|
The world: It's an international community which means some things are gonna be different from my home, and that's cool America: IT'S AN INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY SO STOP DOING THINGS THAT ARE WRONG IN MY COUNTRY
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 07:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 15:46 |
|
|
Rewording the rule to recognise that it's not misogynistic, and that it does get used fairly regularly by non-Americans, is fine by me. And yeah, I'm still going to try not to use it all over the shop, because it upsets the Americans here. Not going to argue that any other language with potential gendered interpretations should be banned/restricted, as that's the exact opposite of what I'm about.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 07:46
|
|
|
Raluek posted:... This is 100% true whether the person saying it believes it or not. Which is why this: InitialDave posted:Rewording the rule to recognise that it's not misogynistic, and that it does get used fairly regularly by non-Americans, is fine by me. You’re using a word for female anatomy to mean bad. I know you think you’re not talking about women, but the language you’re using is absolutely still misogynistic. Krakkles fucked around with this message at 08:03 on Jun 15, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 07:57
|
|
|
Krakkles posted:You’re using a word for female anatomy to mean bad. I know you think you’re not talking about women, but the language you’re using is absolutely still misogynistic. That's the good stuff right there. The rest of the world is wrong and we should all laud captain seppo for turning up and amsplaining our own drat language to us. ili fucked around with this message at 08:29 on Jun 15, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 08:23
|
|
|
Krakkles posted:Which is why this:
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 08:27
|
|
|
Nobody has told me yet why we aren't banning twat pussy gash minge et al
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 08:33
|
|
|
InitialDave posted:We use lots of words for everyone's anatomy to mean bad, it's only this one that is a loaded term in your country. fridge corn posted:Nobody has told me yet why we aren't banning twat pussy gash minge et al 
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 08:35
|
|
|
Krakkles posted:Ah, yes, Britain, the country where misogyny famously doesn’t exist.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 08:40
|
|
|
*sigh* It's really quite depressing that despite attempts by some posters to debate reasonably we have insults thrown about instead. I have no idea how Elmnt80 hasnt just nuked what *should* have been a relatively peaceful discussion that has turned into proving who in this thread is removing any doubt they are a cockwomble He opened this discussion in good faith, we owe it back to act in the same
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 08:41
|
|
|
I've changed my mind, we must ban the offensive word to save the Americans from their own ignorance
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 08:42
|
|
|
CAT INTERCEPTOR posted:*sigh* People are arguing in good faith, you simply disagree with their arguments.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 10:02
|
|
|
tithin posted:People are arguing in good faith, you simply disagree with their arguments.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 10:11
|
|
|
Krakkles posted:People aren't arguing in good faith, you simply agree with their arguments. I fail to see how we can reconcile this view. I may agree with their arguments, but I have a mind of my own, if I thought your arguments held sway I would reconsider my opinion. Holding disparate views from one another does not mean the other person is arguing in bad faith.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 10:17
|
|
|
Krakkles posted:People aren't arguing in good faith, you simply agree with their arguments. This has some strong "you think society is unjust yet you participate in society hmmm" energy right here
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 10:22
|
|
|
I suspect not, but by way of illustration: it took 3 pages to get to the fact that the word does actually hold the same technical definition elsewhere, and 3 later, people are still arguing (as they were before) that it has absolutely nothing to do with women. This isn't just disparate views. "nah, it doesn't have anything to do with women" ... "well yeah I mean a [c-word] is a vagina, yeah" ... "nah, still doesn't have anything to do with women" Unless you just mean the pro-c-word contingent has been very clear that they have no intention of reaching an agreement, and thereby are not negotiating in bad faith because they're certainly not pretending that they do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 10:36
|
|
|
Krakkles posted:I suspect not, but by way of illustration: it took 3 pages to get to the fact that the word does actually hold the same technical definition elsewhere, and 3 later, people are still arguing (as they were before) that it has absolutely nothing to do with women. This isn't just disparate views. Just because the word can refer to a female body part doesn't necessarily make it misogynistic as a matter of course. Unless you are offended by the mere idea of a vagina which I am beginning to think you are (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 10:46
|
|
|
I mean, the point of argument is not to dominate or win it is to find the fundamental point of disagreement To which lots of people have ceded that yes is is gendered, but no more than the many insults that pepper the English language. The point of disagreement seems to be that the largely american posters believe it to be more insulting than those other words which are deemed accepted for a so far arbitrary reason Clearly the discourse has devolved somewhat but this is where is got to before name calling started
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 10:46
|
|
|
tithin posted:People are arguing in good faith, you simply disagree with their arguments. They very much are not. I'm quite able to read them for what they are and ooooh boy, there aint much good faith going on here - and besides *MY* argument has been this is not worth climbing a hill and dying for. Which some ya'll are very much taking out that flag and daring anyone to take a shot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 10:51
|
|
|
Jestery posted:I mean, the point of argument is not to dominate or win Cock and dick aren’t issues because men haven’t spent all of history being oppressed. Tits probably isn’t because it’s not really negative? (I mean, I’m not a fan of subbing it for “good”, but whatever, it’s not a hill to die on.) Incomplete but I hope the point is clear. fridge corn posted:Just because the word can refer to a female body part doesn't necessarily make it misogynistic as a matter of course. Unless you are offended by the mere idea of a vagina which I am beginning to think you are
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 10:58
|
|
|
We've always known it is a term for vagina, always has been, and will continue to have that meaning. Didn't think that even needed explaining. But as with other words, there are other meanings and uses, and these are the ones that have been concentrated on because it seems that this is what people really weren't understanding. We had reached an agreement as far as I can see, the adjustment Elmnt80 has made to the rule's wording seems like it reflects the intent of what he wants to achieve while still allowing for the reasons the original wording wasn't acceptable to many of us. Trying to push even further with US-centric moral absolutism on the issue isn't going to advance matters, it's just going to result in you continuing to try and state that the word can only be taken in one way, while others continue to tell you you're wrong. The issue is that your side of that is accusing people of being misogynistic when they genuinely aren't, and so of course you'll get pushback, because that is a far worse accusation than simply being unaware of global variances in language. And yes, calling someone a tit is also negative, though in a very mild way, it's different to saying something is "the tits".
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 11:05
|
|
|
Krakkles posted:Oh no, fridge corn thinks I’m gay! That's not what I said at all. How did you even manage to come to such a conclusion?
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 11:13
|
|
|
Krakkles posted:I mean, I’m 100% on board with get rid of all of them. I suspect the reason for this one (instead of all of them) is that it’s the one directed at a particular oppressed group, and yes, it’s particularly offensive in some regions. I mean something can go tits up And there is the whole can of worms of pussy And twat which is like oval office-lite This list can continue but I won't. I agree that the difference/ acceptable double-standard (I don't know a better way than this) than is that the history of the associated group I think the clearest, most bang for buck for buck "chuck it in bold on the sticky" solution is just gently caress those words off , and goons get more creative with writing
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 11:15
|
|
|
InitialDave posted:We had reached an agreement as far as I can see, the adjustment Elmnt80 has made to the rule's wording seems like it reflects the intent of what he wants to achieve while still allowing for the reasons the original wording wasn't acceptable to many of us. Solid agree with this mate. It's fairly hard to have a decent discussion when there's a bunch of people accusing anyone who doesn't speak their dialect of misogyny and likening them to racist slavery-supporters based solely on their inability to accept American english is not used worldwide.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 11:25
|
|
|
CAT INTERCEPTOR posted:They very much are not. I'm quite able to read them for what they are and ooooh boy, there aint much good faith going on here - and besides *MY* argument has been this is not worth climbing a hill and dying for. Which some ya'll are very much taking out that flag and daring anyone to take a shot. It's posts like this that absolutely scream arguing in bad faith, because there is no argument here - purely an expectation of "Of course I'm right and you know it", there's no points to argue, there's no discussion to be had. I have made arguments in this thread, I have made reasonable cogent points, and they have been summarily ignored in favour of arguing that I am arguing in bad faith? I encourage you to go through my post history and find how many times I use the word - I minimise its usage because I recognise it offends yank sensibilities, and that's fine, because I recognise that in different parts of the world it carries a negative value, so I don't use it in yank heavy spaces where the usage of the word can cause umbrage - this being said, in threads with a uk or, or au usage of the word? go hog wild - because it does not carry the same negative connotations in those space the vast majority of the arguments against it so far are purely from a petty moralising perspective, an appeal to a shared sense of "this is clearly wrong" the entire point of arguing in good faith requires that you actually make an argument, rather than wringing your hands and saying "but you know better" - I know it offends you and others, so I keep it to a minimum, but it's still wearisome to be told that the mere existence or usage of the word itself is verboten because in your part of the world, it's offensive There's a lot about american word usage and culture I personally find offensive, but if I went off and demanded unilateral changes to the forums as a result of that, I'd be rightfully laughed off, and in prior times I would probably even be helldumped and doxxed for having the temerity to do so tithin fucked around with this message at 11:56 on Jun 15, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 11:53
|
|
|
Why not just ban all curse words? Let’s return to our puritanical roots.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 14:12
|
|
|
I don't believe in banning speech. It's literally a retarded solution to the problem, and just so I'm perfectly loving clear; I'm saying banning speech is a solution that's late to the problem. Language is slippery, ban a word and someone will come up with another way to make the same statement without it. Or a use context of the word that doesn't match the context of the intent you are attempting to curb, such as above.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 14:45
|
|
|
trouser chili posted:Language is slippery, ban a word and someone will come up with another way to make the same statement without it. Or a use context of the word that doesn't match the context of the intent you are attempting to curb, such as above. I think you'll find using another word in the same context as how every Australian uses the word oval office is impossible, welcome to the debate  It isn't the rule that gets me, it's the complete lack of creativity being shown. I wasn't unaware that saying oval office in a cool Australian way was, as far as I can tell, an extremely important way to speak culturally via text on the internet. It's like, how do you know I was a shithead high school kid in the late 90s if I wasn't calling all my friends faggots and gay? It wasn't sexual, it was just a cool term of endearment for my friends and didn't mean anything outside of that, we never got in trouble or asked to stop because it was 1999 and I was in the depths of the mid-western United States and gay panic was just how some humor worked. Not anymore, but I'm sure I could find a pocket of people using it in that context to this day. I bet I could find an Australia's population worth of people in the US that still talk like that. What makes a thread Australian? Is it if the OP is Australian? If most of the people posting in it are Australian? If someone was born there but later moved away, is that cool? What if they weren't born there originally but now live there? If they are married to someone from there is that ok? Realistically you aren't going to have a nice time with a "Rule, but exceptions" because assholes are intentionally going to skirt whatever it is they can in order to be assholes. Hot takes, "but my parents say I can say it", bad faith arguments, the whole drat thing. IF oval office is so crucial to people's internet culture then so be it, let everyone say it and go by context. When someone steps out of line obliterate them from the sky because this isn't a democracy it's the internet and unfortunately we don't actually have a say in how this place is run 
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 15:20
|
|
|
edit: yeah, nah mate
Pham Nuwen fucked around with this message at 16:04 on Jun 15, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 15:46
|
|
|
suggestion: word filter that automatically replaces "oval office" with "MY CULTURE    "
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 18:27
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:suggestion: word filter that automatically replaces "oval office" with "MY CULTURE Honestly this seems like the most productive path towards a solution
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 22:16
|
|
|
I think the auto-replace thing has come up in other threads, and iirc the forums are too broken for it. KakerMix posted:It isn't the rule that gets me, it's the complete lack of creativity being shown. I don't disagree with this in reference to the gendered "dirty" words in most contexts. I've always thought that describing something as "tits" was gross. KakerMix posted:I wasn't unaware that saying oval office in a cool Australian way was, as far as I can tell, an extremely important way to speak culturally via text on the internet. But I don't think "saving their culture, but online" is what most of the posters arguing to keep the c-word are really concerned about. They do mention how commonly the word is used (in a non hate speech way), but it's to demonstrate how grating it is to be sorta unapologetically called misogynists by Americans of all groups. I believe that most of the posters arguing FOR banning the word think that it's implicit that they don't think this, and are incredulous that these c-word posters don't appreciate how their speech can affect someone unintentionally. Tl;Dr - I'd also be ok with probations for all lame gendered curse words and dirty expressions, because you can do better. There should be exceptions for anything genuinely clever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2020 00:43
|
|
|
UK/Aus: "the use of the word has evolved past being a misogynistic term" US: "that's impossible because that's all we use it for"
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2020 01:38
|
|
|
angryrobots posted:I think the auto-replace thing has come up in other threads, and iirc the forums are too broken for it. I can’t speak for everyone, but I didn’t say anyone was a misogynist. I said people are using a word which is misogynistic. And I fully support the idea of probations for usage of gendered curse words that aren’t genuinely clever. Olympic Mathlete posted:Men in UK/Aus: "the use of the word has evolved past being a misogynistic term"
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2020 01:49
|
|
|
Krakkles posted:And before you say it (again), no, having a Olympic Mathlete posted:US: "that's impossible because that's all we use it for"
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2020 01:54
|
|
|
Misogyny and oppression through language aren’t unique to the US.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2020 02:14
|
|
|
Krakkles posted:Misogyny and oppression through language aren’t unique to the US. That's the root of the problem, right there. The language. In English, the word has no issues. When speaking in the American-English subdialect it becomes a horrible misogynistic attack on all women, which is an interesting study. Can we get a filter so if someone is using American-English it will filter out the word to something amusing? The rest of the world can use it with no problems, after all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2020 02:23
|
|
|
Excellent honeypot thread. Weeding out the fucksticks should be very easy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2020 02:33
|
|
|
Korgan posted:That's the root of the problem, right there. The language. In English, the word has no issues. When speaking in the American-English subdialect it becomes a horrible misogynistic attack on all women, which is an interesting study.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2020 03:08
|
|
|
Krakkles posted:And I fully support the idea of probations for usage of gendered curse words that aren’t genuinely clever. So we are allowed to be mysoginistic as long as were sufficiently clever?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2020 05:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 15:46 |
|
|
Alrighty then. I feel this has been open long enough to let the people that wanted to make a point or suggestion make it and we're down to arguements going in circles with no resolution in sight. Locking this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2020 05:44
|
|
