This isn’t the pit, and I am sincere when I say I’m not trying to pick a fight. I read, re-read and re-re read your post and I’m still at a bit of a loss.
I honestly didn’t find the OP’s language as anything close to “hand wringing”. Let’s just agree to disagree on that one.
[QUOTE=Left Hand Of Dorkness]
The hell are you talking about? Presumably it’s the same governing body that wrote your post, i.e., there’s no goddamn thing like you’re talking about, and I’m not sure how you think the absence of a governing body has anything to do with anything.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t even know what this means. Are ou saying you think that I am literally inquiring as to the existence of an official entity? I’m thinking not, but you’ve answered like you do.
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
It is a credit to your fair-mindedness that you’ve addressed this criticism equally at the OP, who doesn’t just call people out for perceived bad behavior, but actually compares them to a dystopic murderous tyrant.
[/QUOTE]
You’ve really lost me here. Dystopic murderous tyrant Bwhaaaaaa?
I’ll try to sum up what I was trying (apparently unsuccessfully) to express.
It would seem that some people take it upon themselves to designate what thoughts and expression are WRONG. I just felt your post was a bit heavy handed and hinted that some people are by default in a position to deem what is sensible, correct, etc. I see a lot of that here and I just thought I’d comment.
No, I think you were trying to make a point through sarcasm, but I think it’s a very silly point, and in fact it’s a point much better directed at the OP than at me.
Are you unclear as to the origins of the words the OP used, words like “doubleplus ungood”? Fine: they’re referencing the novel 1984, in which a dystopic murderous tyrant bans words, instituting newspeak and requiring people to use it under pain of death-by-torture.
Right. Some people, like the OP, are taking it upon themselves to designate that objecting to language as racist is WRONG. That’s what you mean, right?
Yes I was, and obviously I don’t agree that my point is silly or I wouldn’t have put it forth. It’s not directed at the OP because from my point of view it doesn’t apply.
[QUOTE=Left Hand Of Dorkness]
Are you unclear as to the origins of the words the OP used, words like “doubleplus ungood”? Fine: they’re referencing the novel 1984, in which a dystopic murderous tyrant bans words, instituting newspeak and requiring people to use it under pain of death-by-torture.
[/QUOTE]
You got me there; I did not recognize his terminology. Even if I had, I don’t think I’d take it quite to heart as you apparently have. I believe he’s using that thing we call hyperbole.
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
Right. Some people, like the OP, are taking it upon themselves to designate that objecting to language as racist is WRONG. That’s what you mean, right?
[/QUOTE]
Not really. I feel like he expressed an opinion that runs counter to yours. Fair enough; that’s what opinions are. I didn’t, however, notice him passing his wave of judgement and condescending to anyone, explaining to them the error of their ways and verbally patting them on the head with a "there there; don’t get so excited. We’re allowing you to have your incorrect opinion.
Comparing people who want other people to refrain from using racist language to the violent fascist police state in 1984 is most definitely condescending. I would doubt the objectivity of anyone who denies this.
Since I had no clue about the origins of the OP’s language, I can honestly say I’ve come to this discussion objectively. It’s all about context, I suppose.
It would be helpful if the OP would clarify, but barring that, I don’t know *what *he’s thinking. Maybe he is subtly trying to send a message but since I didn’t receive that message as intended, I can only comment on it at what I took to be face value.
Well, perhaps, since you have not read the book in question you really are not at liberty to say that using it as a reference point is not meant to be condescending?
So now I’m ignorant? I *am *objective in this case because, as I said, I didn’t recognize his reference, therefore my comments are related to the words I read as opposed to some underlying reference. Or do you mean I’m ignorant simply because I’ve not read 1984? If so, that’s an interesting bar to set.
I’m signing off now (not that you care but I just want to be courteous and not have you think I’m dismissing you). If this convo is still going on tomorrow I’ll be glad to jump back into the fray. I sincerely wish you a good night.
I don’t see any “blanket assumptions” made here in the thread by anyone not confused about the issues at hand. I really see this as nothing more than a socially informative discussion about the realities of certain words. Do as you wish with this information (and yes, that includes disbelieving it). The talk of “oppression” and “language police” and “big brother” is silly and misses the point (perhaps intentionally?).
Or this. Exactly.
I just do not get how this consistently gets misunderstood. NO ONE is designating anything. Again, this topic of conversation is (or was intended to be) about social awareness. Awareness is only the first step tho. You act on that awareness however you freely choose. No one is coercing or oppressing you.
You’re ignorant of the reference, just as I’d be ignorant of a reference to All Quiet on the Western Front. Difference is, I wouldn’t try to spin that deficit into a virtue.
I guess it’s technically true that your ignorance of the reference grants you a kind of objectivity, but it’s the kind of objectivity that a shampoo bottle has–not a kind that’s particularly valuable when it comes to understanding things.
Look, I appreciate your drive to be courteous, but you could start by not making snarky comments about “governing bodies.” Or, y’know, you could drop the veneer of courtesy; that’s cool too :).
The OP’s hyperbole is not the good kind of hyperbole. It doesn’t exaggerate something for comedic effect: it invents something out of whole cloth. Consider the hyperbolic talk about language police. The implication is that folks who object to certain uses of the word “thug” are comparable to a police force. But what do police do? They arrest people. They confine people. They shoot black people. What do the word objectors do? They talk.
It’s not an apt comparison, even exaggerated. There is fundamentally nothing wrong with the tactic of telling someone that you don’t like their word choice and explaining your reasoning.
SPecifically, when he compares me to Big Brother (trust me, it’s not a kind comparison–or better yet go pick up the book and see for yourself, it’s a classic for a reason), you don’t think there’s any judgment involved?
As for this bit about “we’re allowing you to have your incorrect opinion,” could you possibly read that in a less charitable fashion? Of course that’s not what it means when I say “you’re allowed to say racist things.” I’m not specifically allowing anything. I’m pointing out that his complaints about Big Brother and the police are totally bogus, because the whole thing they do is disallow things. Nobody, not me or you or President Obama or the drummer for They Might Be Giants, is keeping him from saying racist things.
…the problem is that there are people who use that word to describe black people in general.
[/QUOTE]
There isn’t any pejorative word that some people don’t use to describe black people in general. Therefore any pejorative is racist.
Maybe because I lived in Baltimore City for a number of years, in a racially mixed not so nice neighborhood - we never had to watch Cops on TV, all we had to do was sit outside on the porch.
I hear urban, I don’t hear black, because there are plenty of white in the city.
When I hear pimp, hos, welfare whore, crack whore I don’t hear black because there are plenty of white pimps, hos, welfare whores, and crack whores.
I have so many black friends that even the word ‘nigga’ does not mean black to me anymore, because they will use it to talk about anybody. Including me and I am about as white as you get. And ‘bitch’ is not gender specific, a man who acts like a bitch will get called a bitch.
Same with illegals, I don’t hear brown. Of the three illegals I know, two are from Europe.
I’m sorry for people who assign/perceive color when they hear certain words.
As far as cocksucker goes
Once a man called me a little cocksucker
I looked him right in the eye and said with a big smile, ‘Don’t be silly, I never waste my time with’ ::pointed look at his crotch:: ‘little cocks’.
To clarify the OP: It was not hand-wringing. It was an attempt at sarcasm. I suppose I should have added a rolleyes smiley. (Though some people go ballistic over those, also.)
As for the Orwell reference: You do know that it is fiction, right?
Orwell wrote that book as a warning to his fellow leftists, about how their high-minded idealism could get twisted to serve bad ends. Which is what I think the PC language mavens have the potential to do.
I do not for a moment believe that you are Big Brother. But I do think that you run the risk of becoming one of his minions.
I’m not the person who compared those who disagree with him to a murderous dictator, so no, actually, I’m not interested in your concerns about my avidity.
Yeah, I get the sarcasm and hyperbole. It was baseless, that’s the problem.
Yeah, but unlike your OP, Orwell’s fiction had some basis in reality.
There you go again. Which minion would I be? The one who tortures people? The one who spies on people to report them to the secret police? The one who enforces the brutal inequalities of Big Brother’s world through violence?
Or maybe I’d be the minion who disagrees with people in public. Oh, the horror! Please don’t swoon again!
I got chewed out on this board a few years ago commenting on a surveillance video of some guy hitting someone for a absurd reason, and I said what a thug.
Someone assumed I was using dog whistle language for n***er when I really meant thug, as in what kind of asshole hits someone for that.