So a couple of days ago Yahoo announced their new Yahoo! Search Assist feature. It’s intended to help people find information faster, which, I think, is a noble goal in this information heavy and attention poor world.
However, I have to say, I was a bit taken back when I tried it out for the first time. I did a search for “jesus” a few moments ago and got this result:
I’m not a big Bill O’Reilly fan myself. However, I am offended that a recommendation taking the Lord’s name in vain is ranking so high.
Of course, any automated system—especially one as large as a Yahoo’s recommendation system—is going to have glitches. Even biases: Check out this post announcing the new Techmeme Leaderboard, which is another popular automated system.
And as a programmer by trade, I can’t say I’m surprised. Systems like this are hard to get right. Nor do I believe for a second Yahoo is intentionally trying to offend me.
So I guess I’m wondering: in this world of automation, what’s the proper Christian response to this sort of situation? Grin and bear it? Ask Yahoo to look into this? Any thoughts?
Loading ...
October 3, 2007 at 12:03
I always thought taking the Lords name in vain was referring to a Christian. You call yourself a Christian and you don’t live like it. I think that is much more offensive to God. I love that the Word of God say we will find Him when we search for Him with our whole heart.
October 3, 2007 at 17:55
Why would it offend you that the Lord’s name would be taken in vain on a secular site? I certainly don’t expect non-Christians to live according to Christian tenets.
I think it’s unfortunate, but not because it takes the Lord’s name in vain. It’s unfortunate because it’s almost certainly an inaccurate suggestion. For that reason, and that reason alone, I’d report it as a bug in the weighting system.
You’re right, though: it’s a hard problem to solve anyway. What should the system do if a user is searching for “creation” and the phrase “creationists are ignorant” is heavily weighted (presumably due to the plethora of pages out there arguing the point)? What if the phrase were “creationists are ignorant bastards”? What about if a user searched for “God” and got “God hates fags”, a phrase which (IMO) is far more offensive on a number of levels than your example? At what point is it a matter of having a real concern versus merely having thin skin?
October 3, 2007 at 20:16
What a refreshing post, Brian. Thank you so much for it.
Often I have wondered how we Christians can stand idly by when our precious Lord’s name is taken in vain. Are we as believers so worldly that we have become blase to blasphemy? (Oops, now I’ve really done it, using a “churchianity” type word like ‘blasphemy.’ How could I? Don’t I care about the lost who may be reading this post?) I have heard many – way too many – Christians defend those who brazenly slog the things of God through the mud by tossing out the “Well, they are unsaved. How do you expect them to behave?” bone. What a lot of bunk!!! I’m not a Sikh and never have been, but I understand that calling one a towel-head is derogatory and disrespectful. Where did we ever come up with the moronic idea that because we are Christians, we are automatically wrong if we take offense when the things of God (especially His wonderful Son) are trampled upon?
October 4, 2007 at 09:08
The proper response is—lighten up. Do you really want anyone working on automating search results such that no one—no Mormon, Baptist, Buddhist, Islamist, Presbyterian, Amish, et al.—is offended by the content?
October 4, 2007 at 09:42
PCG:
Just to flush out your argument a bit more: So being offended should be based on the context? If a fellow Christian did this, then would it be OK to feel offended?
That said, I completely agree that we shouldn’t expect non-Christians to live up to Christian ideals.
Brian:
I don’t really expect an automated system to be 100% non-offensive. That would be a pretty boring (and probably unhelpful) list.
On the other hand, if Yahoo doesn’t know this is an issue, they probably won’t know to fix it (or at least look into it). I’m not going to boycott Yahoo, but letting their QA team know about the concern might not hurt.
October 4, 2007 at 09:54
I think they would like to know about such things. They don’t want to offend people and won’t realize that there’s the potential if nobody tells them.
The best part is that corporations don’t have feelings so you don’t have to worry about how the information will hurt them like you would if you were telling a person.
October 4, 2007 at 17:22
BRIAN: Would I be offended if a fellow Christian did what? If a fellow Christian designed a system that didn’t preconceive every potential for blasphemy, I wouldn’t be offended. I’d let them know, since I’m sure they’d want to make sure their results are accurate and not purposefully offensive. (If they were intending to serve a 100% Christian audience, they’d especially want to present results that don’t take the Lord’s name in vain.) I’d lament the state of our fallen world that (a) prevented perfection in the system, and (b) encouraged some ne’er-do-well to pollute the database. But I certainly wouldn’t feel offended by the system designers any more than I feel offended by the W3C or Verizon every time I get an unwanted pr0n web banner.
CHRISTIANE: I’m confused: who presented the “moronic idea” that Christians who take offense to things are automatically wrong? It sounds like something that might be vaguely directed at me; should I take offense to the insinuation that I am a moron (since ideas cannot be “moronic”, having no intelligence of their own, and, thus, deriving their ranking of intelligence by those that present them)?
October 4, 2007 at 18:46
I’ve often wondered that myself, pcg. Seems like it’s come about in the past few decades as Christians have learned that it’s perfectly okay to be offended by and insist that fallen humanity stop media and personal and workplace usage of words and phrases like (to use one of your examples) “fags” but are to be berated as thin-skinned for expecting these same fallen folks to cease using Jesus Christ’s name as an epithet. The attitude of even those who call themselves Christians seems to be that if persons on earth are involved, offense & action can, and should be, taken, and only the brutish among us do not understand. But if the person of Jesus Christ is involved, then we are fools for expecting high standards out of fallen human beings. This double standard strikes me as being a perfect example of moronic thinking, exactly backwards from the perspective a believer should have.
October 4, 2007 at 20:18
O’Reilly got my attention one time when he had some interesting things, yet with all the commercials and such, I got bored fast.When he took our Lord’s name in vain, that got me so upset, I e-mailed FoxNews with no response.I thus have eliminated that station from my Dish Network and am now down to 12!!!. NBC is getting worse as well. I used to enjoy watching NCIS, until this past Tuesday however. The cuss words were a total turnoff and not needed. This is without a doubt evidence of the last days as found in Revelation. Reading my 30 year old T.C.R. NIV Bible each night in bed is the way I end each day. God bless and goodnight my friends
October 4, 2007 at 21:44
I’m with pcg and Brian on this one. Who should really be more offended, Jesus or Bill O’Reilly? Do we think we’re defending Jesus, and coming to his aid, when we become offended at someone “taking his name in vain?” Those who actually do this are only hurting themselves, not God. Where is your concern? That Jesus is hurt and offended? That you are? Or that those who take his name in vain are really showing that they are lost without him? The answer is going to make a significant difference in your reaction, if any. In this case we’re offended at the inane result of a mindless software system. I think it’s funny and I wonder if Jesus isn’t amused rather than offended. I’m sure there are more significant matters that warrant his (and our) being offended or grieved and about which we “stand idly by” and do nothing.
October 5, 2007 at 06:10
Like paul said, its a mindless piece of software that is based on solely on searching for the keyword not determining the potential offensiveness of its results.
Yahoo did not do this on purpose and probably would change it in a heartbeat if they knew this was an issue.
My concern is for Christine and PCG – We need to be discussing the issues without insult to each other or each other’s ideas. Speaking the truth with love should be the way to discuss these ideas.
I understand what you are saying Christine and i agree that using the Lord’s name in vain by any one is wrong. But to call fellow Christian’s ideas moronic is also wrong – you can say the same thing and not be mean about it.
I think Christine and PCG have asked a legitimate questions within there comments. I think we all need to think about them seriously, but the way we discuss them with each other also speaks volumes about who we really are…
and we need to work on that as well.
October 5, 2007 at 11:33
Christiane, I think I’m understanding your argument a little better. The key to your last comment is your concern that “if the person of Jesus Christ is involved, then we are fools for expecting high standards out of fallen human beings.”
That’s precisely the point: it is foolish to do so.
Let me try to speak to your concerns by using a few analogies. Now, I recognize that every analogy breaks down at some point, but let’s see where it goes.
You see, without the relationship, without the tie to the culture, there’s no reason for someone to live according to the tenets of that culture. It’s simply foolish to expect a non-believer to not take the Lord’s name in vain, just as foolish as it is to expect one to offer peace sacrifices under the old covenant.
Apologies for the long post, mods; I promise to post on my own blog for further exploration of the topic.
October 5, 2007 at 17:23
pcg,
May I answer your questions with some questions?
1. Do unbelievers have the responsibility to be tolerant of others as citizens in a free society, or is this just an exercise for Christians?
2. Is it right for people of both sexes to be offended when homosexuals are dismissed out of hand as ‘queers’?
3. Should only Blacks be offended by the n-word, or is it appropriate for people of all colors to be offended by this slur?
4. Before the Jews were ever harmed physically, they were reviled first in speech in Nazi Germany. Who should have stood up for them – only other Jews?
5. Is it easier to bear the cross of Christ when it consists in justifying those who spit on the Savior, or when it means standing up with Him and taking some of the spit?
Not only am I not being foolish to expect others to respect my Christianity, but this is this basic civic duty of those who do not agree with my belief system. At one point, it was understood that this was the reference point of free civilization.
October 10, 2007 at 08:17
Christiane wrote:
“this [respect of my beliefs] is th[e] basic civic duty of those who do not agree with my belief system. At one point, it was understood that this was the reference point of free civilization.”
I’m not sure where in the history books you are reading this. People have ridiculed each other for their beliefs forever and will continue to do so until we get to heaven. Christ told us that the world would hate us because of him, so why do we expect them to change their ways just so they won’t offend us? We’ve got to learn to let it go. Until someone is actually inhibiting our rights to worship as we choose, we need to just realize that our job is to reach the hearts of unbelievers not just force them into compliance with our rules.
October 10, 2007 at 09:38
Forcing anyone into compliance is not anyone’s goal. This double standard of expecting Christians to respect others while Christians are acceptable target for trashing is wrong. If others expect us to respect them/their belief system, they are to respect ours as well. This is the basis of our freedom as a society; it is called tolerance. It is startling to see so many justify and even fight for continuance of this double standard.
I am convinced one of the best ways we can exercise our freedom of worship is to stand up with Jesus and let people and companies know, “Hey, I’m a Christian and I would appreciate it if you wouldn’t take my Lord’s name in vain.” This is being a witness to the lost just as much as spending the night with the homeless in a shelter is. It is our right (and not only ours – others should stand with us) as citizens in a free society, and our privilege as Christians to speak up for the Lord when our Savior is maligned. If we continue this trend of not doing so, and justifying those who are only too glad to have us remain in silence, we will be astonished one day to wake up and discover that we no longer even have the right.