Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: General Battuta on April 09, 2013, 04:12:08 pm
-
Jesus Christ. Somebody fire this *****.
c'mon son
-
Jesus Christ. Somebody fire this *****.
c'mon son
What?
EDIT: inb4 "you can't call her a ***** even if she mocks rape victims"
-
I applaud and endorse your reaction to this article's blind and horrifying perpetuation of our ****ed up gender system, but I contest your decision to deploy a gendered slur that is a product of that same system (http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2008/05/16/feminism-friday-on-*****-and-other-misogynist-language/) in the course of condemning it.
Pretty sure this thread is going to go to **** now :blah:
-
What?
The whole issue here is that she's doing what's often done to female victims, except to a male victim. Don't use it as an excuse to reinforce any anti-equality sentiments you may harbour.
That being said, I thought the star was supposed to be progressive. Maybe this is an incident of Poe's Law? It might be a poorly executed and tasteless statement on victim-blaming. If that's the case, then why did she bring in those statistics on the role of gender in sexual assault?
-
Jesus Christ. Somebody fire this *****.
c'mon son
What?
EDIT: inb4 "you can't call her a ***** even if she mocks rape victims"
Ugh, responding to the edit. A ***** is a woman who behaves in a way that I don't even think should be considered derogatory any more. ***** is a word that evolved to keep women in their place.
You can feel totally free to insult this woman for mocking rape victims! You should do it with harsh, harsh words that describe her as a bad person who mocks rape victims. But '*****' is the kind of word that's used to target people for rape and keep them from speaking out afterwards.
Gendered insults are a bad idea when the target's gender is irrelevant to why they're a bad person (which is pretty much always). Gendered insults, whether '*****' or 'beta', are tools to keep people in their place - to help build up the very structures that this reporter mindlessly went along with.
The man who was raped in this article has probably been mocked as 'those women's *****'.
-
Agree with Battuta here, let's not meet sexual generalizations, stereotypes and assumptions with yet more of them :)
-
I applaud and endorse your reaction to this article's blind and horrifying perpetuation of our ****ed up gender system, but I contest your decision to deploy a gendered slur that is a product of that same system (http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2008/05/16/feminism-friday-on-*****-and-other-misogynist-language/) in the course of condemning it.
Pretty sure this thread is going to go to **** now :blah:
By behaving in such a blatantly misandrist manner she earns similar retaliation. Besides, I used ***** in the sense of "bad person", not any of its other, more sexist meanings.
What?
The whole issue here is that she's doing what's often done to female victims, except to a male victim. Don't use it as an excuse to reinforce any anti-equality sentiments you may harbour.
*facepalm* :nono: So, because I use the term "*****" to refer to a woman who mocked a male rape victim, I'm automatically a misogynist? Really nice, man. Really nice.
That being said, I thought the star was supposed to be progressive. Maybe this is an incident of Poe's Law? It might be a poorly executed and tasteless statement on victim-blaming. If that's the case, then why did she bring in those statistics on the role of gender in sexual assault?
We'll see.
-
I've got to agree with Apollo, this is the first time in my life I've heard this kind of thing about that word. I think most people just use it to mean "bad woman" in general, with b a s t a r d being the male equivalent. I know there are some who use it an entirely different context, but it seems pretty clear to me that Apollo is not doing that.
I actually thought Battuta was arguing firing her was too harsh at first.
-
Quit ****tying up the thread, folks - this is about seriously bad journalism, and the gender of the journalist in question is irrelevant.
-
Sure, some of you feel strongly on gender equality issues, but if you decide that anyone who hasn't had their conscience raised about the use of that word is a misogynist, you're the one dragging the thread down. Educate, don't vilify.
-
I applaud and endorse your reaction to this article's blind and horrifying perpetuation of our ****ed up gender system, but I contest your decision to deploy a gendered slur that is a product of that same system (http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2008/05/16/feminism-friday-on-*****-and-other-misogynist-language/) in the course of condemning it.
Pretty sure this thread is going to go to **** now :blah:
And you wonder why more people don't self-identify as feminist. :doubt:
Way to suck at selling your message, dude.
-
can i just derail this inevitably-awful thread to say that graphical smilies are terrible and just leaving the text unchanged would be vastly better in most cases
-
what are you talking about smileys are da best thing ever. :p
-
they really aren't, :p does a much better job of expressing the abstract inflection on that sentence than a little picture of a face with a tongue sticking out
there's a reason we stopped using ideograms people
-
From misogynism to smiley etiquette in 3 posts...
-
it's misogyny, hth
also i had rather hoped to do it in 1
-
Well, if you are hoping to deliberately derail a thread, you're breaking forum rules. Stop it.
-
Yes, also, if you do want to have a serious discussion on the topic, opening up a thread with that as the title would yield better results for you too.
-
From misogynism to smiley etiquette in 3 posts...
how is it misogynist to call her a *****? That's like saying it's misandrist to call a mean man a dick.
-
well a) the topic of discussion was still misogyny, b) comparisons like that are almost always misleading (analogies are even worse than smilies imo), c) look calling her a ***** doesn't make you a misogynist but you can hopefully understand why it's problematic as a general thing
-
Phantom hoover pretty much covered it, the theme of the thread was misogyny, then it was smiley etiquette.
-
well a) the topic of discussion was still misogyny, b) comparisons like that are almost always misleading (analogies are even worse than smilies imo), c) look calling her a ***** doesn't make you a misogynist but you can hopefully understand why it's problematic as a general thing
It's problematic when men call their girlfriends and random women *****es. It's also problematic when they call women that for acting independently.
On the other hand, calling mean women *****es is no more sexist than calling mean men dicks.
-
right but the thing is that the latter use is inevitably tainted by the former and you're better off just not using it in that context at all
also stop using that analogy, it doesn't work for exactly the reasons you just described
-
I'm still using it in an entirely different manner (one that is at least as common as the former). If said mean woman gets more offended for the reason you described, then I'm happy. It's still an insult, after all.
You don't like that analogy? Then here's another one: if somebody punches you in the face, it's okay to hit them back. Same goes for insults.
EDIT: And let's not forget that women use that term all the time in the exact same way I am.
-
augh jesus christ that analogy is even worse
ok basically it's like if i stole your hat and sold it to a drug dealer for a pocketful of mumbles such are promises, all lies and jests; still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest i think i should get some sleep now actually
-
augh jesus christ that analogy is even worse
its even better bro :nod: :p :D :pimp: :cool: :v: :) ;7 :lol: :banghead: :yes: :no: :eek2: :ick: :confused:
fear my smileys
-
Phantomhoover, you're not making a good point here. Single line posts telling the other person he's wrong is a terrible way to debate. Especially since all you're going to do is turn the other person off because you're obviously not engaging. Do better, or don't do at all. And use a bloody full stop from time to time.
FWIW, this is a topic I agree with Apollo on. If it's a man, he's a dick. If it's a woman, she's a *****. That doesn't imply hatred for fifty percent of humanity, and if it offends people, well, unpleasant language is designed to offend people. Deal or ignore.
[EDIT]OK, he added... more to that post, so it's not just single line now. Not that it makes any sense, but hey.
-
i'm not telling him he's wrong, i'm telling him to lay off on the analogies because thinking with analogies is a very good way of making yourself wrong
-
augh jesus christ that analogy is even worse
its even better bro :nod: :p :D :pimp: :cool: :v: :) ;7 :lol: :banghead: :yes: :no: :eek2: :ick: :confused:
Now that's a topic transition!
Well it is, but I won't do anything about it
if somebody punches you in the face, it's okay to hit them back.
Somebody murders a family member of yours, so it's perfectly okay to murder theirs
It follows the same logic of what you said
So I'll just leave this here
"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind"
-
Well there is an argument to be made that removing words from the lexicon because they have a tainted meaning does mean that the words wife and mother have to go too.
Both words have been used far more than ***** to keep a woman "in her place". Especially when used with the word good.
The big problem with trying to prevent the use of the word ***** is that there's little to replace it with. Pretty much every other insult is either worse or is meant to be used against men.
-
i'm not telling him he's wrong, i'm telling him to lay off on the analogies because thinking with analogies is a very good way of making yourself wrong
It would appear that you disagree with my position.
augh jesus christ that analogy is even worse
its even better bro :nod: :p :D :pimp: :cool: :v: :) ;7 :lol: :banghead: :yes: :no: :eek2: :ick: :confused:
Now that's a topic transition!
Well it is, but I won't do anything about it
Since his post had no substance, I decided to respond in kind.
if somebody punches you in the face, it's okay to hit them back.
Somebody murders a family member of yours, so it's perfectly okay to murder theirs
It follows the same logic of what you said
So I'll just leave this here
"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind"
The difference is that a) that person's family member had nothing to do with yours getting killed, and b) that's a far more extreme application of eye-for-an-eye morality. A rapist deserves to be raped and a murderer deserves to be murdered, but those acts are so horrible that no human can be allowed to perform them, even in retribution.
On the other hand, that type of morality works fine for lower-level things like insults and fistfights.
-
Jesus Christ. Somebody fire this *****.
c'mon son
-
Well, I'm just going to say again that I agree with Apollo. People are putting words in his mouth and making assumptions that I think are unjustified. And now I have to go.
-
I applaud and endorse your reaction to this article's blind and horrifying perpetuation of our ****ed up gender system, but I contest your decision to deploy a gendered slur that is a product of that same system (http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2008/05/16/feminism-friday-on-*****-and-other-misogynist-language/) in the course of condemning it.
Pretty sure this thread is going to go to **** now :blah:
By behaving in such a blatantly misandrist manner she earns similar retaliation. Besides, I used ***** in the sense of "bad person", not any of its other, more sexist meanings.
She didn't behave in a blatantly misandrist manner and your second sentence is literally impossible.
I applaud and endorse your reaction to this article's blind and horrifying perpetuation of our ****ed up gender system, but I contest your decision to deploy a gendered slur that is a product of that same system (http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2008/05/16/feminism-friday-on-*****-and-other-misogynist-language/) in the course of condemning it.
Pretty sure this thread is going to go to **** now :blah:
And you wonder why more people don't self-identify as feminist. :doubt:
Way to suck at selling your message, dude.
That was a totally reasonable and multipolar remark, complete with lots of good reading. I'm not sure what you'd want changed about it though I am open to suggestions. The link isn't as on point as it could've been, but the prediction was certainly dead on :toot:
well a) the topic of discussion was still misogyny, b) comparisons like that are almost always misleading (analogies are even worse than smilies imo), c) look calling her a ***** doesn't make you a misogynist but you can hopefully understand why it's problematic as a general thing
It's problematic when men call their girlfriends and random women *****es. It's also problematic when they call women that for acting independently.
On the other hand, calling mean women *****es is no more sexist than calling mean men dicks.
It completely is. 'Dick' is not a term with any historical or contextual oppressive power. You can't argue that 'dick' and '*****' are on the same level, nor (at least in the US) 'dick' and '****'. I recognize that this is a nuanced argument that relies on a lot of underlying arguments I haven't presented here, so I'll just say that if you want to fight the kind of horror that kicked off this discussion, it certainly doesn't cost you anything to consider where words come from.
I hate to bust out the hoary race analogy, but it's one that's intuitive for a lot of Americans: if the author here were a black person laughing at the assault and attempted hanging of a white man, 'fire that nigger' would not be the correct response. 'Fire that asshole', definitely.
-
Jesus Christ. Somebody fire this *****.
This is the wrong way to engage with the problem. I hate to bust out the hoary race analogy, but it's one that's intuitive for a lot of Americans: if the author here were a black person laughing at the assault and attempted hanging of a white man, 'fire that nigger' would not be the correct response. 'Fire that asshole', definitely.
-
She didn't behave in a blatantly misandrist manner and your second sentence is literally impossible.
Connotation is personal. Denotation is universal. His sentence is no more impossible than the fact I use "cute" only to refer to small children and fuzzy animals; his connotations to the word are personal and not universal.
This drive to retire certain words because of perceived connotations that you occasionally embrace is always so very eager to ignore that while definition is usually universal, the use of language is inherently a far more squishy subject. It has a consensus method at best, no shared foundation at worst. As you cannot build a consensus, there's no way to build an argument for it.
-
I feel like this is a really tough discussion to have because it's hard to say '***** is the wrong word here' and explain why (which is not a simple thing, and touches on a lot of cultural hot-button issues) without it seeming like censure. I don't blame anyone for using the word; we live in a culture with a deeply ****ed up gender structure and a whole lot of poison swirling around that structure. Nobody's immune, certainly not me. I'm not trying to say you're (for any value of 'you') a bad person.
But we're having this discussion because someone wrote something appalling about a rape victim. Clearly, words aren't powerless; not all words are equal. It's easy for us to be outraged by assholes perpetuating rape culture over there, in this horrifying crime, that appalling article. It's hard to acknowledge that these people are in many respects ordinary and representative, and that if they - individuals, groups, entire communities - can **** up this hard, so can we.
People get defensive and aggressive the moment this topic comes up, particularly on HLP. And I understand that reaction. It probably feels like hypervigilance, like policing, like cultural hypochondria. But once you've started to see the patterns of language and behavior that define a lot of our culture (and for me, it didn't come from reading feminist blogs or reading feminist books; it was a barrage of laboratory data and grim, grim experiments that overturned the idea that we really understand our own attitudes), a lot of stuff that once seemed ridiculous starts to become clear.
We've had some pretty decent progress on this front here in recent years. I'd like to see it keep going and I hope we can continue this conversation without it boiling down to antagonism and defensiveness.
Connotation is personal. Denotation is universal. His sentence is no more impossible than the fact I use "cute" only to refer to small children and fuzzy animals; his connotations to the word are personal and not universal.
This drive to retire certain words because of perceived connotations that you occasionally embrace is always so very eager to ignore that while definition is usually universal, the use of language is inherently a far more squishy subject. It has a consensus method at best, no shared foundation at worst. As you cannot build a consensus, there's no way to build an argument for it.
Fortunately, this is untrue - we can actually quantify the behavioral effects of words on targets! This is part of the body of scientific research that really got me invested in the topic a few years ago.
The meanings that individuals assign to a word are in many ways irrelevant. What's important is the network of exposure-driven semantic associations that the word can trigger. These networks operate in neural systems which are not directly regulated by what we think of as the conscious mind, and they manifest in behavioral patterns that actively defy the egalitarian goals and norms most of us subscribe to. These meanings - and the behaviors they trigger - are taught by cultural exposure, without consent or endorsement; they're statistical, frequency-driven aggregates of the messages floating around us.
This is why we can't decide what a word means: most of the meaning is assigned by the cultural consensus, received by neural systems we can't easily regulate, and expressed through channels that we're largely unaware of but which turn out to be surprisingly consequential. It's a hell of a thing.
e: I feel like another really good point to examine here is the pervasive application of '*****' to mean 'a male rape victim'. There's all kinds of ****ed up semantic connectivity here: to rape a man is to make him like a woman. This is pretty awful for all parties and it ties into the problem male rape victims face wherein they feel they can't report the crime because it will emasculate them.
-
Fortunately, this is untrue - we can actually quantify the behavioral effects of words on targets!
A basic question, then.
If it affects the target, is it not serving a useful societal purpose should she ever browse this forum? This is clearly something about which some level of shame and a feeling of being put in one's place could be quite usefully employed. It is after all something the writer should probably not do again and her behavior is clearly in need of modification. Some level of negative corrective behavior is as much a requirement for our current society as understanding is.
Or are you implying that people aren't sophisticated enough to determine the target? That argument might be true, I grant.
-
I applaud and endorse your reaction to this article's blind and horrifying perpetuation of our ****ed up gender system, but I contest your decision to deploy a gendered slur that is a product of that same system (http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2008/05/16/feminism-friday-on-*****-and-other-misogynist-language/) in the course of condemning it.
Pretty sure this thread is going to go to **** now :blah:
By behaving in such a blatantly misandrist manner she earns similar retaliation. Besides, I used ***** in the sense of "bad person", not any of its other, more sexist meanings.
She didn't behave in a blatantly misandrist manner and your second sentence is literally impossible.
I personally found quite a bit of misandry in that article, though I will concede that she insulted female sexual assault victims as well.
How, when I am not a misogynist, and I use that word on men in addition to women, is it completely impossible for me to use the word ***** in a non-sexist manner?
well a) the topic of discussion was still misogyny, b) comparisons like that are almost always misleading (analogies are even worse than smilies imo), c) look calling her a ***** doesn't make you a misogynist but you can hopefully understand why it's problematic as a general thing
It's problematic when men call their girlfriends and random women *****es. It's also problematic when they call women that for acting independently.
On the other hand, calling mean women *****es is no more sexist than calling mean men dicks.
It completely is. 'Dick' is not a term with any historical or contextual oppressive power. You can't argue that 'dick' and '*****' are on the same level, nor (at least in the US) 'dick' and '****'. I recognize that this is a nuanced argument that relies on a lot of underlying arguments I haven't presented here, so I'll just say that if you want to fight the kind of horror that kicked off this discussion, it certainly doesn't cost you anything to consider where words come from.
***** can also refer to a mean women. This definition is not inherently sexist and is at least as common as its other meanings. Some people still perceive it as sexist, but that is not the fault of the speaker.
I hate to bust out the hoary race analogy, but it's one that's intuitive for a lot of Americans: if the author here were a black person laughing at the assault and attempted hanging of a white man, 'fire that nigger' would not be the correct response. 'Fire that asshole', definitely.
I figured you'd bring this up at some point.
That hypothetical black author would have anti-white bigotry equal to the Klu Klux Klan's anti-black bigotry. 'Fire that nigger' would offend many, and it would likely be said by white racists-but he would have earned it. By the same token, a black man is perfectly justified in throwing racial slurs at a racist white man.
-
Language evolves. For all their histories or past associations, the modern terms are effectively, for the vast majority of people (male and female), gender specific synonyms. You've noted yourself that "****" has different meanings and significance in different geographic regions - the same is true of words in different times.
And that is my problem with your previous post. It's stuff like this - jumping on tiny infractions that the majority of us see as meaningless and telling us we're acting, speaking or thinking misogynistically - that give Feminism its bad name these days. You've said in the past that just about everyone in western society is a feminist according to the basic tenents of gender equality: equal pay, equal rights, things like that. And that's true. But people shy away from identifying as such because of the association with these kinds of arguments.
And yes, lab data and all that is great, very interesting I'm sure. But there has to be a better way of solving these problems than trying to censor people because that is just flat out not going to work.
-
Shakespearean insults were once highly offensive. Therefore we should throw a **** fit if someone ever uses one, explaining the historical meaning and why they should be offended when they absolutely wouldn't have been otherwise.
-
The difference is that a) that person's family member had nothing to do with yours getting killed, and b) that's a far more extreme application of eye-for-an-eye morality. A rapist deserves to be raped and a murderer deserves to be murdered, but those acts are so horrible that no human can be allowed to perform them, even in retribution.
On the other hand, that type of morality works fine for lower-level things like insults and fistfights.
No, that type of morality does not work for "lower-level things". By lowering yourself to their level, you make yourself no better than they are.
It also prevents the situation from escalating
-
Fortunately, this is untrue - we can actually quantify the behavioral effects of words on targets!
A basic question, then.
If it affects the target, is it not serving a useful societal purpose should she ever browse this forum? This is clearly something about which some level of shame and a feeling of being put in one's place could be quite usefully employed. It is after all something the writer should probably not do again and her behavior is clearly in need of modification. Some level of negative corrective behavior is as much a requirement for our current society as understanding is.
Or are you implying that people aren't sophisticated enough to determine the target? That argument might be true, I grant.
'Targets' here is a general term for perceivers of the stimulus. It actually includes everyone who hears or reads the word, and creepily enough, we'll be able to detect short-term stereotype-congruent priming effects in these subjects for minutes or (depending on who you ask) hours afterwards. The implicit racist and sexist attitudes that even the most egalitarian person holds (and which affect their behavior in specific situations, or along specific modalities) are derived from repeated exposure to these primes.
For example, you could flash the word '*****' for less than fifty milliseconds - well below the threshold of conscious awareness - to a group of randomly selected men and women. You might then be able to detect impaired math performance in the women and improved math performance in the men if you gave them a basic skills assessment afterwards. This would occur even if they consciously endorsed egalitarian norms and gender equality! (This effect works in all kinds of directions - white guys who have to indicate their race before taking a jump shot on a basketball court won't jump as high as a control group.)
Mere exposure turns out to be a powerful force.
***** can also refer to a mean women. This definition is not inherently sexist and is at least as common as its other meanings. Some people still perceive it as sexist, but that is not the fault of the speaker.
You're wrong here for the same reason you're wrong about the race analogy. And I don't mean to be rude with that blunt declaration - it's, again, a super complicated topic. But the word ***** is absolutely inherently sexist, and it can never mean 'a mean woman'. Words can't be stripped of their historical force, and - to tie back in to the ~~SCIENCE~~ above - you can actually measure that force. '*****' and 'nigger' are words backed by very real, omnipresent systems of oppression that women and black people have to deal with constantly. They are invocations of threat. By contrast, 'dick' and the like don't have any real institutional weight behind them; there very few realities that we, as men, need to grapple with that are tied to this word.
Again, I know this is deeply counterintuitive, it runs against a lot of American norms of egalitarianism that feel really basic and direct. But the word '*****' is semantically connected to rape culture, to cultural knowledge of the right place of women - submissive, available, fragile, stupid. Whether you mean that association or not unfortunately can't shut it off. We can actually measure the activation of these semantic connections.
Are the things connected with the word ***** - sexual submission, powerlessness, 'uppity' unwillingness to obey men, shrill and stupid defiance, the rape of men by more powerful men - the reasons you want this awful woman fired from her job? Doubtful. They're actually the reasons that she believes these awful things in the first place.
Again, I really want to emphasize that this conversation is not an accusation of misogyny. It's about the complexity of prejudice in the modern world, and the pitfalls we can run into.
Shakespearean insults were once highly offensive. Therefore we should throw a **** fit if someone ever uses one, explaining the historical meaning and why they should be offended when they absolutely wouldn't have been otherwise.
If someone takes offense at a Shakespearean insult that's connected to a dangerous part of their day to day life that we might have overlooked, yeah, definitely. One great example would be blackface! Blackface is superficially just an aesthetic way to make a white dude look black, so he can fit the role better. But the whole tradition of minstrelry means that blackface is actually a pretty appalling thing to practice nowadays, depending on the context.
Language evolves. For all their histories or past associations, the modern terms are effectively, for the vast majority of people (male and female), gender specific synonyms. You've noted yourself that "****" has different meanings and significance in different geographic regions - the same is true of words in different times.
Definitely true. What's important is where the meaning of these words differs between groups. For men, particularly men like us here on the internet, ***** isn't a particularly dangerous word. For a woman living in the same society as us, ***** is a word that they can actually expect to run into often - used aggressively, with intent to harm.
And that is my problem with your previous post. It's stuff like this - jumping on tiny infractions that the majority of us see as meaningless and telling us we're acting, speaking or thinking misogynistically - that give Feminism its bad name these days. You've said in the past that just about everyone in western society is a feminist according to the basic tenents of gender equality: equal pay, equal rights, things like that. And that's true. But people shy away from identifying as such because of the association with these kinds of arguments.
And yes, lab data and all that is great, very interesting I'm sure. But there has to be a better way of solving these problems than trying to censor people because that is just flat out not going to work.
Where do you see censorship here? I think I've been overwhelmingly clear in indicating that this is a conversation. And I know that conversation can work: it worked on me, it's happened to many other people here. Dilmah would be a great person to talk to here.
What I really quibble with is the idea that 'the majority of us' see these 'tiny infractions' as 'meaningless', or that for the vast majority of people these are gender specific synonyms. These are huge and constantly present issues for women: so huge, in fact, that a lot of them (I actually just ran a straw poll of the women around me) have given up ever having these discussions, whether in real life or in the Internet. They'd rather deal with being bothered and threatened than deal with the retaliation inherent in making an issue of it.
As an example, I have a friend who's working in the software industry right now and she's a lot tougher than I am. The software industry is full of really cool, really interesting, really devotedly nice people. It is also - blindly, unintentionally, without any intent to - incredibly hostile to women. The men responsible don't even realize why they're a problem. This is why I take issue with the idea that these are tiny meaningless infractions. For people who aren't us, it turns out they're important, for reasons that aren't hysteria or oversensitiveness.
-
That hypothetical black author would have anti-white bigotry equal to the Klu Klux Klan's anti-black bigotry. 'Fire that nigger' would offend many, and it would likely be said by white racists-but he would have earned it. By the same token, a black man is perfectly justified in throwing racial slurs at a racist white man.
I really want to highlight that this is a false symmetry. The error here is in assuming equal ground to stand on. But it turns out we live in a society where racial threats against black people have a lot of power, both institutionally (in terms of your chances to succeed in life/chance of being harmed or killed) and personally, whereas racial threats against white people, while upsetting, are mostly powerless.
I'm also going to quote this every post because I know it'll get lost in the discussion
I feel like this is a really tough discussion to have because it's hard to say '***** is the wrong word here' and explain why (which is not a simple thing, and touches on a lot of cultural hot-button issues) without it seeming like censure. I don't blame anyone for using the word; we live in a culture with a deeply ****ed up gender structure and a whole lot of poison swirling around that structure. Nobody's immune, certainly not me. I'm not trying to say you're (for any value of 'you') a bad person. This isn't an accusation.
-
That hypothetical black author would have anti-white bigotry equal to the Klu Klux Klan's anti-black bigotry. 'Fire that nigger' would offend many, and it would likely be said by white racists-but he would have earned it. By the same token, a black man is perfectly justified in throwing racial slurs at a racist white man.
I really want to highlight that this is a false symmetry. The error here is in assuming equal ground to stand on. But it turns out we live in a society where racial threats against black people have a lot of power, both institutionally (in terms of your chances to succeed in life/chance of being harmed or killed) and personally, whereas racial threats against white people, while upsetting, are mostly powerless.
So he's less racist because our culture is more racist against white people than black people? No. Regardless of its cultural context, that hypothetical black man must be judged just as harshly as a white racist.
I hold everyone to the same moral standards, regardless of their race.
-
I think you phrased something backward in there. I would also be super happy if this discussion was not about line by line rebuttals. I feel like it's really easy to fall into an antagonistic mindset of 'identify point, reject point' (we may actually be neurally hardwired for this).
Here in particular I feel like you're arguing an invented point. A racist black author should be condemned for racism. He shouldn't be called an uppity nigger. I hold everyone to the same moral standards, regardless of the situation.
-
'Targets' here is a general term for perceivers of the stimulus.
You could have just said yes. :p
-
I think you phrased something backward in there. I would also be super happy if this discussion was not about line by line rebuttals. I feel like it's really easy to fall into an antagonistic mindset of 'identify point, reject point' (we may actually be neurally hardwired for this).
Here in particular I feel like you're arguing an invented point. A racist black author should be condemned for racism. He shouldn't be called an uppity nigger. I hold everyone to the same moral standards, regardless of the situation.
Your entire post was about how black people are treated much worse than white people, and anti-black racism is worse than anti-white racism.
-
Objectively those things are both true, but they are not a good reason to respond to a racist black author by calling him a nigger. Neither a racist white nor a racist black person has earned racism. They've earned scorn and disgust for their racist attitudes. This is both ethically obvious and can be solidly argued through game theory.
Additionally, I suspect you may have missed some part of 'my entire post', which contained a little more than that :p
Fortunately, this is untrue - we can actually quantify the behavioral effects of words on targets!
A basic question, then.
If it affects the target, is it not serving a useful societal purpose should she ever browse this forum? This is clearly something about which some level of shame and a feeling of being put in one's place could be quite usefully employed. It is after all something the writer should probably not do again and her behavior is clearly in need of modification. Some level of negative corrective behavior is as much a requirement for our current society as understanding is.
Or are you implying that people aren't sophisticated enough to determine the target? That argument might be true, I grant.
'Targets' here is a general term for perceivers of the stimulus. It actually includes everyone who hears or reads the word, and creepily enough, we'll be able to detect short-term stereotype-congruent priming effects in these subjects for minutes or (depending on who you ask) hours afterwards. The implicit racist and sexist attitudes that even the most egalitarian person holds (and which affect their behavior in specific situations, or along specific modalities) are derived from repeated exposure to these primes.
For example, you could flash the word '*****' for less than fifty milliseconds - well below the threshold of conscious awareness - to a group of randomly selected men and women. You might then be able to detect impaired math performance in the women and improved math performance in the men if you gave them a basic skills assessment afterwards. This would occur even if they consciously endorsed egalitarian norms and gender equality! (This effect works in all kinds of directions - white guys who have to indicate their race before taking a jump shot on a basketball court won't jump as high as a control group.)
Mere exposure turns out to be a powerful force.
***** can also refer to a mean women. This definition is not inherently sexist and is at least as common as its other meanings. Some people still perceive it as sexist, but that is not the fault of the speaker.
You're wrong here for the same reason you're wrong about the race analogy. And I don't mean to be rude with that blunt declaration - it's, again, a super complicated topic. But the word ***** is absolutely inherently sexist, and it can never mean 'a mean woman'. Words can't be stripped of their historical force, and - to tie back in to the ~~SCIENCE~~ above - you can actually measure that force. '*****' and 'nigger' are words backed by very real, omnipresent systems of oppression that women and black people have to deal with constantly. They are invocations of threat. By contrast, 'dick' and the like don't have any real institutional weight behind them; there very few realities that we, as men, need to grapple with that are tied to this word.
Again, I know this is deeply counterintuitive, it runs against a lot of American norms of egalitarianism that feel really basic and direct. But the word '*****' is semantically connected to rape culture, to cultural knowledge of the right place of women - submissive, available, fragile, stupid. Whether you mean that association or not unfortunately can't shut it off. We can actually measure the activation of these semantic connections.
Are the things connected with the word ***** - sexual submission, powerlessness, 'uppity' unwillingness to obey men, shrill and stupid defiance, the rape of men by more powerful men - the reasons you want this awful woman fired from her job? Doubtful. They're actually the reasons that she believes these awful things in the first place.
Again, I really want to emphasize that this conversation is not an accusation of misogyny. It's about the complexity of prejudice in the modern world, and the pitfalls we can run into.
Shakespearean insults were once highly offensive. Therefore we should throw a **** fit if someone ever uses one, explaining the historical meaning and why they should be offended when they absolutely wouldn't have been otherwise.
If someone takes offense at a Shakespearean insult that's connected to a dangerous part of their day to day life that we might have overlooked, yeah, definitely. One great example would be blackface! Blackface is superficially just an aesthetic way to make a white dude look black, so he can fit the role better. But the whole tradition of minstrelry means that blackface is actually a pretty appalling thing to practice nowadays, depending on the context.
Language evolves. For all their histories or past associations, the modern terms are effectively, for the vast majority of people (male and female), gender specific synonyms. You've noted yourself that "****" has different meanings and significance in different geographic regions - the same is true of words in different times.
Definitely true. What's important is where the meaning of these words differs between groups. For men, particularly men like us here on the internet, ***** isn't a particularly dangerous word. For a woman living in the same society as us, ***** is a word that they can actually expect to run into often - used aggressively, with intent to harm.
And that is my problem with your previous post. It's stuff like this - jumping on tiny infractions that the majority of us see as meaningless and telling us we're acting, speaking or thinking misogynistically - that give Feminism its bad name these days. You've said in the past that just about everyone in western society is a feminist according to the basic tenents of gender equality: equal pay, equal rights, things like that. And that's true. But people shy away from identifying as such because of the association with these kinds of arguments.
And yes, lab data and all that is great, very interesting I'm sure. But there has to be a better way of solving these problems than trying to censor people because that is just flat out not going to work.
Where do you see censorship here? I think I've been overwhelmingly clear in indicating that this is a conversation. And I know that conversation can work: it worked on me, it's happened to many other people here. Dilmah would be a great person to talk to here.
What I really quibble with is the idea that 'the majority of us' see these 'tiny infractions' as 'meaningless', or that for the vast majority of people these are gender specific synonyms. These are huge and constantly present issues for women: so huge, in fact, that a lot of them (I actually just ran a straw poll of the women around me) have given up ever having these discussions, whether in real life or in the Internet. They'd rather deal with being bothered and threatened than deal with the retaliation inherent in making an issue of it.
As an example, I have a friend who's working in the software industry right now and she's a lot tougher than I am. The software industry is full of really cool, really interesting, really devotedly nice people. It is also - blindly, unintentionally, without any intent to - incredibly hostile to women. The men responsible don't even realize why they're a problem. This is why I take issue with the idea that these are tiny meaningless infractions. For people who aren't us, it turns out they're important, for reasons that aren't hysteria or oversensitiveness.
-
what the **** is wrong with some of you people
can we just agree that '*****' is an utterly, utterly ****ing pathetic excuse for an insult, and that if you use it you should have a giant, flaming chainsaw dildo rammed up your ass
okay
-
I don't want to make this personal, and I don't think that's a particularly constructive way to talk about the issue. I do think there's good reason to examine the connection here: the (awful) journalist laughing at her desk about how this guy was turned into a little *****, and our desire to see the ***** fired. It's not about OH GOD NO DON'T SAY THAT WORD or making it verboten - it's about thinking about why we choose the meanings we do and what kind of unintended effects they have. Which, I know, all sounds really abstract and hands-off, but when you're looking at this baffling **** like white men being unable to jump when they're reminded of their race, it starts to look more powerful than expected.
-
can we just agree that '*****' is an utterly, utterly ****ing pathetic excuse for an insult, and that if you use it you should have a giant, flaming chainsaw dildo rammed up your ass
No. No we cannot.
-
I guess the cultural oppressive effect would work even if ***** mean a female of a dog, am I right?
When insulting someone for something sufficiently bad the aim is often to choose the worst insult possible to hurt the recipient, so thats why ***** may be appropiate despite the collateral damage. If the situation warranted it I think I would even call a black man a N-word, if he confirmed the stereotype in a way bad enough.
-
what the **** is wrong with some of you people
can we just agree that '*****' is an utterly, utterly ****ing pathetic excuse for an insult, and that if you use it you should have a giant, flaming chainsaw dildo rammed up your ass
okay
you win the thread.
-
As I've stated before, if you remove the words mentioned on this thread from the lexicon what the hell do you use?
-
Strange just yesterday I was jokingly thinking about trying to come up with a new offensive word that would equally offend all races and genders. Maybe I should work on that, see if it catches on, and trademark it. Have to send me a royalty every time you use it to insult anyone.
-
Strange just yesterday I was jokingly thinking about trying to come up with a new offensive word that would equally offend all races and genders. Maybe I should work on that, see if it catches on, and trademark it. Have to send me a royalty every time you use it to insult anyone.
Internet Explorer
-
***** can also refer to a mean women. This definition is not inherently sexist and is at least as common as its other meanings. Some people still perceive it as sexist, but that is not the fault of the speaker.
But the word ***** [...] can never mean 'a mean woman'. Words can't be stripped of their historical force, and [...]
Dude, the ****ing dictionary would like a word with you. :nono:
--
can we just agree that '*****' is an utterly, utterly ****ing pathetic excuse for an insult, and that if you use it you should have a giant, flaming chainsaw dildo rammed up your ass
I dunno, Doraleous and Associates (damn it, I miss that series) did it really tastefully. :D
--
As I've stated before, if you remove the words mentioned on this thread from the lexicon what the hell do you use?
Nothing. Because if we don't have anything insulting to call each other, then everyone will live in peace and harmony and all conflicts along race, gender, and species lines will be completely eliminated and forgotten. Right? RIGHT?
In reality, we'd just come up with new words or change the meanings of older ones to suit our purposes.
-
Dude, the ****ing dictionary would like a word with you. :nono:
The point, you are missing it. Whatever the other meanings of that word are, have been, or will be is irrelevant. "A mean woman" is not the meaning that springs to mind when you hear it first, at least for me. Once you write or say those words, you're leaving them open to interpretation. If I say "BloodEagle is a gay person", using the word gay in its original, non-homosexual way, and you were to get all raged up because your heterosexuality should be apparent to all, the thing I should do is apologize and clear up the misunderstanding, not retreat behind a cover of "well, when I said it I meant something different, because the word has multiple meanings and I chose one of them". It is my responsibility to make sure that what I say or write is as unambiguous as possible. It is not the responsibility of the reader to engage in mindreading to discern the intended meaning.
-
Dude, the ****ing dictionary would like a word with you. :nono:
The point, you are missing it. Whatever the other meanings of that word are, have been, or will be is irrelevant. "A mean woman" is not the meaning that springs to mind when you hear it first, at least for me. Once you write or say those words, you're leaving them open to interpretation. If I say "BloodEagle is a gay person", using the word gay in its original, non-homosexual way, and you were to get all raged up because your heterosexuality should be apparent to all, the thing I should do is apologize and clear up the misunderstanding, not retreat behind a cover of "well, when I said it I meant something different, because the word has multiple meanings and I chose one of them". It is my responsibility to make sure that what I say or write is as unambiguous as possible. It is not the responsibility of the reader to engage in mindreading to discern the intended meaning.
The word does have multiple meanings. Which is the opposite of what he said. Which is the reason for my reply. I respond based on what people say, rather than what they think they're saying or what other people think they're saying.
And while I don't actually use the word '*****' to refer to women at all, the first thing that comes to my mind when hearing it is the generic 'mean woman' meaning, rather than what you think when you first hear it. Which I think is the main problem. There seems to be this thought process going around that 'one of us has to be completely wrong about this and whoever is wrong should be strongly ridiculed for being wrong and it sure as Hell isn't going to be me, so start the rude posting!', when the fact of the matter is that especially in this case both points of view have merit.
-
The dictionary agrees that the word has multiple meanings, and I am not disputing that.
But.
In the context of a discussion about sexual assault, there is one meaning that stands out above all others, and it's not "mean woman".
I think you're still somewhat missing the point here. It's not about you or Apollo being wrong in your use of language, it's about inconsiderate, unreflected use of language. By your choice of words, you are conveying meaning, and in cases like this, it may not be the meaning you wish to convey. The internet makes it easy to just shrug and say "Well, I don't care how you interpret what I am saying", which is something that I feel should not happen. Language is far too potent a weapon to play fast and loose with it.
-
In the context of a discussion about sexual assault, there is one meaning that stands out above all others, and it's not "mean woman".
Yeah, the one about justified complaining.
That's not even a joke on my part, though it'd work as one (thanks topic). I don't know, maybe I don't watch enough prison-related television or something, but outside a specific form of sexual assault I don't think that's the interpretation most people will come up with.
-
The biggest problem here Battuta, and I've seen you do this before with me, is you can't get someone to buy what you're selling if you start out by sticking them on the defensive. You have to make people want to do what you want them to do, and you can't do that if you start out by making them feel uncomfortable/under attack.
What do you think has more chance of working, starting out with "c'mon son" or "Apollo, please listen to me, I'm not having a go at you, but..."
Can't stick around, have to go again!
-
In the context of a discussion about sexual assault, there is one meaning that stands out above all others, and it's not "mean woman".
I'm going to have to completely disagree with you there and say that for most people who haven't had their conscience raised (and even quite a few who have), that's exactly the meaning people will take from it. If anything this discussion is making that issue worse by trying to claim that other meanings should spring to mind faster.
It's pretty obvious from the context that Apollo was simply using it as the female equivalent of bastard. You're basically doing the equivalent of saying that had it been a man, and the subject had been about single mothers, most people would have thought he was saying "Fire this person whose mother and father weren't married when he was born".
-
You're right. I didn't think about the matter enough to formulate my response in a way that worked well.
-
for ****'s sake i tell you people to leave off on the analogies and what do you all do
-
Anyone notice how Moderators and Admins have been at eachother these past few discussion wise? I've never seen it to such an extent
I was going to say stuff about context, but that was already covered
As for analogies, what's wrong with analogies? They're like poetic metaphors without the poetic part!
-
Objectively those things are both true, but they are not a good reason to respond to a racist black author by calling him a nigger. Neither a racist white nor a racist black person has earned racism. They've earned scorn and disgust for their racist attitudes. This is both ethically obvious and can be solidly argued through game theory.
Additionally, I suspect you may have missed some part of 'my entire post', which contained a little more than that :p
By being racist they have earned racist treatment of the same level. Anyway, which is the greater offense: calling a black man a nigger or laughing at a white man who was almost lynched?
I meant your "false equivalency" post, not the one you quoted or the one that came before.
In the context of a discussion about sexual assault, there is one meaning that stands out above all others, and it's not "mean woman".
I'm going to have to completely disagree with you there and say that for most people who haven't had their conscience raised (and even quite a few who have), that's exactly the meaning people will take from it. If anything this discussion is making that issue worse by trying to claim that other meanings should spring to mind faster.
It's pretty obvious from the context that Apollo was simply using it as the female equivalent of bastard. You're basically doing the equivalent of saying that had it been a man, and the subject had been about single mothers, most people would have thought he was saying "Fire this person whose mother and father weren't married when he was born".
I think that's an important point. In a certain sense, treating that word as if it's always a horrible sexist slur has the effect of making it more offensive than it already is.
what the **** is wrong with some of you people
can we just agree that '*****' is an utterly, utterly ****ing pathetic excuse for an insult, and that if you use it you should have a giant, flaming chainsaw dildo rammed up your ass
okay
It doesn't appear so. :p
The difference is that a) that person's family member had nothing to do with yours getting killed, and b) that's a far more extreme application of eye-for-an-eye morality. A rapist deserves to be raped and a murderer deserves to be murdered, but those acts are so horrible that no human can be allowed to perform them, even in retribution.
On the other hand, that type of morality works fine for lower-level things like insults and fistfights.
No, that type of morality does not work for "lower-level things". By lowering yourself to their level, you make yourself no better than they are.
It also prevents the situation from escalating
The fact that you didn't start it inherently grants you some moral superiority.
EDIT: Another thing: if I call a mean woman a *****, I'm trying to offend her, and I don't particularly care why shy takes offense to it.
-
The thing about white men not being able to jump as high when reminded of their race is interesting, though. Could you post a link to that study?
-
By being racist they have earned racist treatment of the same level. Anyway, which is the greater offense: calling a black man a nigger or laughing at a white man who was almost lynched?
But by being racist you thereby insult all black people including those who had nothing to do with the lynching. So you fail on that level. If you use ***** to simply be the female equivalent to bastard, you're not deliberately using it in that way. If you're using it in the sexual connotation though, you are. In which case you are completely in the wrong because you've chosen to insult 50% of the planet for the actions of one stupid, ignorant person just because that person happened to be a woman.
-
And I understand that reaction. It probably feels like hypervigilance, like policing, like cultural hypochondria. But once you've started to see the patterns of language and behavior that define a lot of our culture (and for me, it didn't come from reading feminist blogs or reading feminist books; it was a barrage of laboratory data and grim, grim experiments that overturned the idea that we really understand our own attitudes), a lot of stuff that once seemed ridiculous starts to become clear.
Too much nitpicking really does sound precisely like the over the top thought policing.
You know a lot of this stuff. So you should also know that word meanings also change. What if "*****" changes from such a "bad word" (can't believe it has been compared with nigger but ok) to a common insult like "****" and whatnot? Wouldn't that be a positive? My questionings here are not really against your criticism, which seem to be correct at first glance, but against the priorities here.
The meanings that individuals assign to a word are in many ways irrelevant. What's important is the network of exposure-driven semantic associations that the word can trigger. These networks operate in neural systems which are not directly regulated by what we think of as the conscious mind, and they manifest in behavioral patterns that actively defy the egalitarian goals and norms most of us subscribe to. These meanings - and the behaviors they trigger - are taught by cultural exposure, without consent or endorsement; they're statistical, frequency-driven aggregates of the messages floating around us.
That is really cool, but you see it's a double edge sword: while you can be correct in your worries here about the word "*****", you also assume this process is completely out of control. So don't try to control it. Let it flow. Too much emphasis on political correctness evolves the environment to a ****ty etiquette fest that will only dissuade people from even entering any debate, let alone be sympathetic to your agenda.
This is why we can't decide what a word means: most of the meaning is assigned by the cultural consensus, received by neural systems we can't easily regulate, and expressed through channels that we're largely unaware of but which turn out to be surprisingly consequential. It's a hell of a thing.
Agree and I can see the point of calling her a ***** and so on, but really come on.
-
Yeah, I've got to catch you there Apollo, by being racist, you're saying being that race is a bad thing, not that person is a bad person. Keep the insults directed at the person you're trying to insult and that person only. A racist comment, anyone of that race that hears it will be offended, even if it's not directed at them.
-
By being racist they have earned racist treatment of the same level. Anyway, which is the greater offense: calling a black man a nigger or laughing at a white man who was almost lynched?
But by being racist you thereby insult all black people including those who had nothing to do with the lynching. So you fail on that level. If you use ***** to simply be the female equivalent to bastard, you're not deliberately using it in that way. If you're using it in the sexual connotation though, you are. In which case you are completely in the wrong because you've chosen to insult 50% of the planet for the actions of one stupid, ignorant person just because that person happened to be a woman.
Perhaps you're right. I hadn't thought it about too much.
-
By being racist they have earned racist treatment of the same level. Anyway, which is the greater offense: calling a black man a nigger or laughing at a white man who was almost lynched?
But by being racist you thereby insult all black people including those who had nothing to do with the lynching. So you fail on that level. If you use ***** to simply be the female equivalent to bastard, you're not deliberately using it in that way. If you're using it in the sexual connotation though, you are. In which case you are completely in the wrong because you've chosen to insult 50% of the planet for the actions of one stupid, ignorant person just because that person happened to be a woman.
I'm not sure that just because you intended to insult this particular "*****" right here it is any better than if you intend to insult this particular "nigger." In both cases your still using a word that applies to a broad swathe of populace. Your intent doesn't automatically transmitt to all parties that might be in earshot.
As I've stated before, if you remove the words mentioned on this thread from the lexicon what the hell do you use?
Why do you need to insult her based on her gender anyway? Why not call her an ignorant pile of excrement? There are plenty of insults available to level on a target that are not gender specific. In fact bastard, if I'm not mistaken, is any illegitimate child not just male. I'd argue that insulting a person based on things they have no control over such as gender, orientation or ethnic background are probably things we should strive to get away from. I'm not saying it possible but it's something I actively, and not always successfully, try to keep myself from doing.
When someone does something stupid you should call em' out on being stupid, pulling in that they are male, female, white, black, tall or small is really unnecessary.
I'm not advocating thought police nor do I think is Batts, simply that if everybody was a little more aware of what they are saying we might choose better wording.
-
You know StarSlayer, that comment of yours would be quite sensible and honest if it weren't that hilariously ironic signature of yours.
Yeah. Exactly.
Now do you see why Batts et al are going really over the top on this? I mean, sure, I'd also want the human race to be perfect and so on (or do I?), but aren't there better priorities? Is this really the thing that we should be discussing right now?
-
You know StarSlayer, that comment of yours would be quite sensible and honest if it weren't that hilariously ironic signature of yours.
Yeah. Exactly.
Now do you see why Batts et al are going really over the top on this? I mean, sure, I'd also want the human race to be perfect and so on (or do I?), but aren't there better priorities? Is this really the thing that we should be discussing right now?
Sir Isaac Newton was part Rottweiler.
Actually he figured out gravity because he drooled a lot.
True facts.
edit -LD good point, I'll adjust it. For posterity's sake my sig was the following quote from ME2 :
"Sir Isaac Newton is the deadliest son of a ***** in space"
-
Nonsense. That quote has embebbed in it the patriarchal oppression so ingrained in our society. Only men could ever think otherwise, since their brains are clearly testosterone damaged women brains (http://"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bW5BH7bmyE"). You might think that such a phrase refers to some trivial dog sexual or family shenanigans, but it evidently refers Isaac as the end product of oppressed and raped prostitutes, and insult to injury, refers to such a prostitute as a "*****", as if it was her fault to begin with.
Look how your own misoginy is so deep inside your psyche that you even find it necessary to quote an insult (even if momentarily taken as a compliment) towards women in general against a man. Clearly you need Battuta's help in this. Go read the amazing piece he linked beforehand on how you should shame yourself into not quote such a white supremacistic obvious linguistic oppression.
And after confessing your sins towards the non-damaged gender, you'll have lots of work ahead of you, like for instance teach Dawkins how he is so insanely wrong at exposing Newton's Principia as a "rape manual" (http://"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHiqXxoRFro").
(E: joking and satire aside, here's why feminism goes really off the rails with me. Just look at this statement by StarSlayer!!:
edit -LD good point, I'll adjust it. For posterity's sake my sig was the following quote from ME2 :
"Sir Isaac Newton is the deadliest son of a ***** in space"
JFC, I COULDN'T MAKE THIS **** UP.
e2: fixed Dawkins' hilarious takedown of feminist shenanigans. Look it up.
-
This very much seems to me to be an argument about content vs context to be honest.
-
Poor Starslayer will be all confused now I think...
I'm glad he put the quote there for me to read though before he changed it. :D
-
So since it's not that big a deal, can I call everyone in the thread *****es? I mean if someone's bothered by it, it's actually their fault for not realizing I meant the "female dog" definition of the word, so it's just nonsensical instead of insulting.
-
So since it's not that big a deal, can I call everyone in the thread *****es? I mean if someone's bothered by it, it's actually their fault for not realizing I meant the "female dog" definition of the word, so it's just nonsensical instead of insulting.
Ah, no-no-no. Because dog can be an insult too.
I hope no one directed that woman to HLP when they complained, to see the enlightened minds here show her the way. I shudder to think the reaction on seeing this thread...
-
I'm not sure that just because you intended to insult this particular "*****" right here it is any better than if you intend to insult this particular "nigger." In both cases your still using a word that applies to a broad swathe of populace. Your intent doesn't automatically transmitt to all parties that might be in earshot.
Yes but the question is why does it apply to a broad swathe of the populace and wouldn't it be smarter to rob it of that power instead of fighting a near futile war to try to persuade people to stop using it? I'm pretty much of the opinion that the smartest thing to do would simply be for feminists to simply used the word ***** for men and bastard for women. A few years of that would quickly rob the word of any of it's power. Even if it did fail to remove its power, you'd have a drop in replacement for it now.
Or you can tilt at windmills trying to get the whole world to agree to do things your way.
Why do you need to insult her based on her gender anyway?
I'm not saying I need to insult her based on her gender. I'm pointing out that every single synonym for ***** is either male oriented or something which you're not supposed to use for the same reason as *****. This is where the comparison to the use of racial slurs fails. I can easily call an idiotic black man a wanker, arsehole, or bastard without any issue of race.
Why not call her an ignorant pile of excrement? There are plenty of insults available to level on a target that are not gender specific.
But none with the sheer oomph of the kind I mentioned above.
-
Love how this thread derailed quickly into a discussion of the linguistic oppression we unconscious and mentally depraved white supremacists are enforcing to the world.
-
As I've stated before, if you remove the words mentioned on this thread from the lexicon what the hell do you use?
Where has anyone proposed removing these words from the lexicon? (I doubt you'd particularly struggle to avoid using '*****' or 'nigger' in your day to day life.)
***** can also refer to a mean women. This definition is not inherently sexist and is at least as common as its other meanings. Some people still perceive it as sexist, but that is not the fault of the speaker.
But the word ***** [...] can never mean 'a mean woman'. Words can't be stripped of their historical force, and [...]
Dude, the ****ing dictionary would like a word with you. :nono:
If you've read the thread you're already quite aware of why the dictionary is irrelevant to the argument.
And while I don't actually use the word '*****' to refer to women at all, the first thing that comes to my mind when hearing it is the generic 'mean woman' meaning, rather than what you think when you first hear it. Which I think is the main problem. There seems to be this thought process going around that 'one of us has to be completely wrong about this and whoever is wrong should be strongly ridiculed for being wrong and it sure as Hell isn't going to be me, so start the rude posting!', when the fact of the matter is that especially in this case both points of view have merit.
I have no trouble believing that this is the first thing that comes to your mind. Unfortunately, it is scientifically demonstrable that it isn't the only thing that comes to all of your mind, nor the minds of men and women nearby. And it turns out these other, unintended meanings have a powerful effect on behavior.
I have no interest in ridiculing anyone, as I've said explicitly several times in the thread.
The biggest problem here Battuta, and I've seen you do this before with me, is you can't get someone to buy what you're selling if you start out by sticking them on the defensive. You have to make people want to do what you want them to do, and you can't do that if you start out by making them feel uncomfortable/under attack.
What do you think has more chance of working, starting out with "c'mon son" or "Apollo, please listen to me, I'm not having a go at you, but..."
Can't stick around, have to go again!
Your alleged problem would be easily defused with close reading of the thread, as I've said this exact thing many times.
By being racist they have earned racist treatment of the same level. Anyway, which is the greater offense: calling a black man a nigger or laughing at a white man who was almost lynched?
But by being racist you thereby insult all black people including those who had nothing to do with the lynching. So you fail on that level. If you use ***** to simply be the female equivalent to bastard, you're not deliberately using it in that way. If you're using it in the sexual connotation though, you are. In which case you are completely in the wrong because you've chosen to insult 50% of the planet for the actions of one stupid, ignorant person just because that person happened to be a woman.
Perhaps you're right. I hadn't thought it about too much.
This was explicitly what I said to you in the second post on the topic, so I'm glad you're thinking about it now. With the important addendum that ***** is always a gendered, sexualized word, not the female equivalent of bastard. We have no say about this; you cannot decide to use it otherwise. It will always activate those semantic associations.
(Bastard was a pretty serious insult back in the day, when being a bastard was a huge threat to your life and social standing. That's no longer always the case today. Unfortunately, being a ***** is a threat to your physical safety and social standing.)
If we set aside the manufactured arguments about dictionaries and censorship (neither of which have anything in particular to do with the topic) I hope it's clear by now why this isn't an area where you can fight fire with fire.
-
Jesus Christ. Somebody fire this *****.
This is the wrong way to attack the problem, and an unfortunate product of the same system that drove this appalling article.
-
I'm honestly not surprised this discussion has gone the way it has. People seem to lash out at the idea of a hypervigilant feminist nanny state that raps them on the knuckles every time they say an Incorrect Word.
But we police ourselves constantly. There are things we don't say in all sorts of situations, by our own choice, because we've internalized attitudes and beliefs that guide our behavior. 'Free speech' has nothing to do with that. I like to believe that people in general have the power to consider how they speak and what effects it has.
I say '*****' all the time - son of a *****, that problem set was a *****, quit *****ing. I may even need to examine some of this usage. But what I'm arguing here is that you shouldn't invoke '*****' to fight a situation in which a man is being mocked for being turned into a *****. Sexual violence is clearly already active. Why invoke sexual violence to fight sexual violence?
-
"alleged" problem, huh? You're awfully good at telling others how to behave, but not very good at taking a look at yourself.
-
I'm honestly not surprised this discussion has gone the way it has. People seem to lash out at the idea of a hypervigilant feminist nanny state that raps them on the knuckles every time they say an Incorrect Word.
If you have any doubts at the existence of such a thing, just watch how easy for me it was to get StarSlayer change his signature. As if quoting one of the funniest ME2's jokes was a problem.
And that was my point. I acknowledged yours.
Why invoke sexual violence to fight sexual violence?
Bad taste, most probably, written fast and in jest. Uncomparable with a paid article written "with a straight face", and I'd guess, lots of ponderation. Did I mention she got money to write it?
-
Jesus Christ. Somebody fire this *****.
This is the wrong way to attack the problem, and an unfortunate product of the same system that drove this appalling article.
Why do you keep changing this post? That's about the fourth time you've done it.
-
"alleged" problem, huh? You're awfully good at telling others how to behave, but not very good at taking a look at yourself.
Nope, I'm confident I've been extraordinarily polite in this thread. Earlier I said I'd repost this passage every post because people (like yourself) would lose sight of it, and I should have followed through a little better:
I feel like this is a really tough discussion to have because it's hard to say '***** is the wrong word here' and explain why (which is not a simple thing, and touches on a lot of cultural hot-button issues) without it seeming like censure. I don't blame anyone for using the word; we live in a culture with a deeply ****ed up gender structure and a whole lot of poison swirling around that structure. Nobody's immune, certainly not me. I'm not trying to say you're (for any value of 'you') a bad person. This isn't an accusation.
You'll need to read more closely if you want to participate in big threads like this.
I want to discuss the argument that came up earlier that people can 'earn' slurs through their own appalling behavior. I mentioned that you can take this apart with game theory, but more abstractly, I just want to point out why it doesn't work. The reason words like '*****' or 'kike' have power is because they target groups. They activate two sets of associations - prevailing cultural knowledge about how these groups are (servile, stupid, shrill, rapeable; numerous, disposable, treacherous, etc), and the targeted group's knowledge of the kind of threats they face if they overstep their place in the power structure.
When, say, a black man does something terrible, he can never earn a racial slur because - at least according to the definition some have proposed in this thread - the purpose of our condemnation is to target his terrible actions and his consequently terrible moral standing. Racial slurs can't do this effectively. They don't chain from the information we have about his moral standing. Rather, they indiscriminately activate all the group-specific information I delineated above. It's like running into Hitler and saying 'you're a MESS, Hitler - you just can't get it together!' The attempted condemnation is both orthogonal to the crime in question and salient to a separate and irrelevant domain.
Terrible people earn condemnation for being terrible people. Their group identity (black, woman, gay, whatever) is irrelevant to their terribleness. When we condemn them, we can't activate that identity without suggesting that we have somehow coupled it with 'terrible'.
-
Because it keeps getting deleted, which is odd, as that's against standing HLP policy.
It's possible someone's making the mistake of splitting the posts and sticking them in the other thread, which is quite peculiar all in all since the discussion belongs here - afaict the other thread was split out for some ridiculous derail about smilies. Whatever the case, it'd be a sad irony if this misstep here was left unflagged in an article about the need to flag a writer's awful misstep.
-
I'd like to nominate "****lord" as a choice neutral insult. It's like, you're not just calling them a ****ty person, you're saying they're a LORD of ****ty people, they own at being ****ty.
-
"You'll need to read more closely if you want to participate in big threads like this."
Oooh, here's problem number two! Your superiority complex! It is you who need to read better, my issue was with your very first post. All after is irrelevant. Speaking of superiority, I noticed in your first post, using of all words "son" like you're the parent scolding an impudent child.
I'd like to nominate "****lord" as a choice neutral insult. It's like, you're not just calling them a ****ty person, you're saying they're a LORD of ****ty people, they own at being ****ty.
ummmm... Lords and Ladies?
-
I've put a couple complaints in myself already. Hopefully someone picks this up and puts some real pressure on.
-
I understand your issue with my very first post. I don't think it's particularly salient, but luckily for you, you had an entire thread to watch me clarify it.
Since you've brought up the parent/child metaphor I'm happy to admit I felt the same way Apollo did when I was his age, and I can definitely empathize with being in that position looking back. I'm not uncomfortable with the knowledge that I understand this issue better than most people - I better, considering the amount of research invested in it in my field.
Let's focus on the discussion.
-
"Fire the ****lord!"
Nah. Doesn't work.
Since you've brought up the parent/child metaphor I'm happy to admit I felt the same way Apollo did when I was his age, and I can definitely empathize with being in that position looking back.
I love how Tutta subtly trolls people into accepting their inferior status. Perhaps it's a testosterone driven abuse, I should know since I've been there too in some less gently times of my life. But let's focus on the discussion.
-
"Fire the ****lord!"
Nah. Doesn't work.
Totally does.
-
"Depose the ****lord!"
better?
-
Better!
-
Because it keeps getting deleted, which is odd, as that's against standing HLP policy.
It's possible someone's making the mistake of splitting the posts and sticking them in the other thread, which is quite peculiar all in all since the discussion belongs here - afaict the other thread was split out for some ridiculous derail about smilies. Whatever the case, it'd be a sad irony if this misstep here was left unflagged in an article about the need to flag a writer's awful misstep.
It is the top post in the split thread. The original "c'mon son" post, that is, not this new one. That must be why it is being deleted.
-
Because it keeps getting deleted, which is odd, as that's against standing HLP policy.
It's possible someone's making the mistake of splitting the posts and sticking them in the other thread, which is quite peculiar all in all since the discussion belongs here - afaict the other thread was split out for some ridiculous derail about smilies. Whatever the case, it'd be a sad irony if this misstep here was left unflagged in an article about the need to flag a writer's awful misstep.
It is the top post in the split thread. The original "c'mon son" post, that is, not this new one. That must be why it is being deleted.
It's not being deleted. (Posts on HLP are by policy never deleted).
-
ummmm... Lords and Ladies?
Well, since we don't really use the title Lord anymore, but lady is still a common term for women, I don't think "****lady" would be a good word to promote. I think people would more readily use "lord" indiscriminately nowadays, as they're already doing in this thread, and using an insult with "lady" in it brings us right back to the same issues with "*****."
-
I understand your issue with my very first post. I don't think it's particularly salient, but luckily for you, you had an entire thread to watch me clarify it.
Since you've brought up the parent/child metaphor I'm happy to admit I felt the same way Apollo did when I was his age, and I can definitely empathize with being in that position looking back. I'm not uncomfortable with the knowledge that I understand this issue better than most people - I better, considering the amount of research invested in it in my field.
Let's focus on the discussion.
No. Not me. It is you who is the lucky one. And I think it is an important issue.
I'm not done yet. If you stop with the parent role, that would be good, but the point is you can't just jump on someone and aggravate them for something most people wouldn't take issue with, then expect them to listen to you with an open mind, which is what your first post did. That is the main point.
Since you've brought up the parent/child metaphor I'm happy to admit I felt the same way Apollo did when I was his age, and I can definitely empathize with being in that position looking back.
I love how Tutta subtly trolls people into accepting their inferior status. Perhaps it's a testosterone driven abuse, I should know since I've been there too in some less gently times of my life. But let's focus on the discussion.
So, you see it too, Luis. I see it also, but it's not subtle to me. His posts drip with it. Whether it's the general superior "I am better than you" tone, or overt condescension, or the more subtle type using the word son, or making out a thread is for the big boys, or the I'm starting to think deliberate use of words and topics that other people will struggle with, rather than trying to help people along, making them have to struggle along, or constant mention of his position.
Anyway, it's not going to work on me. If anything, it has the opposite effect.
ummmm... Lords and Ladies?
Well, since we don't really use the title Lord anymore, but lady is still a common term for women, I don't think "****lady" would be a good word to promote. I think people would more readily use "lord" indiscriminately nowadays, as they're already doing in this thread, and using an insult with "lady" in it brings us right back to the same issues with "*****."
New neutral insult could be a fun topic.
-
Just a gentle reminder that the thread is not about you, Lorric.
-
ahaha, this is getting worse and worse.
-
It's the usual pattern on these threads - a limited opening, an exchange of effortposts and people with tangential arguments, everyone gets tired of it, then some inane tangent that kills it. Possibly we can get back to the really interesting topics at the heart of this debate, though. The effects of language and the extent to which we're privileged in our choice of words is a really cool and really complicated systemic issue.
-
And if you come across words and phrases that don't make sense, there's no shame in asking someone to explain them. Or you could just... look them up, educate thyself! I don't think Battuta, or most of the technical people here, would use jargon to intentionally be condescending. Hell, I'm often humbled by how much I don't know reading the really intense space/orbital mechanics threads.
-
Just a gentle reminder that the thread is not about you, Lorric.
No, it's not. It's about you. You started it all.
-
And if you come across words and phrases that don't make sense, there's no shame in asking someone to explain them. Or you could just... look them up, educate thyself! I don't think Battuta, or most of the technical people here, would use jargon to intentionally be condescending. Hell, I'm often humbled by how much I don't know reading the really intense space/orbital mechanics threads.
I think one of the broader issues that interests me here - with respect to feminism, sure, but other issues like global warming - is that of increasing complexity. People are cognitive misers; even when they want to think hard they'll eventually fall back on pretty simple heuristics and associative patterns. How do we convey really complex issues to people who matter? Is there something irreducible about these polycausal, context-driven phenomena that the human mind can't easily grapple with?
-
And if you come across words and phrases that don't make sense, there's no shame in asking someone to explain them. Or you could just... look them up, educate thyself! I don't think Battuta, or most of the technical people here, would use jargon to intentionally be condescending. Hell, I'm often humbled by how much I don't know reading the really intense space/orbital mechanics threads.
I did only say "starting to think" on that one point. I like expanding my vocabulary. He's the only one I get that impression from though.
Anyway, I'll step aside now, I've said my piece on that subject.
-
I think one of the broader issues that interests me here - with respect to feminism, sure, but other issues like global warming - is that of increasing complexity. People are cognitive misers; even when they want to think hard they'll eventually fall back on pretty simple heuristics and associative patterns. How do we convey really complex issues to people who matter? Is there something irreducible about these polycausal, context-driven phenomena that the human mind can't easily grapple with?
Ah man, I made an effortpost a while back on FB (:ha:) about global warming basically saying just that. It's just such a complicated phenomenon that you need at least a little bit of understanding in so many different fields (optics, heat transfer, thermodynamics, geology, meteorology, omg too much, etc.) that to most people it just seems preposterous. Or hell, even just statistics seems like voodoo if you haven't learned how it works.
-
but other issues like global warming - is that of increasing complexity. People are cognitive misers; even when they want to think hard they'll eventually fall back on pretty simple heuristics and associative patterns. How do we convey really complex issues to people who matter?
What about climate change?
EDIT: question was answered by the above
-
Just a gentle reminder that the thread is not about you, Lorric.
No, it's not. It's about you. You started it all.
No. This thread was about use of language. It got started by a post by Batman, but it was never about him. Learn the difference.
You, Lorric, you are the only one who is trying to get it to be about Battuta, and you are ignoring the general trend of the thread in order to get it there.
-
Consciousness of the cultural connotations of words enables a person to use them responsibly. If you're around people who you know well and who know you well, I see no problem with using "offensive" language. The main problem is when you're around people who don't know you well and don't know how you, personally, use the word.
Refer to Louis CK's routine on the word "faggot." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fcja4WFFzDw
From an aesthetic standpoint, there's no substitute for some words. Vulgarities, especially the most offensive ones, have a certain "sound," which can't be replicated in other words. Sure, a lot of this is an internal conditioned response, but even still, take two words (one of which Mr. CK has already discussed in-depth) with the EXACT same connotation: "faggot" and "fag." To me, "faggot" has an irreplaceable sound, even a charm in a way. The latter? Not so much.
Yes, some slurs have more impactful sounds than others. However, that's a question of aesthetics, which is purely individual.
-
***** can also refer to a mean women. This definition is not inherently sexist and is at least as common as its other meanings. Some people still perceive it as sexist, but that is not the fault of the speaker.
But the word ***** [...] can never mean 'a mean woman'. Words can't be stripped of their historical force, and [...]
Dude, the ****ing dictionary would like a word with you. :nono:
If you've read the thread you're already quite aware of why the dictionary is irrelevant to the argument.
The initial argument made was over the most-likely perceived meaning of the word in question. Apollo (and, as I said, I thought along similar lines) stated that it was something like 'a mean lady'. You stated it was something else (which doesn't matter to my point). In other words, the argument is about definition.
You are, as appears to me, stating that the dictionary is irrelevant to the definition of a word and that under no circumstances whatsoever (I believe you used the words "can" and "never") can the word in question mean what the dictionary states it means. If this is not the case, please clarify.
I am not arguing against the idea that these terms can (and do) cause harm to groups. And I am not disagreeing that the use of said language was inappropriate in this context.
--
I'd like to nominate "****lord" as a choice neutral insult. It's like, you're not just calling them a ****ty person, you're saying they're a LORD of ****ty people, they own at being ****ty.
I nominate ****-meister. It sounds smarmier.
-
oh for-- '****head' is the obvious one that everyone uses
-
Can we please chill the fork out here? and if anything, the "insult" of choice would be insipid hack.
-
By being racist they have earned racist treatment of the same level. Anyway, which is the greater offense: calling a black man a nigger or laughing at a white man who was almost lynched?
But by being racist you thereby insult all black people including those who had nothing to do with the lynching. So you fail on that level. If you use ***** to simply be the female equivalent to bastard, you're not deliberately using it in that way. If you're using it in the sexual connotation though, you are. In which case you are completely in the wrong because you've chosen to insult 50% of the planet for the actions of one stupid, ignorant person just because that person happened to be a woman.
Perhaps you're right. I hadn't thought it about too much.
This was explicitly what I said to you in the second post on the topic, so I'm glad you're thinking about it now. With the important addendum that ***** is always a gendered, sexualized word, not the female equivalent of bastard. We have no say about this; you cannot decide to use it otherwise. It will always activate those semantic associations.
(Bastard was a pretty serious insult back in the day, when being a bastard was a huge threat to your life and social standing. That's no longer always the case today. Unfortunately, being a ***** is a threat to your physical safety and social standing.)
If we set aside the manufactured arguments about dictionaries and censorship (neither of which have anything in particular to do with the topic) I hope it's clear by now why this isn't an area where you can fight fire with fire.
It's pretty goddamn difficult for anyone other than a black person to use the word nigger without racially insulting somebody. *****, on the other hand, can just as easily be a generic insult in the same way that dick is for a man.
The word "*****" will never go away. However, it has taken on an additional role as a generic insult, not a misogynistic one. You can see this from how several people in this thread thought of the "mean women" meaning before the "woman who doesn't know her place" one. The best thing that can happen is for the former meaning to completely overtake the latter.
Oversexualization, sexual double standards, and men calling their girlfriends "bad *****es" are all issues we should be concerned about. However, taking issue with the "mean woman" meaning of ***** is not combating sexism. It's overblown political correctness.
EDIT: Also where did that monkey badge come from? [/offtopic]
-
He's been monkeyed. Which is sad. I was having a ball with his condescending troll act.
Seriously though, I have a deeply ingrained skepticism regarding the analysis of words in that hyper-self-aware of the "patriarchy" system we have largely inherited (and ever since tried to tame, curtail, stop, etc.), for it has been my experience that this "kind" of conversation seems to attract dip****s and professional victims of the worst kind (elevatorgate anyone?). However I do recognize the questions themselves as serious and interesting, and given that HLP is void of such aforementioned problematics it could be perhaps the best place to develop such a conversation.
First things first though. No, the Principia of Newton isn't a "Manual of Rape" and the modelling of fluids hasn't been so difficult to tackle because it's a "female" "thing". As long as we keep the thread clean from some post-modernist pseudo-feminist bull****, I'll participate!
-
He's been monkeyed. Which is sad. I was having a ball with his condescending troll act.
Seriously though, I have a deeply ingrained skepticism regarding the analysis of words in that hyper-self-aware of the "patriarchy" system we have largely inherited (and ever since tried to tame, curtail, stop, etc.), for it has been my experience that this "kind" of conversation seems to attract dip****s and professional victims of the worst kind (elevatorgate anyone?). However I do recognize the questions themselves as serious and interesting, and given that HLP is void of such aforementioned problematics it could be perhaps the best place to develop such a conversation.
First things first though. No, the Principia of Newton isn't a "Manual of Rape" and the modelling of fluids hasn't been so difficult to tackle because it's a "female" "thing". As long as we keep the thread clean from some post-modernist pseudo-feminist bull****, I'll participate!
Monkey badge? I thought Apollo was talking about the monkey racial slur. What does this "he's been monkeyed" mean?
-
It means he's barred from posting anything for a day. Apparently he was "spamming" the thread with his repeated "not good" to that ***** quote, when he was merely trying to substitute what was misteriously disappearing for no apparent reason. They'll sort it out.
-
Even if you don't put any stock in feminist theory, the point stands that it's not particularly helpful to risk hurting a whole group of people you are supposed to be allied with just because you want to use a particular word that feels good for you to say but very likely means something different to them. That's just being a dick (no offense intended) ;)
-
It means he's barred from posting anything for a day. Apparently he was "spamming" the thread with his repeated "not good" to that ***** quote, when he was merely trying to substitute what was misteriously disappearing for no apparent reason. They'll sort it out.
So there should be a monkey badge in his sidebar? There isn't one that I can see, so he must have been unbanned already?
Thanks.
-
He's been monkeyed. Which is sad. I was having a ball with his condescending troll act.
Seriously though, I have a deeply ingrained skepticism regarding the analysis of words in that hyper-self-aware of the "patriarchy" system we have largely inherited (and ever since tried to tame, curtail, stop, etc.), for it has been my experience that this "kind" of conversation seems to attract dip****s and professional victims of the worst kind (elevatorgate anyone?). However I do recognize the questions themselves as serious and interesting, and given that HLP is void of such aforementioned problematics it could be perhaps the best place to develop such a conversation.
First things first though. No, the Principia of Newton isn't a "Manual of Rape" and the modelling of fluids hasn't been so difficult to tackle because it's a "female" "thing". As long as we keep the thread clean from some post-modernist pseudo-feminist bull****, I'll participate!
Monkey badge? I thought Apollo was talking about the monkey racial slur. What does this "he's been monkeyed" mean?
It means he can browse the forums, but he can't post except in boards he has badges for. Although...
He's been monkeyed. Which is sad. I was having a ball with his condescending troll act.
The Mighty Batutta has returned.
EDIT: oh nevermind
-
Battuta is now in the Political Prisoners group rather than Monkeys which means access to this forum is denied as opposed to access to all public forums.
Please return to the topic under discussion.
-
Battuta is now in the Political Prisoners group rather than Monkeys which means access to this forum is denied as opposed to access to all public forums.
Please return to the topic under discussion.
wait what did he do
-
Even if you don't put any stock in feminist theory, the point stands that it's not particularly helpful to risk hurting a whole group of people you are supposed to be allied with just because you want to use a particular word that feels good for you to say but very likely means something different to them. That's just being a dick (no offense intended) ;)
but what about ARE FREEDOMS!!!?!!?!?
Don't you know that free speech means I'm allowed to say whatever I want without consequence or criticism??! How dare you make me actually consider the larger implications of my word choice in the name of your beloved "political correctness." And don't try and trot out some kind of ~data~ or ~figures~ here. I know I'm right, and when you're right, you don't have to question it. (http://fi.somethingawful.com/safs/smilies/9/e/freep.001.gif)
-
Even if you don't put any stock in feminist theory, the point stands that it's not particularly helpful to risk hurting a whole group of people you are supposed to be allied with just because you want to use a particular word that feels good for you to say but very likely means something different to them. That's just being a dick (no offense intended) ;)
but what about ARE FREEDOMS!!!?!!?!?
Don't you know that free speech means I'm allowed to say whatever I want without consequence or criticism??! How dare you make me actually consider the larger implications of my word choice in the name of your beloved "political correctness." And don't try and trot out some kind of ~data~ or ~figures~ here. I know I'm right, and when you're right, you don't have to question it. (http://fi.somethingawful.com/safs/smilies/9/e/freep.001.gif)
To my people, "dick" means a classy, well informed individual and "helpful" means unhelpful. You must have misunderstood, but that's your problem, dick!
Hi-Five?
-
Even if you don't put any stock in feminist theory, the point stands that it's not particularly helpful to risk hurting a whole group of people you are supposed to be allied with just because you want to use a particular word that feels good for you to say but very likely means something different to them. That's just being a dick (no offense intended) ;)
but what about ARE FREEDOMS!!!?!!?!?
Don't you know that free speech means I'm allowed to say whatever I want without consequence or criticism??! How dare you make me actually consider the larger implications of my word choice in the name of your beloved "political correctness." And don't try and trot out some kind of ~data~ or ~figures~ here. I know I'm right, and when you're right, you don't have to question it. (http://fi.somethingawful.com/safs/smilies/9/e/freep.001.gif)
two can play at this game:
but what about FEEEEEEEEELINGS!!!!!!!!!
Don't you know that you should never use any insults because someone it doesn't even apply to might take offense? How dare you not care if somebody fails to understand the fairly obvious meaning of your language? You must always take words and apply the most offensive meaning possible to them because thats how you combat DA PATRIARCHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And don't try to apply some common sense WORDS ONLY HAVE ONE MEANING YOU RETARD! MY DATA TELL ME SO!!! :beamz:
-
Even if you don't put any stock in feminist theory, the point stands that it's not particularly helpful to risk hurting a whole group of people you are supposed to be allied with just because you want to use a particular word that feels good for you to say but very likely means something different to them. That's just being a dick (no offense intended) ;)
but what about ARE FREEDOMS!!!?!!?!?
Don't you know that free speech means I'm allowed to say whatever I want without consequence or criticism??! How dare you make me actually consider the larger implications of my word choice in the name of your beloved "political correctness." And don't try and trot out some kind of ~data~ or ~figures~ here. I know I'm right, and when you're right, you don't have to question it. (http://fi.somethingawful.com/safs/smilies/9/e/freep.001.gif)
To my people, "dick" means a classy, well informed individual and "helpful" means unhelpful. You must have misunderstood, but that's your problem, dick!
Hi-Five?
***** doesn't mean that to "my people", it means that to many, many people. In fact, I've actually heard the "mean woman" usage more often than any other. I've even heard it used to mean "mean man".
Can we stop exchanging strawmen? It really insults us both.
-
Well, in seriousness, being considerate of other people's feelings isn't a weakness. It's the harder road. You can't avoid causing harm all the time, but it's a worthy goal.
Also, I think it takes some time to really appreciate the value of hard data.
-
Interesting. How about...
Beautiful
Intelligent
Tenacious
Courageous
Heroine
Heh heh. If anyone wants to use it for the next comic book Heroine, I want a cut! :D :cool:
Well, in seriousness, being considerate of other people's feelings isn't a weakness. It's the harder road. You can't avoid causing harm all the time, but it's a worthy goal.
Also, I think it takes some time to really appreciate the value of hard data.
Is it harder? If you hurt people, people will want to hurt you.
-
(http://i1054.photobucket.com/albums/s490/kingspoon/applauds_zpsa2256599.gif?t=1365642352)
This whole thread is amazingly bad
And for that I applaud you all.
-
Well, ok maybe easier in some ways. You may have fewer enemies. My point is it's easier to just care about yourself and not give a ****. To truly be compassionate and help the people around you, or at least not hurt them, is more difficult.
-
Can we stop exchanging strawmen? It really insults us both.
i warned you about analogies bro
i told you dog
-
Well, ok maybe easier in some ways. You may have fewer enemies. My point is it's easier to just care about yourself and not give a ****. To truly be compassionate and help the people around you, or at least not hurt them, is more difficult.
And yet you mock anyone who has an opposing point of view to you, even if they are attempted to have an open discussion with you? Even if it's actually counter-productive to your stated aims to get their back up and put them on the defensive?
Yeah, I think we're done here.