>I’m going off the rails on an [ableist slur redacted] train. Also: Cat poll!
>
Well, discussions about my second Scott Adams piece over on Feministe (which was basically identical to my post here) have now been completely derailed by a number of commenters who’ve decided I’m “ableist” because I used the word … “idiot.” That word, they have decided, is offensive to the “cognitively impaired.” If you want to wade into the mess, here’s the comment that, while polite in itself, started the long slide down this particular rabbit hole. You can see my responses in blue further down in the comments.
I consider this kind of language policing to the EXTREME! to be bad for feminism (and frankly insulting to people with disabilities), and I’m glad a number of others have stood up against it in the comments there. I don’t think that the language police are in the majority at Feministe, much less in feminism at large. But these debates are so frustrating that many feminists who disagree with the language police end up biting their tongues and/or just walking away. At some point I may post more about this fraught topic here.
In the meantime, I’m am conducting a little poll about cats. Please click the appropriate button in the graphic above. Clicking it won’t actually do anything, but I’m pretty sure what the results are going to be anyway. Go kitties!
–
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.
Posted on April 3, 2011, in bullying, feminism, idiocy, kitties, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. 264 Comments.
>"David would (I'm gathering) never object to someone criticizing the use of "retarded" or "nigger" as an epithet, but when people criticize "idiot," suddenly they're Maoists? Seriously?I just can't take that kind of double standard seriously" The problem is, how can anyone keep up with all of it? I've been visiting Feministe for a good year now, and I can't recall ever seeing the word "idiot" called out. It seems like about every two weeks at Feministe, an otherwise thoughtful post is derailed by policing a single word or phrase within that post. And the thing is, once someone calls a word or phrase out, you get a rush of dogpiling afterward. The moderation on the site is really sloppy at times, and I sometimes think they enjoy seeing this kind of argument unfold. Who cares about the subject matter of the post, let's make sure that we beat this asshole and her/his defenders into the ground for saying the word "crazy!" It makes us all look foolish and silly to outsiders, including those who love to tear feminism to shreds. Furthermore, it makes it that much harder for people to get together and actually work around these issues. I sometimes get the sense that amongst some feminists, it's an all or nothing attitude. You best be the most polished, well read, articulate, up on every last form of oppression known to humankind with all the attending language – or you're an enemy unworthy of respect or consideration.
>"privilege deniers like yourself never seem to grasp is that people like David aren't interested in being "manly." This is a central part of the feminist critique of social attitudes: concepts like manliness and femininity need to be seriously questioned."One more point: I'm sure the irony of taking issue with a word I am using in the comments for a post about absurdist language police is lost on you. The disagreement here seems to be about where exactly to draw the line, what laws the language police should be enforcing, rather than to question whether having language police in the first place is a good idea. If you spend your time worrying about form, then you don't have time to worry about substance, which should be what really matters.
>The use of the term butthurt has always been a rape narrative.You're assuming that everyone is aware of the perpetual usage of that term being a known rape narrative, and I can only answer for myself here, but that's the first that I have ever seen that term and my initial thought was that it was referring to a spanking. Not everybody is up to speed on the use of various terms or how various terms are understood in different groups.There's nothing wrong with pointing out how a word or phrase might be considered offensive or a trigger within any particular group, but if the aim is to prevent someone from unintentionally provoking (at this point I am referring to the pointing out of David's unintentional provoke), don't be provocative in your explanation. For example, Tori's initiating the topic of the use of the term "idiot":"David, I know that idiot is a pretty commonly used term, but it’s also one with a lot of ableist implications. I agree that what he did was misogynistic, lacking in good judgment, and bad — but I don’t see the need to conflate any of those qualities with cognitive impairment."In my opinion, the drawing attention to the usage of the term, as was done in the first sentence, was okay. But the second sentence ended on a provocative….. almost a holier-than-thou…. note. Even if not meant in a holier-than-thou way, the explanation of why "idiot" has ableist implications could have been handled in a manner more akin to a simile than a metaphor.In addition, I thought GallingGalla's response was even more provocative. If I'm not mistaken (and if I am, I apologize), Feministe is a moderated site and comments are not published until approved by a moderator. Did it not then occur to anyone there to maybe give David the benefit of the doubt in that when he fixed his "typo" and responded about said fix, he may not have seen Tori's comment because it may not have been published yet when David viewed the existing comments? No, GallingGala has to provoke by equating David's lack of response to Tori to Scott Adams' behaviour, "I dunno, but I wonder if you think that those pointing out ableist language in your posts have poor reading comprehension and that’s why you’re not bothering to respond?"
>Actually, it wasn't your word choice I was taking issue with, it was your unquestioned assumption that being "manful" is a virtue. And that's an issue of substance.Nice try, though.
>I have to call into question your title, David. A woman's breast is a beautiful thing that can give pleasure and/or nourish an infant. To use it to refer to misogynists is a terrible insult to boobs everywhere.
>Oh yes, and it's also full of fat-hatred too–you know, towards the big-boned fellows whose physique gave rise to the term "man boob."
>Putting 'pussy' in there as if it's harmless is bullshit. It's like 'nigger' and anybody who thinks they're being edgey by using it is just being blatantly sexist. Even if they're a woman. So's cunt and hysterical, which is still used to call women emotional, unreliable, on the rag, hormonal, all that bullshit. I've seen people excuse it by saying, "Oh, I'm using it the British way,' or "I'm calling a man that, so it's okay." No, it's not, ya fuckin' moron. You're saying that a man is a woman, and that's the worst thing you can say. There are some things that say more about the speaker than his target. That's one of them. There's just some really offensive insults that shouldn't be used. It's that simple. However, beyond that relatively small group, there's been a lot an explosion of calling out, ever-more-niggling at more and more obscure wordsa nd meanings, and the joyous dogpiling that happens on so-called liberal sites over anything but truly substantial things. Feministe and Shakesville are the two biggest offenders. I saw an amazing discussion about how 'dwarf star' was ableist or some such shit once, and recently—as in the past month or so—I saw trigger warnings for dog dick and dog teeth. You can't warn for every fucking thing. What it comes down to, is nothing ever winds up getting resolved, interesting discussions get shut down in the dogpiling.
>Victor: Different people have different levels of privilege depending on the situation. There were some really awesome posts on feminist blogs about this exact issue earlier this week: Relational privilege and situational privilege. I won't link to them, because I don't want to send people with opposing points of view to their door (as they don't so much have discussion boards for open debate, as David provides here), but the basic idea is that, for example, a white, cis, able-bodied woman might be less privileged than a white, cis, able-bodied man but more privileged than a black, cis man with a disability (relational privilege). And a woman might generally have privilege over a man in the area of child care (situational privilege). So these seem to me very feminist concerns you've raised.Ending my response to Victor and moving on to the original topic, I guess what's always struck me about the concerns regarding "idiot" (and its sibling terms, "cretin," "moron," and "imbecile") is that they haven't been used (to my knowledge) as actual categories for people with disabilities in … I'm not sure how long. Probably not since I've been alive. Possibly not since my parents have been alive. I don't think that necessarily means their use won't be hurtful to someone who has a low IQ, but it's something I'd toss into my equation.My idea about terminology (which is somewhat separate from my use of such–I try not to use possibly offensive terms in places I'm not sure about) is a kind of balancing test. What is the usefulness of the word? How likely is it to offend? I might be tempted to say, "Boehner is such a moron!" or "The war on uteri drives me crazy!" but, even if the likelihood that those terms will offend is pretty low, the words I've used aren't as accurate as they might be. What I really mean is: "Boehner is an evil asshole," and "I am enraged over the war on uteri." Much better on two counts.That said, I couldn't help but notice that at least one of the commenters at Feministe seemed on the verge of saying that any word describing a person's intelligence as less than sufficient is wrong. I've always been afraid that this is where this debate is going, frankly. Oh, it's not like a large part of my day will be empty if I suddenly can't call people stupid. It just seems weird that some would take offense if, say, I said that Sarah Palin's repeatedly demonstrated stupidity caused me to think she wouldn't make a good president.
>I always thought butthurt meant someone who had been smacked or spanked.Oh the things you learn.
>@Nathan, I just added a comment over in that thread (horrible coding errors! Embarrassing!) but I just want to say – Some of the commenters who later got very angry at David and demanded that he change his language posted ON THAT POST in a humorous, on-topic way until the initial "idiot has an unfortunate history" link. Then suddenly they were offended and David was evilly ignoring them. Which tells me that they didn't even notice the word until it became the "Official Word We Are Offended By This Week."
>I always thought butthurt meant someone who had been smacked or spanked.I thought the same thing, Elizabeth, and it's the first point in my post that might be revealed when it makes its way out of the spam filter. One might think that a certain word or phrase is universally and perpetually known as a trigger/slur/etc., but that might not be the reality.
>When I first heard the word butthurt my mind went immediately to anal sex. But then, my mind always goes immediately to anal sex.However, it didn't take me long after that to realize that it only makes sense in a rapey context, so I don't use it.
>From context, I always thought "butthurt" was a word created to discount and make fun of a person's real emotional reaction to something by putting the word "butt" in front of the (false) acknowledgment of said emotional reaction.Which is why I don't use it. Knowing that it's meant to discount the feelings of someone who's been spanked or anally raped doesn't really make me feel any more kindly toward its usage.
>…they didn't even notice the word until it became the "Official Word We Are Offended By This Week."Yes, and not only that, some of the more vocal offended ones are oblivious to their own usage of potential "Official Word We Are Offended By This Week" words/idioms. For example, "Is David somehow not able to convey that Scott Adams sucks because someone asked him not to use the word “idiot”?" Sucks?? Do they not know that that word has oral copulation implications? They are conflating someone's negative behaviour with something that some of us would like to think is a positive experience, sucking genitalia. They might also be triggering someone's negative experience, in that oral copulation may have been forced upon them.
>Ugh, thread closed before I could respond to the last poster who responded to me.Being snarky in a response: Not Silencing.Demanding that someone go back in time and redact/unsay things to manufacture a faux history of agreement and never having been "incorrect" in the first place? ACTUALLY SILENCING. YOU ACTUALLY MADE THE WORDS GO AWAY.
>I wrote about this on my blog, mainly because I wanted to address the fact that the Feministe detractors seemed to completely fail to understand the importance of context in determining privilege. David didn't use the word in an ableist context. That is absolutely vital to understand. And it bugs the hell out of me to see any word portrayed as inherently bad.
>Bee (from this comment):I was thinking something in that direction, but then I realized that, for instance, the n-word hasn't been a correct, scientific word for black people for a long time, either. Maybe the difference is that the history of "idiot" or "imbecile" is a bit of arcana now that most people don't even know, whereas everyone knows what the n-word means and meant.-katz
>Of course the practical difference is the derailing. It seems like any long Feministe discussion inevitably devolves into a discussion about who used inappropriate words, thereby precluding any real conversation about whatever the post was about. Perhaps there wouldn't be a problem if one person could just say "Please don't use the word 'idiot' on this site in the future" and leave it at that, but that never happens.
>I'm sure you'll want to keep misogynist, woman hater, has a small dick, can't get laid, rape apologist, deadbeat(unemployed)dad, loser, white privilege, has mommy issues, man up, manchild, ect. ect. ect. in your arsenol of goodies.Funny how Dave and the rest of the mutual admiration feminisite gang rapid fire these gems out like theres a gun to their collective heads. Try practicing what you preach. And quoting feminisite as a "model" for a commenting policy is the definition of oxymoron.
>"Actually, it wasn't your word choice I was taking issue with, it was your unquestioned assumption that being "manful" is a virtue."You zeroed in on the word, rather than the points I was making. You wrote two comments about it, neither one discussion the content of what I said. You even admit that you know how I was using it in the quote above. Form over substance.
>The important thing about the difference between "idiot" and, say, "nigger" or "bitch" is that it's largely lost any clinical loading it once had, and in fact had a long history of pre-clinical use in largely the same sense as it's used now. In other words, it's being used in a sense that's older than any medical sense. You can argue ableism all you want, but if you're not paying attention to the history of the word, there's a very good chance you're wrong. Or should I stop calling someone a schmuck because it's a somewhat belittling term for a penis?
>I'm back! just catching up on all this.Pam had a good comment in the spam filter; it's up now. (It was originally posted at 12:17.) Now off to read the new Feministe comments. In case anyone was wondering, the reason I haven't posted there (or here) since the moderator stepped in is that I was asleep much of the time. Sleep is good.
>200 comments on that post, 85% related to the use of the word "idiot." A good example of movement self-destructing in action. This is exactly why for every step forward, three are taken back.
>Oh, and according to this:http://www.bing.com/dictionary/search?q=definition%20manful&qpvt=definition+manful&FORM=Z7FDmanful is defined as "traditionally brave and determined"A woman can behave in a manful way, just like a man can behave in a motherly way. They are just words, and they have definitions.There is a direct line between taking issue with this word and posting, like the commentator at feministing did, about how the use of the word 'idiot' caused him or her to have a panic attack.
>"privilege deniers"ROFL. Me as the average male, I don't feel one tiny winy little bit of privilege over women. Feminists are highly delusional laughable nitwitsBut but but male privilege and patriarchy is everywhere I tell ya. Even that there’s no logic explanation or real evidence, it’s everywhere because delusional feminazitards say so
>Interesting that Feministe hasn't posted its usual Self Promotion Sunday, the most recent post glorifies a singer who's made truly awful statements about victims of sexual assault, and despite what Cara claimed, they clearly don't cap comments at 200 since there are 294 on your other Scott Adams post. Hurray hypocrisy!
>anthonybsusan, I'm actually glad the topic is closed over at Feministe. You, Capt. Awkward, Florence, switchin and a few others there pretty much made all the points I wanted to make, and then some. Time to move on.
>A woman can behave in a manful way, just like a man can behave in a motherly way. They are just words, and they have definitions.*Facepalm*
>ROTFLMAO!!! About time nicko weighed in with a pathetically futile attempt to stir the pot!
>There are 10 comments on the most current Feministe post, the topic of which is a cool female musician whose sense of style the poster admires.1 is making issue with the poster's definition of androgynous1 is making issue with how the poster conflated "popular femininity" and "conforming"3 are about how the musician has actually made some horrible statements.3 are of the poster trying to defend herself.I have no idea why anyone would waste their time posting there at this point.
>That's some nasty language policing, yeah. Especially because as David correctly pointed out, the dictionary definition is "showing complete lack of thought or common sense : foolish" and this is also both the common usage and the original meaning of the word. Sure, it was used in ways that were ablist some years ago, but so were all the other synonyms that could've been used instead, and for the exact same reason: ablism meant that society didn't really distinguish between acting in a way that lacked thought or common sense and having a mental disability until relatively recently. Which says a lot about ablism and justifies not using words like "idiot" to describe the cognitively impaired, but makes the language policing a bit much.This kind of language policing leaves us with no clear, short way to express the idea that someone's acting in a thoughtless manner. That's starting to get outright Orwellian.
>I like cats. One of my friend's friends has a black cat with green eyes that was supposed to be mine, but I couldn't take him in. (The cat, not the friend.) He's grown up now and looks slick like a panther. He also doesn't shut up. It's awesome. I sneak him food when no one's looking.
>@makomk (and those that have expressed similar ideas), I do not use "crazy" or "retarded" and try my hardest to avoid intelligence/intellect based terms and manage to insult and namecall just fine. "This kind of language policing leaves us with no clear, short way to express the idea that someone's acting in a thoughtless manner. " How about "acting thoughtless" or using "thoughtless" as an adjective? We also have terms like "rude", "uncaring", "unthinking", "callous", "foolish", "silly", "absurd", "ridiculous", etc. My neice loved to call things "silly" when she was barely two. These words are not inacessible or too advanced, the problem is that we are raised in a culture where it is acceptable and habitual to use ablist (as well as racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.) language automatically and without consideration.@NWO "I'm sure you'll want to keep misogynist, woman hater, has a small dick, can't get laid, rape apologist, deadbeat(unemployed)dad, loser, white privilege, has mommy issues, man up, manchild, ect. ect. ect. in your arsenol of goodies." I do not use all of those terms (man up, man child, mommy issues, can't get laid, small dick), but those I do use I use with the specific intent and knowledge that I am using them with negative moral judgement. When I call someone a rape apologist, I am saying that I believe they are a literal rape apologist and that this is bad (the same with misogynist, woman hater, and white privilege). It is not a metaphor or an insult by association, it is a direct and literal statement of a negative behavior.
>@Darksidecat See, the trouble is, with the possible exception of callous, those are by and large some toothless insults. Part of what makes invective effective is that it IS by design hurtful, and much like a weapon, a particularly devastating word choice WILL have some collateral damage. By way of example, "Rude" is something your mom might tell you you're being at the dinner table eating with your elbows up; I doubt she would call you classless, trailer trash or human garbage. That is because these terms are much more loaded and, therefore, more judgemental. They're also WAY more classist. The point is, if you want to use language to be offensive, you will have to offend people.Of course, if you don't WANT to be offensive, well where's the fun in that?
>Bee said:My idea about terminology (which is somewhat separate from my use of such–I try not to use possibly offensive terms in places I'm not sure about) is a kind of balancing test. What is the usefulness of the word? How likely is it to offend? I might be tempted to say, "Boehner is such a moron!" or "The war on uteri drives me crazy!" but, even if the likelihood that those terms will offend is pretty low, the words I've used aren't as accurate as they might be. What I really mean is: "Boehner is an evil asshole," and "I am enraged over the war on uteri." Much better on two counts.This this this, so much.
>nicko81m said… "privilege deniers" ROFL. Me as the average male, I don't feel one tiny winy little bit of privilege over women. Feminists are highly delusional laughable nitwits But but but male privilege and patriarchy is everywhere I tell ya. Even that there’s no logic explanation or real evidence, it’s everywhere because delusional feminazitards say soI think we can safely say that this post has removed all doubt as to whether nicko is a spambot. Seriously, nicko, would you like some dressing on that word-salad?
>Sam:I don't think in a good discussion you should be shooting to offend the OP or anyone else, but you should be shooting to express exactly how pissed you are, and that's why words like "rude" just aren't going to cut it. That suggests that you're moderately annoyed at the OP, when in fact you're completely pissed off.It's also worth pointing out that "foolish" and "silly" have both referred to mentally handicapped people in times past.-katz
>I don't worry much about offending people. I say what I say and frankly if someone is going to have a panic attack because of a word they read on the internet that is very much their problem, not mine or society in general. I've read through David's blog pretty much from start to finish, often the comments are as amusing as the posts themselves. This is the first time feminists have come out looking like idiots. It could be said that feminists can't leave the house or they would be rendered helpless from overhearing a word that upset them. Not the feminists I know, but on a blog dedicated to mocking the crazy in the mra it's interesting to have a post that really does point out the crazy in the feminists.(if that set upon you a panic attack… I recommend you seek medical attention)
>I don't worry much about offending people. I say what I say and frankly if someone is going to have a panic attack because of a word they read on the internet that is very much their problem, not mine or society in general.Ooh, a declaration of edginess and political incorrectness. That's not trite at all.Nobody's impressed, trust me.
>Why would I trust you Trip? I have no doubt not everyone would agree with me, but I also wouldn't have the audacity to say that no one would agree. What I will say is I will not censor myself because someone somewhere might be upset.
>What I will say is I will not censor myself because someone somewhere might be upset.A reasonable position. But when someone actually is upset and expresses that, I think it's a little inconsiderate to just brush them off. You can choose to do something about their offense or do nothing, but at least consider it. I just don't see the value in making a sweeping declaration that you're not going to worry about offending people.
>Oh, and to answer your other question (why you should trust me), because I'm sexy.
>It could be said that feminists can't leave the house or they would be rendered helpless from overhearing a word that upset them.Yes, Kave, and wasn't that one of the many tactics that have been employed over the centuries in an effort to keep women confined to a narrow sphere? Y'know, how women needed protection from the harsh realities of the outside world that would do undue harm to their delicate sensibilities. Let's call bullshit on that, and then set about to display how the harsh realities of the outside world do indeed harm our delicate sensibilities.
>But when someone actually is upset and expresses that, I think it's a little inconsiderate to just brush them off.Yes, that would be inconsiderate. But the world outside of the Feministe blog doesn't come complete with "Trigger Warnings" for everything that might trigger a panic attack or offend someone…. are feminists not equipped to handle that?
>@Sam, there remains profanity as well. Fuckwad, asshole, shitstain. Besides, have you stopped for a second to ask yourself why a word like "idiot" is considered so much harsher than a word like "silly"? The reason is precisely because it invokes that social hierarchy in associating a person with someone with intellectual disability, which is seen as a horrible and terrible thing. The same principle applies to invoking classism with use of terms like "trailer trash" or "classless". If you think that being associated with group X is terrible and horrible and so you use it as an insult, it is fair to say that you are, in fact, making a statement that you know is degrading and negative about group X.
>DSC's got a point there. "Shitstain" does get the point across rather effectively, and it doesn't marginalize any group of people.Of course, some may consider "shitstain" overly vulgar, but perhaps we should reflect on why our society is uncomfortable with a word like that but completely comfortable with words that marginalize and demean swaths of people.
>@Darksidecat Well if we agree, why are we arguing? We seem to have the same points, but are approaching them from differing language > people/ language < people perspectives.
>Context is usually everything. I remember years ago having a discussion with a female colleague and I referenced something about my "girlfriend". She stopped me and said, "You mean your ladyfriend". Pardon me? "Girl means prepubescent"."No, Girlfriend is a term of endearment". I think it pretty obvious when words are used to hurt. Do we really need language police, I think not.
>As a person with irritable bowel syndrome, I'm higly offended by your use of the term "shitstain".
>You know, so many of these disputes could just be resolved with the immortal words of Inigo Montoya:"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
>Offtopically speaking . . .Inspired by David's and triplanetary's monumental fact check of the "Mean Feminist Manhate Quote List" (see sidebar under "Further Reading"), I have taken it upon myself to rearrange the quotes on the list in chronological order, to see if any patterns suggest themselves. Results can be found on my blog here.
>God, the language police. Has anyone used the term "idiot" in a clinical sense in the past two hundred years or so? Same with lame. No reasonable person would hear you referring to a television program as "lame" and think you're talking about a show that features lots of people with physical impairments. Language changes over time, and lots of the words we use have sexist, ableist, or otherwise sad histories. "Sucks" as a pejorative is pretty sexist, when you think about it, but most people don't use it that way. The language police and excessive trigger warning stuff is what keeps me away from Feministe and Shakesville, honestly. I don't like being regarded as someone who's going to collapse into a pile of sobs if I'm offended.
>I think a good benchmark for using "trigger warning" in a post is to ask yourself, "is this more or less upsetting than a spoiler alert?"
>This issue, like so many, is complicated. There are people who are genuinely offended by what they consider to be ableist language and/or contemptuous of those who use it. There is definitely a value to examining the words we use. It is naive, however, to suggest that the motivations of everyone who calls out other people's language are pure as the driven snow. There are very definitely those in the left/liberal/feminist movement who engage in oneupmanship (sorry, no gender neutral term came to mind) for its own sake. Often, these are people who are fairly privileged themselves and, feeling insecure about it, take it upon themselves to pile on anyone perceived as being more privileged any chance they get as a way of burnishing their street cred. Thus, we get the 200+ post pile-ons we saw on Feministe. It's a difficult issue, because, as a supposedly grass-roots movement dedicated to empowering the disempowered, we should probably err on the side of deferring to those who object to certain terms. On the other hand, this sort of thing easily gets out of hand, especially on the internet, to the point where meaningful discussion can be easily derailed. It would be really helpful if there were a universally accepted protocol for dealing with these issues as they come up–a kind of Robert's Rules of Order for internet discussions on the left. It would be nice if David could have simply invoked a rule that says: "I hear your concerns and I respectfully disagree; let's discuss this at another place/time"–and that would be the end of the issue on that particular thread. Others who wish to discuss the language issue would then be free to hash it out in a designated sub-thread, while everyone else could continue to discuss the original post in the original thread. I know this solution would be far from ideal, but it's a starting place. This sort of this has been an issue in leftist/feminist circles for a long, long time, and it has derailed many, many discussions and has driven many sincere people away from activism. If anyone has any ideas about this, I'd be happy to hear them.
>@CAPT Bathrobe: "This sort of this has been an issue in leftist/feminist circles for a long, long time, and it has derailed many, many discussions and has driven many sincere people away from activism. If anyone has any ideas about this, I'd be happy to hear them."Uh…………….Did I mention I like cats? Honestly, asking how we might stop derailing discussions and driving sincere people away reminds me of that old joke that ends: "And God begins to cry."
>@Capt BathrobeBullies are not all made the same, some use fists, others use words.
>"I'm totally on board with what (almost) everyone has been saying. Yes, the words we use matter. Yes, if I were unknowingly using a word that made you feel hurt or marginalized, I would stop immediately.But on Feministe (I've also noticed it in parts of the Tumblrverse), it's actually difficult to have a conversation on any topic because, for every reply that actually addresses what you said, you get a whole cascade addressing your wording. It's a problem when your language use expectations are actually preventing communication. " – @cboyeTHIS a million times over. It's a matter of priorities for me. Striking a balance between policing speech that is honestly hurtful and words that have negative connotations but are being used according to their dictionary definitions isn't easy. I think your first response to being called out on Feministe for using the word "idiot" was pretty fair. You were using a standard dictionary definition and while the word has connotations that extend beyond that, it cannot be ignored that you were actually using it appropriately (as opposed to inappropriately using it to describe someone with cognitive issues). Like many people here have said, words matter but context matters too and I think a lot of people focused on the word in isolation and not its actual usage.
>jenny: The idiot/imbecile/moron nomenclature was actually first used in 1910 and persisted, horrifyingly enough, into the middle of the century.But yes, the point still stands.
>Tit for Tat said… @Capt Bathrobe Bullies are not all made the same, some use fists, others use words.Well, there are bullies and there are people who sincerely care about this sort of thing. I'd like to assume good faith on the part of most people for whom this is a concern. It's a question of how people can respectfully disagree but still carry on a civil dialogue. One way to do so is to have rules of engagement–i.e., here's how we have agreed to deal with language issues without derailing a discussion. It's like when couples agree to have a discussion about one particular issue in order to avoid a "kitchen sink" argument, where all past resentments are dredged up and aired. Sometimes sincere, intelligent people have to agree to disagree and move on…for the time being. The challenge is how to do that without sweeping legitimate concerns under the rug. Such rules could also have the effect of shutting down bullies.
>Bullies are not all made the same, some use fists, others use words.I find it amusing that you label language policing as bullying, but you don't label the marginalization of certain groups that language policing seeks to address as bullying.Wait, that's not amusing. That's hypocritical. My mistake. David would be the first person to acknowledge that words can be used to marginalize oppressed groups, and that a certain amount of language police is therefore justified. You're just trying to use his experience in this case to further your own agenda, which is "I should get to decide what does and doesn't offend unprivileged groups." That's not the way you frame it, of course, but that's what you and people like you are really clamoring for. You take umbrage at the notion that anybody should critique what you say, but you'll be the first to cry foul if somebody harms your sensibilities. Hypocrite.
>TripI dont mind so much you critiquing me. I take more issue with the fact that you like to insult me because I dont necessarily agree with your critique or position on certain things. The thing is, I know oppression, though I am supposedly one who has "white male privledge" I know oppression very intimately.Tell you what, stop calling me things like a "disgusting maggot" and you might be able to hear something.
>Raoul,Yeah, I like cats too. Some days you just have to keep the discussion on that level, I guess.
>marginalization Here's the thing Trip.I am the "man". White wealthy male who actually owns an industry family owned for generations business . That doesn't stop me from having an insane brother who tried to kill his family, or stop me from holding my parents hand as they died, and frankly I'd think about trading place with the middle class when it comes with dealing with their estate. It didn't stop me from having a child die of cancer, etc.I know my family has privileges that others wish they had, which turns to envy. Envy isn't a pretty thing. It leads to just what this thread is about meaning who can claim being worse off. It leads to people saying things like so what your kid died you have everything. People can be mean or kind, the only thing that is in your control is how you choose to deal with it. You can look up and say "why have you forsaken me, I give up", and put the blame onto someone else, or you can just do what needs to be done and stop worrying about what the other projects on to you.EVERYONE from the weakest human to the strongest goes through shit in their lifetime. You can always find someone worse off or better off then yourself. I'm a white male who is wealthy. That's three points on your privilege guide. I could be a white man who is poor and homeless. Two points?One thing I do know is if someone is going to have a panic attack because someone used the word idiot, that my friend is called natural selection and about the most un-feminist comment ever posted.I believe you are male? If so stop treating woman like they need to be protected by you! If you are female then stop being a prime example that people can point to to say "see, riding the pity party wanting others to make her life more comfortable.".
>I am the "man". White wealthy male who actually owns an industry family owned for generations business .That does explain a lot about you. There's very little in your response that I consider worth addressing (class envy? Really? You're a dipshit), but there is this:I believe you are male? If so stop treating woman like they need to be protected by you!I'm not sure at what point you got confused about what we're talking about here, but what we're talking about is use of marginalizing language. I never said women need to be protected from that. This isn't a "women" issue at all. So your attempted accusation of white knighting is not only a strawman, but a completely incoherent strawman that appears to be born of actual stupidity rather than mere mendacity.I don't think you have the brainpower to deal with the content of Manboobz. I recommend Maxim magazine. It's aimed more towards your reading level.
>Urg, doodz look, saying "You have privilege" =/= saying "Your life has been consistently awesome with no problems whatsoever." Pay attention to the definitions of words other people are using. That is, I believe, what this whole conversation is about.
>Urg, doodz look, saying "You have privilege" =/= saying "Your life has been consistently awesome with no problems whatsoever." Thank you. I was considering posting yet again to say this, but you said it better than I would have. Especially since you managed to say it without unnecessary invective.
>I don't think you have the brainpower to deal with the content of Manboobz. I recommend Maxim magazine. It's aimed more towards your reading level.(Trip)And there it is again. The meaness that you own. I have a sneaky suspicion if you could, you would love to use your fists too.Sally is right, we should pay attention.
>Oh T4T, you are giving the straw feminists a run for their money in oversensitivity.
>"..White wealthy male.."aaaand …. you just became an irrelevant non-person. Nothing you say or think, no hurt that you feel, no injustice that you experience is of any importance, because you have 'privilege'. You have identified yourself as the enemy, just for existing, so now anything you have to say can be dismissed without a second thought. If any of this sounds wrong to you, then it is obvious that you hate all women, and want to take away their rights.
>you just became an irrelevant non-personSucks don't it? Imagine being told that from the day you're born onward. Imagine that being the normal state of affairs for the type of person you are, for all of recorded history, with the exception of the most recent few decades.