I am not stating it will cost nothing. I am questioning what that cost would be.

If anyone wishes to continue an action for their own amusement, when they are aware that those actions are uncomfortable to others, they are free to do so. I may ask them to stop, but I won't insist that they do.

If it is online, I usually have the option to IGNORE that person or their posts. If it's real life, I can ignore them their, too.

It all comes down to personal interpretation, opinion, and how one chooses to exercise free will.

My choices tend towards those actions that will not alienate others needlessly. Your mileage may vary.

You know this because you have both or what?
Haven't used the word in mention yet. And certainly won't now. In my language "pap" is the word for cardboard - so we're having fun enough without the smearing, here

If this were your website or a public forum talk of rights and subjectivity could be relevant.

It is not. It is a private forum and a mod has spoken. Further insistence to the contrary at this point is akin to arguing over using your cell-phone in a movie theater or showing up shirtless and barefoot to a 5-star restaurant that requires jackets. You certainly do have a right to talk on your cell-phone or dress how you please or use what-ever slang you want elsewhere, but not here.

It's actually an extremely trivial question, as the situation we find ourselves in is a woman asking that people not use the phrase PaPsmear on an online Heroclix forum. Y'know, a place on the internet where we all talk about superhero chess.

Not every situation is a battle in some ongoing war. Not every context warrants standing on a soapbox, or even discussing politics. Sometimes, someone just doesn't like a word, and you can decide for yourself whether or not you will abide by the request. I'll boil it down even further for you: It's a question of whether or not you will do as this person asked. It's, in a pretty literal sense, a yes or no question.

Perspective matters. Which is less polite: a request, or a refusal?

I politely asked Wizkids not to print dials on cards. They refused. Consequence: they no longer receive my expendable income.

Wizkids politely asked me to support this change. I refused. Consequence: I no longer get to play the new hotness.

I was speaking generally (about the concept of "offense"), and yes or no questions can be incredibly complex to grapple with (or not).

As to this situation - if the author of the term continues to use it, he will be branded 'rude', whether or not this is a forum for silly chess. It's worth discussing, even if just as a teachable moment for people to examine their beliefs.

You're needlessly digging into complexities that don't really need discussing. If someone asks you politely to not do something, and you say "I'll do it anyways", they'll probably think you're a jerk. Some other people might think you're a jerk, some people might not, it's virtually impossible to tell or really discuss. Even when someone says "I think you're a jerk" they might not actually think you're a jerk.

If you want to get into nuance of simple requests, we can be here all day. All I'm saying is, it detracts from the original point to blow it up and try and make it some generalized educational experience, when, more or less, everyone here is an adult and can probably decide for themselves the pros and cons of abiding by or refusing a polite request.

Hey, we can stop discussing this anytime, don't let me stop you. I happen to like going down the rabbit hole, but then again I'm deeply invested in such discussion as an academic.

Whoa! Hold on! Silly!

Now I'm offended.....

I agree that things like this are worth discussing. In this instance, I have no logical, financial, or emotional investment in using the term PAPsmear, so I have no issues with not using it. If this were about something important, that I felt strongly about, like climate change, gun reform, or Squirrel-Girl warranting a 200+ point "Slayer of All That Breathes" dial, I would be very vocal about that.

I am willing to argue about the things which I feel are important, and let go of the things that are not. But I'm always up for a good debate.

Filed to: too much actual #### to worry about in life to worry overmuch about this "battle."

As regards the ever-expanding "culture war," I've determined that I'll evaluate terms on a case-by-case basis. We operate entirely too much on feeling/emotion in this country, across all groups and political affiliations, and I'm not going to play along with it if it's an unreasonable request.

This? I have no problem not using it, particularly since I'd rather refer to PAP figures as "NuCrutch 2000" or "those ####ing things."

Other examples? Last week, I used the term "lame" to indicate something that was...well...lame. I was told that it was ableist speech, and that I shouldn't use it. I stood my ground on that one, as the term has long been used to denote weak or less than favorable circumstances or actions. If you're going to come at me with 100% feeling, and with no regard to fact, I'm going to (politely) disregard your assertion.

Well, traditionally in acronyms the letter "A" wouldn't be represented in the Acronym (Usually). I think we should just call them PP characters (See also: Pee Pee characters)

I swear I read that first one as "NutCrunch 2000".

I think you just won the thread with that.

thrumble, you honestly always have the most fair and well-reasoned responses on this site

Also valid. Hate 'em.