X may as well be any other random letter of the alphabet, hence the main bit 'Christ' becomes lost. I don't find it offensive or want to stop it's use though, each to their own, just a personal point of view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted October 27, 2010 Share Posted October 27, 2010 Anyone who finds it offensive is daft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sccsux Posted October 27, 2010 Share Posted October 27, 2010 I don't. Nobody said anything about judging. Of course you are. You're saying that poster's on here use the "X" to be insulting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted October 27, 2010 Share Posted October 27, 2010 My contention is that most people are unaware of that, as I'm happy to admit I was. If most people are unaware but still use it, it literally becomes ''exmas' or 'exian' because to them the X has no meaning, the X may as well be any other random letter of the alphabet, hence the main bit 'Christ' becomes lost. I don't find it offensive or want to stop it's use though, each to their own, just a personal point of view. Eggzactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esme Posted October 27, 2010 Share Posted October 27, 2010 Mod Note If you cannot debate the issue without the insults to other users or entire groups of people then the thread will be closed and the perpetrators may face further sanctions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted October 27, 2010 Share Posted October 27, 2010 And we should accept your plagiarised assertion that "the term remains offensive" why exactly? Well the fact a number of posters have said they find it offensive might perhaps be a good reason? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plekhanov Posted October 27, 2010 Share Posted October 27, 2010 Well the fact a number of posters have said they find it offensive might perhaps be a good reason? Few things aren't 'offensive' to those who go around constructively and/or ignorantly taking offence. The declaration "the term remains offensive" seems more a general pronouncement though than a description of what a few constructively touchy posters on SF consider offensive. Oh noes I just realised I abbreviated 'Sheffield Forum' to 'SF' my most humble apologies if anyone was offended by that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted October 27, 2010 Share Posted October 27, 2010 And we should accept your plagiarised assertion that "the term remains offensive" why exactly? Who are you to judge what people mean by the terms they use? Interesting. - The pair of you might find yourselves in a deal of trouble if your argument was applied to other groups. Are you, Plekhanov, suggesting that it is 'up to the prosecution' to prove, in each case, that the use of a term held by some to be offensive is, indeed offensive? If somebody was to call a homosexual a 'homo' or a 'faggot' would a person who complained about the use of the term be required to prove that "the term remains offensive" ? SCSUX, are you suggesting that there should be some sort of enquiry (or possibly legal proceedings) to determine the mens rea (or lack thereof) each time a person uses a derogatory term? Perhaps that wouldn't be a bad idea - after all, the existence of both mens rea and the actus reus are ordinarily required before finding an individual guilty. Plekhanov's argument would require the prosecution to prove that the term used was indeed held - at law - to be a derogatory term and your argument would require the prosecution to prove that the accused intended to use the term in a derogatory manner. Such a procedure might demonstrate that any action taken against the person using the term was in accordance with the traditional legal system, but it would, effectively, emasculate the legislation designed to prevent societal friction arising from offensive speech. Well the fact a number of posters have said they find it offensive might perhaps be a good reason? That's the commonsense answer. It applies in other cases, so why shouldn't it apply here? - If any (it doesn't require unaninity) members of any identifiable group find a particular term offensive, why should others use it? - Unless, of course, they wish to be offensive. I read elsewhere that 'Text speak' and abbreviations are frowned upon on this forum because inter alia, some forum members use speech synthesisers to help them to 'read' the posts. I wonder how such a device would pronounce 'Xian' ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.