I think it retards conversation to stupidly discriminate what words can be used.
Some rules are good, and a few even bolster innovation and better understanding, but being overly prescriptive stifles and harms as much as being laissez faire.
These forums have a rule that there is a certain racist word no one is ever allowed to use no matter what. My ability to communicate is no worse for it--if we're talking about race, I can mention "black people" or "African Americans" (when appropriate) or if I'm going more broad I can talk about "people of color" or "racial minorities." And none of those terms have the sheer historical baggage of the verboten one.
As far as I know we don't have such a strict rule on any other word, but the same thing applies. There are plenty of words available that aren't insulting to broad groups of people. No matter where you go, it's pretty easy to follow the "don't be an asshole" rule. If other people seem to be insulted by a particular term, avoid using it in front of them even if you're not particularly sure why.
Well yea. That has to go with respect more than anything. I just feel that if you're going to have an in depth conversation about that word and the ethics therein it's unideal for it to be verboten. I also think it's a dumb false equivalency to equate the two for a plethora of reason.
I'm not arguing to repeal the ban here or the one in the other forum as I'm all about states rights and private property. I even said rules can foster innovation and understanding. What I am saying is that they need sound reasoning and logic to be good effective rules, especially if they hope to bolster understanding and communication and not hinder.
Now to really shock you all, I'm also against yelling fire in a crowded theatre.
People treat words differently. You might think that a word isn't really offensive, or maybe you think it's a little offensive but not even close to having the historical context of the other word--but someone else might not see things that way. Particularly so if they have to actually live with the consequences of bigotry against people with a disability and it's abstract to you.
As far as meta-discussions about offensive words, you can still refer to them through euphemisms. Neither of us have actually used the forbidden word in this discussion, but we both know exactly what I'm referring to. In one sense it's perhaps ever so slightly less than ideal, but it's only a very small shift and suddenly there's no longer a risk of insulting people. Plus on discussion sites like this you run into the potential for new posters--do you really want some new user to check out the site, click a [chat] thread and see an offensive word used a dozen times in the first couple of posts they see? Even if the context seems innocent, that might not make a difference, or they might miss out on some of the context. Or what happens if someone crosses a line, not realizing they're doing so because things shifted bit by bit from the original (innocent) discussion? Having hard and fast rules about terminology can help create the sort of environment you prefer and has plenty of benefits.
Yea, and it's that meta aspect that I was speaking about. I wouldn't choose to use the word just for shock value, personally, and I understand the logic behind banning the use of certain words in certain spaces; these bans fundamentally change the level of discourse and degree of intensity the conversations can feasibly reach. As well as have a disingenuous effect to the fundamental honesty. I take little solace from someone who thinks of me in terms of the worst pejorative they can imagine curbing it by choosing the pc way to express those feelings . I, personally, prefer the more overt aggression then curbed and pc micro-aggressions.
This is true but two days ago you were upset that people thought bitcoins were dumb.
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Wait has anyone seen Obama and Bama in the same room?
i guess i hate the whole idea of how we fashion this bright, pulsating line of demarcation. i see it all the time with stuff like 'don't say he has a narcissistic disorder, he's JUST an asshole'. it strikes me as enormously gross. i'm not saying don't have sympathy for the mentally ill but saying 'this fits enough of the developmental markers in the DSM to make this person truly disordered, whereas this person only hits four of the markers so they're just a dickhead' kind of makes my skin crawl.
I think the danger of this line of thought is that we'll run out of words to describe most of America fast.
Brexit has robbed me of the simple pleasure of this sort of thing. No longer can I laugh and patronise like a colossal and unjustified douchebag as of old because my own country has been, perhaps irreversibly, well, "not bright".
It's ok, we're always here to let you hold our beer.
Electing Trump was the action of a true friend, eager to share the ridicule.
Okay I guess you give toddlers support and help when they are being dumb. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
I mean there are people who are unreceptive to support, or people who have times when they're unreceptive, and there's only so much you can do
But I don't think stupid people deserve bad things happening to them. If they're stupid, how could they be otherwise? The only way they'll change is by intervention or experience. I think we often take it as an excuse to wash our hands of people because we have enough to deal with when it comes to not being stupid or shitty ourselves.
On the other hand, personal responsibility is a real thing and many people with cognitive deficits live healthy and robust lives.
For sure. A "cognitive deficit" is a specific issue that limits e.g. abstract thought or processing speed or whatever. There are emotional components, behavioural components, etc that are almost more important.
Behaviour issues like impulsivity or anger control are going to make a lot more "stupid" people than chromosomal defects, I think.
I agree. There was something Podly or Eddy said once that stuck with me for years, the idea that the majority of people are "surviving" and not "living." I have never been able to unsee it.
*vapes millennially*
+1
Options
amateurhourOne day I'll be professionalhourThe woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered Userregular
i guess i hate the whole idea of how we fashion this bright, pulsating line of demarcation. i see it all the time with stuff like 'don't say he has a narcissistic disorder, he's JUST an asshole'. it strikes me as enormously gross. i'm not saying don't have sympathy for the mentally ill but saying 'this fits enough of the developmental markers in the DSM to make this person truly disordered, whereas this person only hits four of the markers so they're just a dickhead'.
Well there is a significant portion of the "mental illness" community that would like nothing better than a pro forma dissolution of personality responsibility, even when it is empathetically bounded by the limits of their illness.
Posts
Because you will hurt Home's feelings
Electing Trump was the action of a true friend, eager to share the ridicule.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
*vapes millennially*
Stupid leads to the dark side?
Home is for grandmothers and people who call their computer "the internet."
Probably
plus it was free for 8.1 users
now Home is gonna eat a pint of Ben and Jerry's because Home version eats his feelings
And you cripple the functionality of what you have.
I mean, if you don't really care when the updates run (like I don't) then it'll be fine.
On average, this thread was blasting along at warp 2.1
@Burnage will create the new thread
@Donkey Kong is backup