I can’t really parse this paragraph.
If you’re asking why some words are worse than others, even in a context where both are being used as insults, well, they just are: that’s language for you. I could call a child a “silly billy” but not a “fucking cunt”.
You think it is offensive to call the culture war retarded, right? Why is that, exactly?
Your posting history suggests you care a lot about it.
Do you have any evidence for that assertion?
I assume what he means is that he isn’t going to change his moral code, or stop following it due to what people say. Don’t be so literal.
Which one, and what sort of evidence do you want?
Did you miss the “in good faith” part of both @Velocity’s comment, and, of the expectations on this board?
It is the Pit, so bullshit is expected, but openly disingenuous bullshit will get called out. At least try to create ingenuous bullshit, if only to entertain yourself.
Your example was not relevant and neither was your explanation seeing as they were responding to a point I was not making. You are the one suggesting that the numbers involved can make something objectively offensive whilst at the same time seeming to claim that the reverse can’t be true.
I’ve claimed neither as I don’t think either is correct.
If those aren’t your claims then feel free to clarify
Which is why indeed I needed to state it again for clarity. If you want to respond to the points I’m actually making I’d be happy to discuss further.
There is no doubt that two groups can disagree on whether something is offensive.
There is also no doubt that situations arise where something is benign for one group and offensive for the other.
Who gets to decide? You think it is the group for which it is offensive, you seem to assume I think it is the group for whom it isn’t offensive.
I think both are wrong. There isn’t a decision to be made and there isn’t an objective standard that can be applied. It would be wrong and arrogant of either group to state that their perception of offensiveness must be deemed correct and that the other group must change usage/meaning or perception.
Considering I repeated it in my reply to him, it’s obvious that I didn’t miss it. I have no idea what point you are attempting to make.
That’s OK, no one is asking you to understand anything at all. We are - or at least I am - hoping that at some point that the “good faith” part might sink into your brain. Hopefully.
Okay, you’re just taking potshots. Come back if you ever have anything relevant or interesting to say.
Discourse gave me an alert like this response was for me, but I’ve said no such thing. I think you might be thinking of @IvoryTowerDenizen.
This is at the crux of your misconception.
If a word is offensive to group A, and not offensive to group B, then the word is offensive, period, because “offensive” very obviously does not mean all people always find the word offensive. It’s like if a word is marked vulgar in a dictionary; it’s a warning that some people sometimes may find that word vulgar, not everyone needs to agree on that.
Now, yes, there is a debate to be had on how many people need to find something offensive, and to what degree etc. That’s a fine debate to be had. That’s a different thing from saying “Nuh-uh, not offensive” though.
Where you not endorsing that opinion? That was how I interpreted your comments. Do you think it is offensive?
I disagree. A word does not become globally offensive simply because one group finds it offensive.
It remains only offensive to group A, not to group B. That’s the whole point. You cannot declare that group B’s use of it is offensive. Only that group A take offence.
In order to understand how much of a problem it is causing, yes. But it is a debate that starts with accepting that neither side can speak for the experience of the other.
You’ll never find me saying that a person taking offence is not actually feeling that emotion. I’m sure it is true to them. I would not however jump to the conclusion that they are warranted in taking that offence, nor that anything should necessarily happen because of it.
I think “retard” has been verboten for many years at this point; certainly it’s not used on TV any more, and mental health groups wouldn’t dream of using it.
I’m not sure I would have picked someone up on using it in the Pit though.
Also, while we’re talking about this, I would concede that it is becoming difficult to find benign words for “stupid”, and I don’t think it’s appropriate to discourage words solely based on etymology (most people don’t even know the etymology of “stupid”). There’s a debate to be had, sure.
I wouldn’t use it outside the Pit. It just seemed a little precious to complain about it in a forum dedicated to being offensive.
The point I was failing to make clearly earlier is that maybe there shouldn’t be any benign words for ‘stupid’ (when used as a insult). Because using something as an insult implies that that thing is bad; that’s the objection to using ‘gay’ as an insult, after all. It seems to me the only logically consistent position would be to stop calling things stupid at all.
LOL. You’ve cut out the part where I again explained that “offensive” does not mean globally offensive, and the illustrative example I gave. So that’s two explanations, two examples, and the second time you’re just pretending to have not seen the argument.
I agree.
I think “stupid” is not a good example here though, because this adjective is used in many contexts; for objects and situations as well as people. And even when applied to people it often refers to a temporary state, not a permanent characteristic. It’s a bit much to strike the word completely, especially given that the argument for doing so is often based on the (little-known) etymology of the word.
Sigh.
I’m not actually advocating for this, just saying I think it would be logically consistent. ‘Stupid’ is not used to describe a person in a non-insulting context, unless perhaps it is a temporary state, like you said.
I’ve seen plenty of people argue that POC can’t be racist, seemingly in all seriousness.
Okay, maybe you’re not, but it’s an very common attitude.
Don’t worry, I’ve seen and understood what you’ve written but your examples are not doing what you think they are doing and are not making your point as well as you think they are.
You are applying a global categorisation of “offensive” to something if any group finds it offensive. I disagree with that approach and that labelling.
A dictionary details usage, it doesn’t dictate meaning. To that end you find “vulgar” against a usage not against the word itself. That clearly means that the same word can be used in a non-vulgar way. The same is true for words that will be offensive when used in certain ways and not in others.
Anyone remember what this thread is about?