NationStates Jolt Archive

I don't post much, but I read the forums when I have time, and I've got a problem that's been bugging me. Not that I'm counting on NationStates players to solve it or anything, but some insight would be appreciated.

I'm a senior in High School(Yes, American), and recently we started up a dodgeball club. The premise is, basically, once a week a whole bunch of teams square off against one another and throw foam balls at eachother. Good fun to be had by all.

Well, some of us seniors decided to really get into this, and our team chipped in for jerseys. The jerseys are yellow, with a red target on the front and the letters 'WTF?' on the front in blue. On the back are our names and numbers.

We wore the jerseys a couple weeks ago after getting them in the mail. For the most part, people didn't seem to mind them. A few teachers actually came up to me and complimented the jerseys, so I didn't see a problem.

The next day, we were told that the jerseys would have to be scrapped and our team name changed. Some teachers had e-mailed the sponsor of the dodgeball club to voice their distaste for our team name. I talked to the sponsor, and managed to work out a deal where we weren't allowed to wear the jerseys in school, but were allowed to wear them for the games, which take place at 7:00 at night. Given the circumstances, I find the agreement reasonable.

But the situation itself doesn't sit well with me. I agreed mostly because I understood the position the sponsor was in; she wasn't opposed to the jerseys herself, but she could come under fire if nothing was done. No administrative action was taken against us, so technically none of us could get in trouble for wearing the jerseys; we follow the agreement out of a quasi-honor code.

My question is this: Is it reasonable for the jerseys to be banned? Are the teachers who complained, only through e-mail and never in person mind you, justified in their grievances? I don't think they are, but I'm willing to hear arguments to the contrary.

Of course I find them prudish - I think it might be your sponser that is in the wrong. Why did they back down? what was their rational, to get in good with the parents... bottom line, can you hurt them in the pocket.

Of course I find them prudish - I think it might be your sponser that is in the wrong. Why did they back down? what was their rational, to get in good with the parents... bottom line, can you hurt them in the pocket.

The logic behind "backing down" was simple, though political. If dodgeball club were to come under fire in its first year, the possibility would be that there would never be a dodgeball club ever again, or any similar club. If programs like this were the center of too much controversy, nobody would want to sponsor them.

congratulations on having only one more year of putting up with this kind of BS.

it was very good of y'all to not make a fuss that might hurt your sponsor.

it seems unreasonable to me. i guess i see the objection, since the F is short for a word you arent allowed to use (officially) in school. but since other cleaned up versions of the word are allowed, why isnt this one?

you can fight it, but you wont win. school administration is entirely to reactionary and gutless to take a reasonable stand on a issue like this.

enjoy your games and be proud of yourselves for doing the mature thing.

I'm guessing it's because of the initials "WTF" and what it represents, if you added a non offensive meaning to WTF then you'd probably get away with it. You can put the words "We Throw Fast" around the WTF they couldn't argue about the meaning.

Well, on one hand, I can see the hesitation to stand up too long. I mean, you gave them a out, and they took it, without causing to much controversy, which would have likely resulted in your program HAVING to get the axe.

On the other hand, whats the big deal...you don't like whats said, then avert your eyes. Don't watch or play. Now, if this was elementery school, or -possibly- even middle school, i might see that. But they need to trust high schoolers to judge themselves. At that point, whatever mindset they have is already too far entrenched to be changed one way or another by something like that. (And yes, I am also a HS senior)

Wow, I wish I had a dodgeball league at my school. It'd be fun. :(

Yeah well, People at my school get awa with much worse so i don't think it's fair but hey, it's not the end of the world eh?

They banned dodgeball in the city I live in, too many liberal school officials felt it was harmful.

I'm a senior in High School(Yes, American)....
So you're not really Leonard Nimoy?

What a way to disappoint a Trekkie. :p

--The Jovial States of Cogitation
"Laugh about it for a moment."
NationStates Self-Proclaiemd Court Jester

...

My question is this: Is it reasonable for the jerseys to be banned? Are the teachers who complained, only through e-mail and never in person mind you, justified in their grievances? I don't think they are, but I'm willing to hear arguments to the contrary.
This is really the question: "Is it reasonable to ban the use of expletives in public settings? Is it reasonable to categorize certain words as offensive and attempt to excise them from public use?" This is a controversial question. The Federal Communications Communication is going to say "Yes" while Howard Stern is going to say "No"; that's why Mr. Stern is going to get his own satellite*.

For a society to function, there have to be limits on the behavior of its members. Unfortunately, when it comes to the finer details, we can't all agree on a single standard for acceptable behavior**. Some would argue that such use of language doesn't really hurt anyone and would encourage you to go for it. Some would argue that such use of language encourages other forms of unacceptable behavior, especially among youth, and that you should have been strictly chided for (what would probably be called) "your idiocy and immaturity". I don't really care enough one way or the other; I don't use such language, myself, but I usually don't care too much if someone is using expletives in my presence (unless it's extremely excessive*** or directed at me, personally).

* Okay, I'm exaggerating; the satellite belongs to some company named "Sirius" something-or-other, not Howard Stern, himself, but Mr. Stern is, apparently, going to be one of Sirius' more popular offerings in their satellite TV programming.

** By "finer details", I mean using words like "f---" or "s---" in public, or behavior like making a pass at someone you're romantically or sexually interested in, or loudly and repeatedly burping in a fine restaurant... the stuff that isn't obvious. I think most of us can agree that it's not acceptable to settle differences by taking a gun and blowing out the brains of your opponent.

*** For example: "I've heard of 'swearing like a sailor', but please stop pretending that you're the entire US Navy."

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
Founder and Delegate of The Realm of Ambrosia

I'm guessing it's because of the initials "WTF" and what it represents, if you added a non offensive meaning to WTF then you'd probably get away with it. You can put the words "We Throw Fast" around the WTF they couldn't argue about the meaning.

"We Throw Fast"? That's one we didn't think of.

We told people that it stood for "Where's The Fun?", but apparently nobody bought it.

Yeah well, People at my school get awa with much worse so i don't think it's fair but hey, it's not the end of the world eh?

You're right, it's not the end of the world. It just irks me.

So you're not really Leonard Nimoy?

What a way to disappoint a Trekkie. :p

Heh, sorry. Old school Trek owns.

For a society to function, there have to be limits on the behavior of its members.

I completely agree. Though it is a nice thought, a society without rules, even rules dictating basic behaviour, would be chaos. I don't think it's appropriate to use excessive and gratuitous profanity on cable television, but I swear all the time. But if your argument in this case is that the letters WTF are inappropriate for school, I have to disagree. The letters would mean nothing to someone who doesn't already know the acronym. And if they are well acquainted with the acronym, chances are they won't be too offended by it.

Honestly, I never expected such a backlash - we did it with the best intentions. This isn't a youthful straining of the leash, so to speak. We didn't put those letters on our jerseys with the intention of making some social or political statement.

I'm impressed with your reply, by the way.

If you are being 'sponsored' you are pretty much are the mercy of the sponsors dictates.

Also if you are using the facilities of the school, you are stuck having to deal with their codes of conduct regardless of whether the activity is extra-cirricular or not. Its one of those (oh man I hate hearing myself saying this) "my house, my rules" kind of arguments out of the school and sponsors.

Still, I agree that they are probably being a bit over sensitive and it sounds like you are just having a whole lot of fun. I guess its a matter of deciding if this is a battle worth fighting as compared to the fun you are having. Personally, playing dodgeball sounds like more fun to me and even if you end up winning this battle it is not really one of those battles that will change anything in the long run of life. A good fisherman sometimes throws the little ones back and waits until the big fish come along...you only have so much gear in that tackle box. I would wait for the bigger battles...turn the shirts inside out if you have to and have some fun right now. Good luck.

Duck!

Okay. So, you went and got yourself jerseys, and you think you are so "cool" with your little offensive catch-phrase.

Now, personally, I do not think there is anything wrong with the word itself, or even the phrase itself. No word, outside of any context, is inherently offensive.

If I were a witness to that dodgeball game, however, or met you in school while you were wearing that shirt, I would be offended.

Why? Because it is vulgar and rude. It represents a kind of language designed, and almost always employed, to degrade discourse, to shut up the competition, to project an attitude disrespectful of those around you. Whether you realize it or not, such language/behavior is disruptive and destructive of the very free speech you would call to its defense.

I teach college courses, in which there is naturally much more freedom than in the high-school setting. In my students papers, I encourage them to employ vulgarity, obscenity, and even profanity when (1) nothing else will work to express the idea or (2) the usage is in reference to some other usage of such language, seeking to describe and/or explain it. The other requirement is that its usage is not meant to convey an "argument" or "attitude" overtly hostile to the possibility of a response.

In class, the same rules apply. However, one does not even have to use "foul" language in order for it to merit a reprimand if it the language employed is disrespectful of other people in the room.

On the street, I do not believe such language can or should be regulated. You should be able to wear whatever you want, whenever you want, and to say virtually whatever you want. (Do not count on people to like you for it, however.)

But in school, or in the context of an organized public event, you participate with other people in an explicitly cooperative endeavor. Part of the tacit agreement of taking part in such democratic activities is that you exercise respect for those around you. Respect means that, although you may not consider something offensive, you must be concerned with what will be offensive to others.

Democracy values free speech precisely because a decent respect for the ideas of others is necessary to a democratic socity. Disrespectful language, therefore, is tolerated insofar as it is necessary to the expression of ideas that may actually add something to the discussion.

Ultimately, who decides what is valuable? This is a problem. As an instructor, I try -- as your teachers try -- to be careful about such matters. Perhaps, in the end, there is no adequate rule for regulating such language... In any case, however, you should not employ it in a public, cooperative endeavor. The point is that if you were really concerned about democracy, about the quality of speech, you would have never worn them in the first place. You should be ashamed.

Ultimately, who decides what is valuable? This is a problem. As an instructor, I try -- as your teachers try -- to be careful about such matters. Perhaps, in the end, there is no adequate rule for regulating such language... In any case, however, you should not employ it in a public, cooperative endeavor. The point is that if you were really concerned about democracy, about the quality of speech, you would have never worn them in the first place. You should be ashamed.

you would be offended by a shirt with 3 letters on it??

WTF

i have a very hard time understanding why you would be offended. that is no more vulgar then when *I* use the word "freaking" as a substitute for the more offensive word.

he is a highschool senior with a afterschool dodgeball team. its NOT free speech, its NOT democracy, its NOT quality. its kids having a somewhat naughty name for their sports team. whats to be ashamed about?

you would be offended by a shirt with 3 letters on it??

that is no more vulgar then when *I* use the word "freaking" as a substitute for the more offensive word.

I would be slightly less offended by "freaking"... but that is because it has come into rather common usage as some sort of slang superlative, a usage which is not all offensive. If it were used as ridicule, however, I would certainly be offended. Naturally.

he is a highschool senior with a afterschool dodgeball team. its NOT free speech,
Thanks for agreeing with me. If it's not free speech, then there should be no problem regulating it for the common good -- the common good in this case being a less offensive environment.

its NOT democracy, its NOT quality. its kids having a somewhat naughty name for their sports team. whats to be ashamed about?

One should be ashamed of the attitude that goes with it. "WTF?" is a phrase that refuses any response. It is not like naming your team after an animal, or a group, something that you choose to represent qualities you would like to emulate... or something that represents an assertive, competitive pride in your team.

"WTF?" says nothing about the team other than that it is disrespectful to other teams. It makes people less comfortable being there. And don't you want people to feel welcome?

After-school sports should be fun for everyone... and it is not like it is hard to predict what things will be offensive. As I said before, perhaps there is no good rule for declaring that it should be removed by school officials... but that line only states the bare minimum.

Yes, he is a high school senior. So he should be treated like an adult, right? Okay. But part of being an adult is learning that we have a responsibility to strive for greater than the lowest-common-denominator. Just because you can, does not mean you should.

Learn some respect for others. His team knew before they did it that people would find it offensive. Was there some important message that they just had to get out, that outweighed their concern for a certain level of civility? I doubt it. If there were, I would love to hear it.

"WTF?" says nothing about the team other than that it is disrespectful to other teams. It makes people less comfortable being there. And don't you want people to feel welcome?

I have trouble understanding how the team name is "disrespectful" or unwelcoming towards other teams. Perhaps you could explain this to me, without being so condescending.


Learn some respect for others. His team knew before they did it that people would find it offensive. Was there some important message that they just had to get out, that outweighed their concern for a certain level of civility? I doubt it. If there were, I would love to hear it.

Actually, we had no idea that the name would be offensive to others. Our school is not typically a conservative school - I mean, they let a club where you throw foam balls at one another slip by. The acronym isn't used in insulting terms towards others - it's used the same way one would use 'What the hell?' or some other general statement of confusion. I've never heard of it used in a derogatory manner towards others.

It's good to hear that you embrace profanity in proper situations, and I'm pleasantly surprised to hear that you allow it in the papers that students submit to you. Are you an English professor, or a similar discipline?

If you could clear up my questions, I'd appreciate it. And try to calm down a bit - this is, after all, dodgeball.

I have trouble understanding how the team name is "disrespectful" or unwelcoming towards other teams. Perhaps you could explain this to me, without being so condescending.

I missed the part where I condescended to you. I apologize for my words' unintended effect.

That out of the way, why don't we go through the varieties of swearing and deal with them in turn? Then perhaps we can figure out into which of them to fit your phrase so as to see why it might be offensive.

First, profanity. An act or utterance is considered profane if it is disrepectful toward a person's religion. I do not think I need to go over specifics. Now, I happen to be atheist, so it is pretty difficult to say something that I personally consider profane... but, I realize that people around me take their religion very seriously, and very personally. While I would generally be interested in a critical discussion of it, I have no interest in offending them personally when the only thing this accomplishes is... well, to offend them and destroy whatever common ground for discussion we originally had. So I try to stay away from it.

Second, obscenity. An act or utterance is obscene insofar as it is abhorrent to morality, virtue, or common decency. Obviously, this can cover rather wide territory... but in our society you can feel fairly safe in narrowing it down to things that deal with sex. Now, in some cultures any reference to sex might be considered obscene; clearly this is not the case in ours. Generally we do not consider it obscene to discuss sexual relations, or even to portray sexual activity, within certain bounds. (Personally, I actually tend to think these are too strict.) Whatever one may think of nudity, however, our culture's conception of obscenity seems to have something more to do with how one deals with it. We still prefer to believe, most of us, that sex is (or should be) something that occurs between people who at a minimum respect one another. Some might even call it "beautiful." Therefore, we consider obscene those things that tend to degrade the act of sex into something purely mechanical or animalistic. Hence, our distaste for the word "fuck," which tends to do exactly that.

Finally, vulgarity. This is, in many ways, the most difficult to define. In one way, it is merely a catch-all for things that seem offensive to us, but do not properly fall into the other two categories. More properly, we might say that the vulgar lacks some sense of cultivation or taste. Of course, the sense of the vulgar derives out of classism, but need not be confined to it. When our society developed democratic values, it developed a democratic sense of the vulgar as well. Of course, remnants of the classist sense of the vulgar remain... these have to do largely with certain words that we consider taboo, but cannot quite say why -- things like "shit" or "piss." I have utterly no problem with these, and while I try not to say them in polite conversation because people will likely not understand my view, I think that people would do well to "loosen up" on these words -- they really do not hurt anything. The more democratic sense of the vulgar, however, deals with behavior that appears to indicate an arrogant lack of concern for other people and their opinions, and does so in such a way as to preclude opportunities for further discussion. Thus, in this democratic sense, things as seemingly as harmless as "shut up" or "what a moron" are considered vulgar. While we may not regulate them per se, people concerned with a productive, friendly environment (a democratic one) do not use such language.

Now, into which of these does your expression fall? You make no secret of the fact that "WTF?" stands for "What the fuck?" Moreover, an average person should be expected to know that. Now, it is clear that the phrase does not profane, at least not in any way that I can identify. So it must be either an obscenity, a vulgarity... or, perhaps, not offensive at all.

Of course, it is not clearly an example of obscenity, since its usage of the word "fuck" does not really seem to refer to the sex act in any identifiable way. However, you have to remember that there are a significant number of people who find the word "fuck" offensive as an obscenity for the simple reason that it does call to mind the sex act, whether referring to it intentionally or not, and it does tend to degrade sexuality. So, for that reason alone, I would probably not use it unless I had a good reason -- and I am still waiting to hear what your reason might be.

However, I think your expression is more appropriately considered vulgar. The sense of vulgarity, even more so than the other types of offensive language, depends largely on context. Amongst friends who know exactly what you mean, I suspect that "what the fuck" is a perfectly harmless, indeed quite expressive phrase. I will be happy to admit using it myself to express, occasionally confusion as you say, but more often indignation or outrage.

I would not, however, use it in public unless I felt it expressed an imporant idea or feeling I could not express in any other way. It can be used, you will admit, in a variety of contexts... and at least some of them provide the sense of intimidating confrontation. "What the fuck?!" is something you say when you want to pick a fight, for instance. It is something you say when someone makes an argument and you want to condescend to it without really providing a reply -- because there is no adequate answer to "WTF?" (Someone has already resorted to it in this very thread.)

Now, if you just put it on your shirt, there is no way for your audience to measure your tone. I understand you were trying to be funny... but the first rule of political speech -- and all public speech is political -- is "consider your audience." If you could be absolutely confident that you were dealing with friends who would "get it," then no bid deal. I have little problem with it. (Some, maybe, but only because I think the level of discourse has plummeted generally, and "everyone is okay with it" may not be a satisfactory excuse.)

But you knew teachers would see you, right? Maybe parents? Maybe even other students who would take it "the wrong way"? You have no control over how people read your words... and therefore if you have said something that can mean so many things, you have said nothing.

It may seem unfair that you have to conform, in some sense, to what other people think. You are correct -- it is unfair. But, it is also responsible. The just is not always the good; sometimes you have to decide which is more important.

Actually, we had no idea that the name would be offensive to others.

I find that very difficult to believe. The phrase is known to be generally offensive, and you were playing to a general audience. Besides, once you were informed that it was offensive, the mature thing to do would have been to apologize, preferably in a public forum (you do not know how many others were offended but said nothing), and then burn the jerseys.

Our school is not typically a conservative school - I mean, they let a club where you throw foam balls at one another slip by.

Hardly the same. MOST schools have football teams, certainly at least as violent as that. Moreover, this is not an issue of liberalism versus conservatism. As you should be able to judge from my screenname, I am about as far to the left as one can get, yet I am still offended by disrespectful language. Not because I am prudish, but because I value a certain level of civility, of mutual respect for one another.

The acronym isn't used in insulting terms towards others - it's used the same way one would use 'What the hell?' or some other general statement of confusion. I've never heard of it used in a derogatory manner towards others.

Please! If that is true, then your environment is clearly more conservative than you think, and you have been, whether you know it or not, quite sheltered.

It's good to hear that you embrace profanity in proper situations, and I'm pleasantly surprised to hear that you allow it in the papers that students submit to you. Are you an English professor, or a similar discipline?

I am a political scientist, but I also teach freshmen English.

Okay. So, you went and got yourself jerseys, and you think you are so "cool" with your little offensive catch-phrase.

Now, personally, I do not think there is anything wrong with the word itself, or even the phrase itself. No word, outside of any context, is inherently offensive.

If I were a witness to that dodgeball game, however, or met you in school while you were wearing that shirt, I would be offended.

Why? Because it is vulgar and rude. It represents a kind of language designed, and almost always employed, to degrade discourse, to shut up the competition, to project an attitude disrespectful of those around you. Whether you realize it or not, such language/behavior is disruptive and destructive of the very free speech you would call to its defense.

I teach college courses, in which there is naturally much more freedom than in the high-school setting. In my students papers, I encourage them to employ vulgarity, obscenity, and even profanity when (1) nothing else will work to express the idea or (2) the usage is in reference to some other usage of such language, seeking to describe and/or explain it. The other requirement is that its usage is not meant to convey an "argument" or "attitude" overtly hostile to the possibility of a response.

In class, the same rules apply. However, one does not even have to use "foul" language in order for it to merit a reprimand if it the language employed is disrespectful of other people in the room.

On the street, I do not believe such language can or should be regulated. You should be able to wear whatever you want, whenever you want, and to say virtually whatever you want. (Do not count on people to like you for it, however.)

But in school, or in the context of an organized public event, you participate with other people in an explicitly cooperative endeavor. Part of the tacit agreement of taking part in such democratic activities is that you exercise respect for those around you. Respect means that, although you may not consider something offensive, you must be concerned with what will be offensive to others.

Democracy values free speech precisely because a decent respect for the ideas of others is necessary to a democratic socity. Disrespectful language, therefore, is tolerated insofar as it is necessary to the expression of ideas that may actually add something to the discussion.

Ultimately, who decides what is valuable? This is a problem. As an instructor, I try -- as your teachers try -- to be careful about such matters. Perhaps, in the end, there is no adequate rule for regulating such language... In any case, however, you should not employ it in a public, cooperative endeavor. The point is that if you were really concerned about democracy, about the quality of speech, you would have never worn them in the first place. You should be ashamed.

The problem I have with all that

The definitions of what is offensive differ WIDLY between people

Who is to decide what is accepted and what is not … really there are a lot of terms out there that have vulgar connotations but are so used they are accepted

Something is always going to offend someone somewhere

Something is always going to offend someone somewhere

You are probably right. However, it is a fallacy to think that because no matter what you say, someone will be offended, all statements are equally offensive and you may therefore say anything.

All I am suggesting is that people exercise a sensible regard for the likely effects of their words. Some things one can be reasonably sure will be offensive. If that is the case, the only excuse for employing such expressions is that you have something worthwhile to say that cannot be said otherwise. If you honestly believe that what you have to say meets that criteria, then say it.

My contention here is that the team (1) knew it was offensive; and (2) had no pressing reason to use it.

(1) It has been suggested that they only meaning they knew was one of "confusion." This seems unlikely, for two reasons: first, because it is used rather widely with other connotations; and second, because that meaning hardly makes sense for their team's name. Did they want to suggest they are confused? No. I think they thought it was funny, and that only because they knew it was "naughty," but thought they would get away with it if they used an acronym.

(2) I have asked twice now for a good reason to use it. None has been provided.

...

I left in what was of consequence.:rolleyes:

From what I read of your drivel you propose a neurotic lapdog approach to social interaction. Assuming that an expeltive was intended, by you own standards WTF is not an attack but an utterance relating a reaction of surprise and bewilderment.

The setting is a high school and the administration was forced to take into account that there are people like you in their community who would make their lives miserable if they didn't say no to the shirts.

Think of the children!

I missed the part where I condescended to you. I apologize for my words' unintended effect.

That out of the way,
Your tone toward Lenord Nimoy is offensive and disrespectful. Your pro forma apology is transparently insincere as you continue to deride him while going off on your way to display your "superior" approach.

You manage to achieve, without a single use of expletive, the very effects you abhor in their use. Therefore you are a fraud and a cad attempting to hide behind "socially acceptable" speech a blatantly antisocial attitude.

Assuming that an expeltive was intended, by you own standards WTF is not an attack but an utterance relating a reaction of surprise and bewilderment.

If that were true, I doubt anyone would have been offended. My point, however, is not about what one intends. One can always jump to the defense of offensive behavior by saying, "Oh no! I didn't mean it!"

The point is that reasonable people understand what the effect of their language will be on those around them. Responsible people take that into consideration when they speak.

The setting is a high school and the administration was forced to take into account that there are people like you in their community who would make their lives miserable if they didn't say no to the shirts.

I would have done no such thing. I am not, nor have I ever said I would be, personally offended by such language. However, I know that other people are, and I see no reason to offend them without a good reason. By the way, have we thought of a good reason yet? I would not, personally, complain. I would, however, be embarrassed to keep company with such individuals. I would not want their behavior to reflect on me.

What was the name on the jersey?

And cogitation: I was dissapointed too.

And the term I believe that they use is "trekker"

:)

Your tone toward Lenord Nimoy is offensive and disrespectful.
How so? I give reasonable arguments... Naturally, a person is likely to bristle when he has been shown to be incorrect. If he has a rational response, the effect of this emotion will be to bring it quickly to the table. He will only be silenced if he has nothing reasonable to add to the conversation... in which case the responsible reaction would be to take the criticism to heart and change one's ways.

I employed no ad hominem, nor any language designed or expected to shut down argument, where argument exists. The sort of "offense" that results from being corrected is a far shot from the offensive language under discussion, in that it fundamentally respects the person by attempting to provide clear, reasonable explanations of his error.

Your pro forma apology is transparently insincere as you continue to deride him while going off on your way to display your "superior" approach.

Did I call anything "superior"? I did not, and thus your use of quotation marks is inherently dishonest. Furthermore, my apology was quite sincere. I did not intend any offense... neither did I say anything that a person in a reasonable discussion should find offensive. If someone could point to a particular passage in which I was offensive, and explain to me what was the offense, I would be glad to read this so as to correct my behavior in the future. Indeed, I went above and beyond any responsibility I have to this unknown individual, in that I provided painfully detailed explanations of my views... so detailed, in fact, that where there are points on which they can be criticized, they should be obvious. I have yet to read a direct response to them. Instead I get your blatantly insulting flame-bait. Thank you for demonstrating how not to conduct a discussion.

You manage to achieve, without a single use of expletive, the very effects you abhor in their use.

As I have already explained, insofar as my posts request -- even demand -- a rational response, they only silence discussion to the point that my interlocutor is incapable of such a response. This I cannot help.

Therefore you are a fraud and a cad attempting to hide behind "socially acceptable" speech a blatantly antisocial attitude.

Not so. Thus far, I have been the only one in this discussion to offer even an approximation of cordial dialogue.

Thanks again.

If the point was merely to indicate confusion, "What?" "What the?" or "Huh?" would have sufficed.

Without directing my comment at anyone in particular, I'm going to remind everyone to keep the discussion civil; I've got my eye on this topic, and I don't want it degenerating further.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
NationStates Game Moderator

I missed the part where I condescended to you. I apologize for my words' unintended effect.

The insult I was referring to was the following preface to your initial comment:

Okay. So, you went and got yourself jerseys, and you think you are so "cool" with your little offensive catch-phrase.

Contrary to popular belief, not everything a high schooler does is for the express purpose of looking cool. I'd appreciate it if you would give me a little more credit. Apology accepted.


So, for that reason alone, I would probably not use it unless I had a good reason -- and I am still waiting to hear what your reason might be.

We liked the idea for a team name because of the acronym's connection with internet lingo. Things like that, such as 'BRB' or 'LOL' are running jokes in my school. Whether or not that is the case in other places is beyond me. In truth, any one of those examples of internet lingo would have sufficed. We simply chose 'WTF?'

"What the fuck?!" is something you say when you want to pick a fight, for instance. It is something you say when someone makes an argument and you want to condescend to it without really providing a reply -- because there is no adequate answer to "WTF?"

Maybe there's something I should explain that would clear this up. Our team, along with a couple other senior teams, have been developing a mock rivalry since the club's creation. We pretend to call eachother out in the lunch room and insult one another. I am positive that everyone involved is good-natured in their intent; we've even talked about it with one another. We don't seek to intimidate teams that we haven't talked to. The rivalry is kept between our teams only. We don't extend towards other teams who may be unwilling.


But you knew teachers would see you, right? Maybe parents? Maybe even other students who would take it "the wrong way"? You have no control over how people read your words... and therefore if you have said something that can mean so many things, you have said nothing.

This is true. . . we have no control over how people read our words. That's something I didn't take into account, and I should have. I believe that the meaning of 'WTF?' is generally known, but different interpretations could exist. In this aspect, you are correct, and I failed to plan for such a reaction from others.

It may seem unfair that you have to conform, in some sense, to what other people think. You are correct -- it is unfair. But, it is also responsible. The just is not always the good; sometimes you have to decide which is more important.

As I said, we agreed not to wear the jerseys in school, rather than fight it. We believed that was for the greater good.



The phrase is known to be generally offensive, and you were playing to a general audience. Besides, once you were informed that it was offensive, the mature thing to do would have been to apologize, preferably in a public forum (you do not know how many others were offended but said nothing), and then burn the jerseys.

Here I disagree with you. I see no reason why I should be held accountable for others' interpretations of a word. True, I should have realized that others may misunderstand its meaning, but I don't see how this is my fault. The agreement was that we were to wear the jerseys only in game, not "burn" them. This we do, and we have experienced no problems as a result of wearing them during games. We took the jerseys out of a forum in which people would see it who would not wish to. The jerseys were approved by the sponsor and the club before being renounced by other teachers.

Thank you for being more civil.

Political science is good stuff. Where do you teach, if you don't mind my asking?

The insult I was referring to was the following preface to your initial comment

I apologize, once again. I meant it to indicate friendly understanding of a relatively inoccuous motivation, prefacing my criticism of the outcome of that motivation. Apparently, in your environment there is something "wrong" with wanting to be "cool"... I do not share the sentiment. I think it is a perfectly natural desire, one that most of us share to one extent or another. However, the remark was clearly careless... and I choose to take responsibility for how you understood it; it was I who failed to make my meaning clear.

Contrary to popular belief, not everything a high schooler does is for the express purpose of looking cool. I'd appreciate it if you would give me a little more credit.
I never thought it was... It just seemed to me that this was the purpose of the behavior in question.
Apology accepted.
Thank you.
We liked the idea for a team name because of the acronym's connection with internet lingo. Things like that, such as 'BRB' or 'LOL' are running jokes in my school. Whether or not that is the case in other places is beyond me. In truth, any one of those examples of internet lingo would have sufficed. We simply chose 'WTF?'
Okay... Like I said, I believed from the beginning your motivations were relatively harmless. I just think you failed to take into account the full impact of your behavior, as I did with respect to mine in the very opening remarks which you found offensive.
Maybe there's something I should explain that would clear this up. Our team, along with a couple other senior teams, have been developing a mock rivalry since the club's creation. We pretend to call eachother out in the lunch room and insult one another. I am positive that everyone involved is good-natured in their intent; we've even talked about it with one another. We don't seek to intimidate teams that we haven't talked to. The rivalry is kept between our teams only. We don't extend towards other teams who may be unwilling.
It sounds like a lot of fun. If the environment is restricted to these teams, who understand and accept your meaning, then--as I have already indicated--no harm, no foul. Of course, you should be careful to consider how this may affect the other teams. Do they feel left out? Do you think perhaps you cultivate an attitude that alienates them? Perhaps not, I am not there to say. Of course, you are under no obligation to be as inclusive as possible--no one can force you to be friends with someone, or even to treat them in a friendly way (except for the moderators here, who do their best). However, a mature and responsible adult would at least give it some thought.

This is true. . . we have no control over how people read our words. That's something I didn't take into account, and I should have. I believe that the meaning of 'WTF?' is generally known, but different interpretations could exist. In this aspect, you are correct, and I failed to plan for such a reaction from others.

Thank you for admitting that much. I always like to stress points of agreement.
As I said, we agreed not to wear the jerseys in school, rather than fight it. We believed that was for the greater good.

Good for you. That is the sort of thinking I like to see. It is responsible, respectful, and mature. I suppose I was merely misled to believe that you were up-in-arms over the censure.

Here I disagree with you. I see no reason why I should be held accountable for others' interpretations of a word.
The problem is not a matter of "should." It is, unfortunately, a matter of will be. Since we cannot control how people interpret our words, we must deal with those interpretations. "Sorry, I didn't mean it," is a decent enough excuse... but to continue to express oneself in a particular way when one knows it is insulting is... well, disrespectful. It says, in essence, "I don't care what you think, I will say what I want." Now, as I have said again and again, sometimes this is unavoidable, because what you want to say is too important to be given up in the name of respectfulness. It may be a thin line, but for that very reason you must always check yourself, as a responsible person.

True, I should have realized that others may misunderstand its meaning, but I don't see how this is my fault.

There is something called "reciprocal responsibility." If they were not offended, there would be nothing wrong with your statement. On the other hand, if you had not said it, no one would be offended. So who is responsible for the offense? Both of you.

As I have said before, the notion that you should restrain your free expression so that others are not offended is inherently unfair. But it is also unfair that people must live in an offensive environment merely so that you can "express" yourself. There is no such thing as fairness (for a further explanation see There's No Such Thing as Free Speech... and It's a Good Thing, Too, by Stanley Fish). So, again there is a thin line between acceptable and unacceptable speech. Where we set that line is an entirely political matter... some people push one way, others push the other way, and the actual rule falls somewhere in the middle.

Some of us, however, believe that the world need not be so inherently contentious. The way to make things better for everyone is to exercise some self-restraint... Those of us who feel that certain questionable phrases are useful to our self-expression temper our "right" out of respect for other people. Similarly, we expect that those people who take offense should be willing to take a step back and say, "Is this worth complaining about?" Again, a useful rule to keep in mind is, "Do I have something really valuable to say? If so, can I find another way to say it?" If the answer is yes to the first question and no to the second, then you may use your expression... and we will ask those who are offended, out of respect for your right to self-expression, to forbear their complaints. This, too, is politics... but politics, I think, of a higher sort.

The agreement was that we were to wear the jerseys only in game, not "burn" them. This we do, and we have experienced no problems as a result of wearing them during games.
Okay. That's great!! However, I would caution you to remember that in any situation there are likely to be people who are offended, but who do not come forward. So you should ask yourselves, "how likely is it that someone will find this offensive?" If it's not likely at all, then I see no problem with it... and I am sure all of your friends get the joke! All I want to emphasize, and I will emphasize it again and again, is that people in a democracy have a responsibility to those around them. The reason I do this is because so many of the students I encounter seem to think that "free speech" means they can say anything they want. Perhaps it does, in some sense. But it certainly does not imply that they "should" say anything they want, a notion that certainly would have been at odds with the political understandings of the men who instituted that very right! Moreover, there will always be a line past which the community has an interest in declaring, "Enough."

We took the jerseys out of a forum in which people would see it who would not wish to.
If that is true, then you have done everything that decency requires. Of course, more ambitious politicians might wonder if they could manage to elevate the level of discourse even amongst those with whom vulgarity is "okay"... but there is certainly less need of this than the minimum that you attempt to be non-offensive.

Political science is good stuff. Where do you teach, if you don't mind my asking?

Last year, I taught political science and freshman English at Lehigh University, in Bethlehem, PA. Currently I assist in freshman English at Lehigh, while I continue my graduate studies at Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ. In two years, I will begin a teaching schedule here, in which I will teach undergraduate courses in political theory and public law, as well as, again, freshman English.