I’d ask the more meta question of why do you feel a need to label people in any event? It adds nothing to the discussion and just makes it personal.
Maybe it’s some sort of competition.
This is such an odd question. Why did you feel a need to label yourself as a “male, white, upper middle class professional”? Why do you feel a need to label some banks as "commercial banks? Why do you feel a need to label some people as US citizens?
The question is so weird because we all label people all the freakin’ time. It’s part of how our language works. You label people as US citizens so that you can talk about them without having to review all their legal rights and responsibilities every time you discuss them. Words refer to collections of traits; labels for people act as shorthand for those traits.
Your meta question is a question about language. Unless you’re going to take it on yourself to stop using labels for people, I’m not clear why you’d ask that.
Admittedly, when I skimmed your last hundred or so posts in GD, I didn’t find ones where you referred to people in the second person as labels–just the first and third person. (I skipped all your posts that were warnings, which Jiminy Cricket, man, there’s a lot of). Is your objection to referring to people in the second person by accurate labels? That is, would you object to my calling you a moderator? A white middle-class man? Would I be warned if I said, “BobPoster, you appear to be a Christian?”
If not, it’s not the label that’s the problem, it’s something else.
And it can’t be that the term is a pejorative, because, again, there is no less offensive, widely-recognized word to refer to folks with this trait.
Because it lets others know of distasteful beliefs with which some posters are obsessed? I made the mistake when I first started posting of engaging with Chief Pedant. I think I thought something like “Hey! Chief! Well, he’s probably not a Chief, but maybe he’s American Indian and perhaps a potential ally in these minefields they call ‘forums’.” Imagine my surprise and even shock.
Using descriptive terms such as racist or conservative, gun nut or what-have-you is a short-hand way of communicating information. Information that in this case turns out to be astonishingly and obsessively accurate. I’ll tell you right now, I certainly would have appreciated some such heads-up back then.
As a minority in this country, I don’t think I’ll ever understand this board’s unsettling predilection for not acknowledging that some people can be and indeed are racist. I’ve met my share IRL, I know.
jimbuff, I really need to remember that despite the similarities between your name and billfish’s, you’re not the same poster.
I have asked the very same question about those that insist upon using the pejorative term “cisgender”.
Heh. There’s actually a fish named “Buffalo”.
But no one is stopping anyone from saying “Those views are racist” or even “you are posting a lot of racist nonsense”. The mods just don’t people posting “you are a racist”.
So, what exactly is the problem again?
Some people are also bigots. Is that an insult as well?
Cisgender is a matter of your beliefs?
Although I don’t think you realize it, this is a pretty good analogy.
Maybe you could explain it, since as far as I know very few people find cisgender insulting.
“Cisgender,” like “racist,” is an accurate term used to refer to people according to an unambiguous characteristic. There is no less offensive term that refers to the same specific concept. Some people object to its application to them, but if the term actually does apply to them, their objection is trivial in the face of the utility of having a term to refer to people who share this characteristic.
So eager to get that one out, you left out a word.
I’m not really into the [del]arguing[/del] debating style of message board posting. It’s why I pretty much avoid GD. In my experience, racists exist. In my experience, racists exist on this board. Saying, rather, that someone has racist views is really putting too fine a distinction on something that is quite nasty. I invite you to be charitable and consider that my experience has some value of discernment, however small.
People created this board’s culture. People can continue to have an impact on it.
Do you say the same about “Nigger”? Or “Kike”? Or “Tranny”?
No, because there are non offensive terms for each one of those slurs.
If that’s what you consider a good analogy, I can see there’s not much point in discussing the issue with you.
Colibri, you should be embarrassed of yourself for making such a flimsy response. Surely you can look at that and realize you can do better.
Of course I could, but why bother? It’s honestly not worth it. It would be a complete waste of time.
Seriously, this is a series of content-free posts from you, and it’s beneath you. If you have nothing to say, you’re far better off not posting. Instead you post with the insinuation that my argument is beneath contempt, while not addressing it. That’s, to put it mildly, unpersuasive.