No, no. I think you’ve somehow forgotten that we are talking about intentional use of sensitive words as insults. You can leave good faith ignorance out of this conversation. In a normal debate or any other polite conversation, if someone says you are hurting them, you don’t argue or ask what it means to hurt, you just move off their feet. (Meta-conversations such as this one excepted - in law they might issue an injunction until the meta is sorted out)
I’m talking about… what phrase did I use… “Insensitive blockheads.” Imagine there is a random thread in the Pit. Insensitive blockhead says, “X is a *****”. Some woman member says, “Hey, I’m sick of seeing you call people that. Please stop. It is an incredibly offensive and misogynist word.” What do you think the response would be? “No, it’s not misogynist to call people *****, you oversensitive *****.” Blockheads because they don’t care that you think the word is misogynist, they don’t and that’s that. Insensitive because they don’t care that it hurts you.
Now, I almost got hooked on the “we really don’t want this kind of toxicity anyways” argument. That one is, in my opinion, the best out of all the supporting arguments in this thread. Much better than the hate speech route. But the way I see it, the Pit is like a vent for those who would otherwise explode all over the forums. When something devolves into pointless insult-slinging anywhere else in the forums, I have always thought of it as, ‘you two, to the Pit.’ If you don’t want exposure to dirty words, why roll around in the Pit to begin with? If the rest of the board is operating under the Marquess of Queensberry Rules, the Pit is supposed to be no-holds-barred, or something approaching that. If you have a bone to pick, if you have something to rant about, if you just feel like participating in a shouting match, schadenfreude, etc.
Granted, I am new and it’s not up to me to decide what the purpose of the Pit is.
Same as above, I think you’ve forgotten that we were talking about deliberate insults. No naivette required, only blockheadedness. I had given an ad-hoc definition something along the lines of “you are lesser than me” or “you are a black person who is lesser than me”. I don’t want to drag you into another extended discussion about this after three members left the thread and even you’ve sworn off the topic.
According to the judgement of whoever reads it, yes, it is possible. We’ll explore this shortly.
My position, should you wish to understand it, is that it is not hateful language if the intent is gone. It could still be misogynist language but that would be equivocating on the term misogynist language, which I have taken to mean misogynist hate speech. If your goal here is to get rid of misogynist language which is not hate speech, we would be having a totally different debate.
That being said, I want to preemptively counter an objection you might have:
‘Max, say your way wins out. You’ve got Pit threads littered with “bitch” and “cunt”. A reasonable person might go in there and be disgusted by misogynist hate speech, but at the same time you can’t reasonably say that any poster intended to come across as misogynists.’
I will show that this is an impossible situation. I don’t want the Pit to become some sort of safe-haven for misogynists who hide behind a fig leaf of perpetual naivette. I’m fine with mods exercising their discretion when someone claims to be naive.
Pretend you are mod in the Pit. You come across a post which uses the forbidden words. Is it possible for you to at once find this post to be misogynist hate speech (my def.), and simultaneously that the poster’s intent non-misogynist? Yes, it is. Now let’s rule out naivette. Is it still possible to find the post to be misogynist hate speech and simultaneously that the poster had non-misogynist intent? No, it is not.
Think of it this way. Under my argument, it’s only “misogynist hate speech” or “misogynist language” when the speaker intended to convey hatred of women. The only way a reasonable person might classify a post as misogynist hate speech when the poster intended otherwise is if the poster made some naive mistake, as in the “Jew them down” example.
Let’s look at (fictional) examples, following my blueprint:
[ul][li]In a thread about mall shopping, out of the blue, “Stop by Starbucks. Bitches love Starbucks.”[/li] I think it’s intentional. The implication is that all women are bitches.
[li]Same thread. “Some girls just like wasting your money on useless stuff. Watch out for those bitches, pay cash if necessary.”[/li] Not misogynist intent. In context, “bitches” is a subset of “girls” who “like wasting your money”, which is not a protected trait.
[li]After linking the mayor’s decision to reopen L.A. a post reads, “She’s a stupid cunt.”[/li] Not necessarily misogynist intent. Why is she a stupid cunt? It could be because she is a woman (protected trait, therefore misogynist intent). It could also be because of her decision (not protected trait, not misogynist intent).[/ul]
It must be different where I live.
~Max