Jump to content
Leoo

Today...

Recommended Posts

I had an asexual group member in some programming project at school and I'm friends with an asexual online. The group member only mentioned his sexuality because someone was complaining about valentines day and he felt his sexuality gave some new context to the conversation so he offered to share his feelings about the topic. With someone I'm not really close to joking about his sexuality would come off as incredibly rude since he can't be sure if my intentions are to express support or abuse towards it. In general, slurs are meant as a pejorative and made to abuse a group they dislike. Which is why among strangers using slurs makes people feel defensive because its meant to attack someone. Its a fighting word.

 

I have another asexual friend who we can make fun of all the time. We are close enough to make fun of things we are insecure about without feeling judged. I'm able to make fun of his sexuality and hes able to make fun of the fact that I can act like a complete know it all and arrogantly proclaim how easy a skill I've never attempted is. In the wrong company this might seem abusive or irritating but among friends bringing up such things is a way of saying "I acknowledge this is a part of you and I am your friend regardless". To me that is a very good thing in a friendship.

 

To bring up muggi's gay friend. The fact that his friends are unwilling to make fun of it would signal to me that they don't truly accept it. That is why they want him to say it, among friends it is intimate. If it isn't then you aren't close enough friends or you don't trust their intentions. 

 

 

 

If person A is jokingly using the word with person B, and they both "consent" to the term, then who, specifically, is that hurting? Especially if person A and person B never use the term maliciously and exclusively use it "consensually?"

 
I think by normal social standards you can tell the difference. 
 
Sit on a bus next to a stranger and make jokes about how asian drivers to the japanese guy next to you. He will probably get annoyed.
Tell a joke about asian drivers to your korean friend who often makes fun of how funny it is that you white people see your grandparents once every other year, my guess is you both will have a laugh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I don't think anyone here is arguing that people not in the group hurt by the slur have to be okay with being called the slur. Just that using a slur in any negative context, and in many positive contexts, reinforces the negativity behind the slur, which is negative for the oppressed group regardless of whether the recipient is part of that group.

 

So, the argument is that the speaker shouldn't use the word in any context that reinforces negative stereotypes, not that the target needs to brush it off if it doesn't apply to them.

 

 

Just to clarify as well, "joking" insults are still insults, and they reinforce that negative stereotype just the same. Maybe worse, because it's often defended as being uncriticizable because it's a joke and no one really meant it. That's why calling your straight friend a f*g as another straight man is skeevy. I just can't imagine a situation where that's positive in any way.

If person A is jokingly using the word with person B, and they both "consent" to the term, then who, specifically, is that hurting? Especially if person A and person B never use the term maliciously and exclusively use it "consensually?"

The gay people person A and B meet in the future. Less specifically, the lgbt people affected by policies and laws which hurt them that the two are complicit in.

 

Is it 100% true all the time that person A and B will go on to be in favor of homophobic actions or laws? No. But 1) the desire to use a slur is an indication of internalized prejudices and 2) the association with negativity in a situation where it doesn't matter is just a little bit of a push towards associating the lgbt community with negativity in situations where it does matter. Especially if they don't recognize that as a situation that matters.


My skin is finally getting soft
I'll scrub until the damn thing comes off

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you think that using the word consensually somehow indicates an inclination towards homophobia? Where's your evidence to support that claim? And are all of my gay friends "homophobic" too? Don't you think your argument is a bit of a slippery slope-- arguing that consensually using the word between two friends will somehow lead to them devolving into actual bigots?

 

Am I prejudiced against the mentally handicapped if I say "retarded" instead of "stupid?" Am I misogynistic if I call my friend a "[kitty]" instead of a coward? Am I a misandrist if I call my friend a "dick" instead of a jerk? If not, where do you draw the line?

  • Like 1

77yLQy8.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Context is everything. Walking up to a gay couple and calling them f*ggots isn't the same as Milo referring to himself as a 'Based F*ggot'. Removing 'homophobic slurs' from our vocabulary isn't going to do anything against homophobia, there are a million ways to be anti-gay without ever using a 'slur'. I'd even say a world where people joke about each others sexuality, race, etc. in a non-hateful way is far more tolerant than a world where everyone is constantly on edge because saying the wrong thing regardless of intention has severe social consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Context is everything. Walking up to a gay couple and calling them f*ggots isn't the same as Milo referring to himself as a 'Based F*ggot'. Removing 'homophobic slurs' from our vocabulary isn't going to do anything against homophobia, there are a million ways to be anti-gay without ever using a 'slur'. I'd even say a world where people joke about each others sexuality, race, etc. in a non-hateful way is far more tolerant than a world where everyone is constantly on edge because saying the wrong thing regardless of intention has severe social consequences.

This is an easy argument to make when you have no stake in it. It's not your place to decide who gets to be offended by what, or to decide that a slur that still gets actively and casually thrown around as a slur isn't one, especially if it's not one that can be applied to you. It doesn't erase the context, and it doesn't magically make bigotry go away, much as people might think racism and sexism and homophobia are dead. It's basically the equivalent of patting yourself on the back for being progressive when all you've done is not actively gone on a shooting spree or put on a white robe or what-have-you, and buried your head in the sand when other people have.

 

If you and the people you know are using them, that's fine, you're all adults and you can think for yourselves. But that doesn't change the fact that a pretty sizable portion of the population is going to keep using it as a slur, especially if it becomes acceptable to do so. And it definitely doesn't change the fact that it's still pretty much always used in a negative context even as a joke. Especially since we're still very much in a society where those negative messages are pretty strongly ingrained in everything even today. We're just not there yet and it's going to take a lot of self-awareness to get to the point where we can even begin to think about it - and that's painful and hard because it requires the sorts of introspection that makes us all look bad. Which is why we deny there's a problem in the first place, or make excuses, or move the goalposts.

 

Plus, it's just kind of a dick move in general to refer to someone that way if they're not okay with it. It's absolutely your responsibility to know your audience before you tell a joke, that's like the most basic part of comedy. And that's the message here - not "don't say these words" but "know your audience and know what you're talking about". It's like... Fine, you're not using it as a slur. Can you guarantee that the next person won't? Can you guarantee that someone who hears you on the street will be as cautious? Can you guarantee that someone who's had it used as a slur against them is going to know the difference? Can you guarantee that people won't actually use the word hatefully and then try to write it off as a joke and complain that everyone's too easily offended or- wait, that's exactly what's happening today. Imagine that.

 

For people that pride ourselves in personal responsibility, we're very eager to push our own responsibilities on to other people. If there are actual consequences for that sort of carelessness now, maybe things can improve.

 

...I need to make posts here that aren't heavy arguments or shitposts, maybe. Is there any point in making something in the art and media section anymore?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today I got Level 7 Champion Mastery on Leona.... I had originally planned on getting it right after getting 6... but it took me a week to get it -.-.


melos2_zpsjnpxw8yx.jpg
"To do all that one is able to do, is to be a man; to do all that one would like to do, is to be a god." - Napoleon I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was reading a piece on NPR ("It's OK for boys to cry, but only if they do it in the right way") and it reminded me of the discussion about negative terms.

 

In particular:

 

Boys who do extracurriculars like music, art and drama tend to get higher grades, they found, but those things are often denigrated as "un-masculine," they write. And they found many examples of boys who strive for good grades being called "[kitties]" or "[bleep]" by their peers.

I thought it was pretty good.


ozXHe7P.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once upon a time I frequented the Gallery haha


Quote

 

Quote

Anyone who likes tacos is incapable of logic.

Anyone who likes logic is incapable of tacos.

 

PSA: SaqPrets is an Estonian Dude

Steam: NippleBeardTM

Origin: Brand_New_iPwn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you and the people you know are using them, that's fine, you're all adults and you can think for yourselves.

Does that mean you disagree with Champion and Tylerelyt, who seem to be arguing that it isn't fine to use it consensually?

 

But that doesn't change the fact that a pretty sizable portion of the population is going to keep using it as a slur, especially if it becomes acceptable to do so. And it definitely doesn't change the fact that it's still pretty much always used in a negative context even as a joke. Especially since we're still very much in a society where those negative messages are pretty strongly ingrained in everything even today. We're just not there yet and it's going to take a lot of self-awareness to get to the point where we can even begin to think about it - and that's painful and hard because it requires the sorts of introspection that makes us all look bad. Which is why we deny there's a problem in the first place, or make excuses, or move the goalposts.

 

Plus, it's just kind of a dick move in general to refer to someone that way if they're not okay with it.

You're preaching to the choir here. AFAIK nobody here is defending the word's usage in a malicious context.

 

It's absolutely your responsibility to know your audience before you tell a joke, that's like the most basic part of comedy. And that's the message here - not "don't say these words" but "know your audience and know what you're talking about". It's like... Fine, you're not using it as a slur. Can you guarantee that the next person won't? Can you guarantee that someone who hears you on the street will be as cautious? Can you guarantee that someone who's had it used as a slur against them is going to know the difference? Can you guarantee that people won't actually use the word hatefully and then try to write it off as a joke and complain that everyone's too easily offended or- wait, that's exactly what's happening today. Imagine that.

 

For people that pride ourselves in personal responsibility, we're very eager to push our own responsibilities on to other people. If there are actual consequences for that sort of carelessness now, maybe things can improve.

 

Personal responsibility is all relative and even a bit paradoxical, since not everyone believes in it.

 

For example: let's say person A and person B are walking down the street and they use a slur between each other in a friendly manner, not trying to hurt each other's (or anyone else's) feelings. Person C and person D are walking nearby, overhear the conversation, and they get upset.

 

Person C strongly believes in personal responsibility. Person C thinks:

That word bothers me a lot when I hear it, and now I'm upset. Could I have expected to hear it walking down the street like this? Can I expect to hear it again if I come back here? If not, I guess I shouldn't worry about this since it was sort of an unlikely occurrence. If I can expect to hear this again when I come back here, maybe I should put my headphones in and listen to something pleasant so I don't hear that word and get upset again. Or maybe I should stop coming here. Or I could stop them next time and talk to them.

 

Person D avoids personal responsibility. Person D thinks:

That word bothers me a lot when I hear it, and now I'm upset. I can't believe those guys had the audacity to use that word in public. This happened to me because we live in a world where [wagon] like this can get away with saying stuff like that. This isn't fair, I've done nothing wrong to these people and now I'm upset because of their insensitivity.

 

Persons C and D are both upset. But they're both thinking in a completely different way. Person C is focusing on things they can control, so they can prevent this from happening to them again in the future. Person D is focusing on things they can't control, which means they'll feel good about themselves right now since they're absolving themselves from personal responsibility... however they're now much more susceptible to experiencing this same feeling of sadness again in the future since they aren't actually changing their behaviors or anything. In the future, person C is now much less likely to get upset, whereas person D will continue to get upset.

 

In other words, Person C blames himself; person D blames person A and person B. Person C is much less likely to experience this same unhappiness in the future; person D is probably going to keep experiencing this same unhappiness.

 

But what about person A and B? Let's say person A believes in personal responsibility and person B doesn't. And let's say they both notice person C and D getting upset all of a sudden after they said that word, which in turn makes them both feel a bit guilty.

 

Person A thinks, "Those guys are upset because of what I said. I should be mindful of my choice of words if I don't want to feel guilty like this again. Or maybe I should only talk like that in private. Or not talk like that at all. Or maybe most people wouldn't be bothered by what I said; maybe this was such an unlikely occurrence that I can probably keep doing this without feeling guilty."

Person B thinks, "Those guys are upset because they're too sensitive. They shouldn't have been eavesdropping if they didn't want to get upset. If they don't want to hear words like that then they should just stay home."

 

Person A's probably going to reform their behavior and is less likely to experience guilt like that again. Person B's going to keep feeling guilty.

 

It's interesting to note that once person A assumes personal responsibility, suddenly he no longer has to worry about person C and D. But for person B, he's dependent upon the behavior of person's C and D.

 

Similarly, this problem has now resolved itself for person C due to his personal responsibility, whereas person D is still going to remain unhappy until person A and B decide to change. Fortunately for him, person A is no longer an issue. And fortunately for person B, person C is no longer an issue.

 

Person A and Person C are now fine. But person B and D will continue arguing and pointing fingers at each other, and their problems will never go away until they make the transition into accepting personal responsibility. Or maybe they'll get lucky and somehow convince everybody except for themselves to be more like persons A and C, so everyone else accepts responsibility for them :P

 

...I need to make posts here that aren't heavy arguments or shitposts, maybe. Is there any point in making something in the art and media section anymore?

I enjoy the rare heavy argument on here. It's hard to find a place where you can discuss these things calmly with people who have opposing views, who are open to defending their beliefs. Though sometimes I feel like more people on TIF wish this place was more like reddit-- an echo chamber where dissenting views are silenced and pushed out of the discussion, rather than examined and discussed.

  • Like 2

77yLQy8.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Person C 2016

  • Like 1

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If you and the people you know are using them, that's fine, you're all adults and you can think for yourselves.

Does that mean you disagree with Champion and Tylerelyt, who seem to be arguing that it isn't fine to use it consensually?

I agree with them and would pretty much just repost Champion's comment if I wanted to mess with quote formatting more. I'm also not fond of it on a personal level for a lot of reasons, but I'll accept that other people don't have that baggage. Plus, they won't change their behavior no matter what other people tell them. Which leads into...

 

 

You're preaching to the choir here. AFAIK nobody here is defending the word's usage in a malicious context.

...How usually they're ignoring the ways that their 'benign' content might actually be malicious, in the same way that you don't have to be a card-carrying member of the Klan to have prejudices. Everyone thinks they're Person A, but few people are willing to look at their biases. It's easier to shift that responsibility on to a hypothetical person C: someone who's generally willing to change so that they don't have to (which, from experience, is exhausting as all hell). People don't behave like that. If they believe they're not bigoted or even progressive, it's very hard to convince them otherwise, no matter how bad their behavior actually is - even the worst of the ones I've personally dealt with thought they were in the right and called it respect.

 

Hypotheticals and ideal situations are fine, but from my experience Person A isn't much different from Person B if they don't listen and learn. They'll often refuse to do that at all if they're called out on their behavior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone thinks they're Person A, but few people are willing to look at their biases. It's easier to shift that responsibility on to a hypothetical person C: someone who's generally willing to change so that they don't have to (which, from experience, is exhausting as all hell). People don't behave like that. If they believe they're not bigoted or even progressive, it's very hard to convince them otherwise, no matter how bad their behavior actually is - even the worst of the ones I've personally dealt with thought they were in the right and called it respect.

 

Hypotheticals and ideal situations are fine, but from my experience Person A isn't much different from Person B if they don't listen and learn. They'll often refuse to do that at all if they're called out on their behavior.

I feel like you missed the point of my example >_>

 

If you assume personal responsibility for everything that bothers you, then you don't really need to worry about convincing other people to change. It's not about trying to convince people to become person A or person C; that's a waste of time and that's what B's and D's spend most of their lives doing. It's about focusing on transforming yourself into person A or person C.

 

It takes a lot of conscious effort to focus on acting and thinking like A/C, since your natural response to unhappiness is usually to blame others for it instead of yourself. But it makes life a lot easier and less stressful in the long run. :)


77yLQy8.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not exactly relevant, but I couldn't refine my point properly. Rather than delete the post, here's some ramblings about personal and social responsibility:

 

I believe humans are 'thinking machines' and personal responsibility is a flimsy, but arguably necessary for now, 'illusion' (or, with less rhetoric, abstraction) that enables society to function. The various internal and external influences, natural (genetic, nutrition, disease, etc) and 'nurtured' (i.e., the complex behaviors that result in society from natural processes) events completely determine the eventual behaviors of any person. Even if the universe is non-deterministic, we are subject to the effects of the non-deterministic events with no ability to change said events outside of existing deterministic mechanics.

 

Requiring an individual to adapt, if it works, is only good for that individual. This is not ideal. Iterative changes to society, assuming social causes are the primary pressures on prejudism, would be required.

 

This is why I believe criminals are also victims, by some measure, and only restorative justice is any good. For the better of humanity, personal responsibility is a necessary abstraction in this case (among others).

  • Like 2

ozXHe7P.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Victims of circumstance sure, but in all but few cases criminals are given a choice where and when they walked the path that lead them to deserve the criminal label


Quote

 

Quote

Anyone who likes tacos is incapable of logic.

Anyone who likes logic is incapable of tacos.

 

PSA: SaqPrets is an Estonian Dude

Steam: NippleBeardTM

Origin: Brand_New_iPwn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Along with RPG's, or on more thought to go with it, there are some people who are just born twisted and enact criminal behaviours. Could this be rooted out with better mental health care, possibly a better home life during childhood, and a system where discovering these issues was easier? Possibly, but I do personally believe that just as some people are born with the ability and drive to help people, some are born only with the drive to hurt people and the best you can do is delay it. Possibly for a lifetime if lucky and with awesome treatment but you just won't find that in many cases unless extremely rich, especially in America where basic healthcare can cost so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A processor is not to blame when a piece of software malfunctions. Or when creating unwanted outputs from poor inputs. And not when it develops a hardware fault. And even when an engineering flaw is noticed.

 

Would I get upset in most, or all, of these situations? Definitely. Would I irrationally place blame on the processor? Probably! And in all these cases, there is a distinct solution to each problem, from simple (using different software, providing proper inputs) up to the nuclear option (replacing the processor, using a different processor).

 

For humans, the problems are much more difficult to identify even under optimal conditions, and the solutions are even harder to implement. It's easy to toss out a faulty processor, but the same can't be said for people (even defining 'fault' is difficult!).

 

We could eliminate the social influences that cause people to commit crimes. We could properly restore criminals into society. We could develop the means to eliminate the genetic flaws that result in undesirable behavior. It is possible, even if incredibly unlikely. However, rejecting how the incredible web of influences determines the events and outcomes of each of our lives, or reducing its scope to a superficial afterthought, is most definitely the wrong way.

 

And yes, personal responsibility is currently a necessary abstraction over the incredibly complex natural processes that guide us. There must be mechanisms to reduce the social damage from undesirable social influences for the 'greater good'. Rejecting free will doesn't permit us to hurt others, nor for such deeds to be allowed unhindered. For example, that's why I believe there must be a justice system, and those who cannot be properly rehabilitated must remain isolated from society. I'm not denying 'personal responsibility' is currently a necessary concept. But I am rejecting that any action can be washed of social influences. And I am also rejecting the notion that any person has complete control (i.e., free will) over any part of the decision making process.

 

In the near future, given the progress of data modeling, increased processing power, and mountains of personal data, it is not far-fetched to think our lives could be incredibly predictable. Much of our behavior--where we go, who we talk to, what we like, what we believe, who we support--can already be predicted with accuracy useful enough for private companies and governments alike to gather and utilize the data in all kinds of products, services, and agencies.

 

Will these predictions be infallible? No, but our existence is based on predictions created from simulations, including weather, physics simulations, etc; each of which, depending on the situation and data and period and whatever else, vary from accurate enough to incredibly accurate. To deny the same could be said for human behavior is simply hubris.

 

So unless you believe free will exists--and I can't possibly see how it exists outside of supernatural mechanisms with no rational explanation--then we are all essentially thinking machines subject to deterministic forces. We, as individuals, do not exist in a vacuum.

 

At the end of the day, the only difference between me and a rock is an arbitrary one created by the organic processes that enable consciousness. I like the fact I can think, though the rock has it pretty nice, too.

  • Like 1

ozXHe7P.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I feel like you missed the point of my example >_>

 

If you assume personal responsibility for everything that bothers you, then you don't really need to worry about convincing other people to change. It's not about trying to convince people to become person A or person C; that's a waste of time and that's what B's and D's spend most of their lives doing. It's about focusing on transforming yourself into person A or person C.

 

It takes a lot of conscious effort to focus on acting and thinking like A/C, since your natural response to unhappiness is usually to blame others for it instead of yourself. But it makes life a lot easier and less stressful in the long run. :)

As much as you've missed the point of mine.

 

Assuming personal responsibility for every little act of bigotry is exhausting. Do you know what that does to a person? Expecting others to do it long-term is unrealistic in just about every possible way. It's not a way for them to be happier, it's a way for the people who can't be bothered to filter themselves to be happier. It's selfishness, plain and simple. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Altruistically, if everyone took personal responsibility it would prevent the problem entirely though....did I get that right?


Quote

 

Quote

Anyone who likes tacos is incapable of logic.

Anyone who likes logic is incapable of tacos.

 

PSA: SaqPrets is an Estonian Dude

Steam: NippleBeardTM

Origin: Brand_New_iPwn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In response to Muggi's posts looking for citations: I have read a couple articles/reports on studies on which my opinion is based, but it's been a few years, and looking a couple hours the last couple days I couldn't find the things i read, nor anything supporting or denying my claim. So I guess I can't provide it, at least not without putting more time than I'm willing into this argument.

 

Anyway, something more relevant to the current tangent, I feel like a lot of what you have to say about "happiness" just boils down to assimilation vs. accommodation. Where your position is almost unyeildingly assimilation, because assimilation is the thing the different person does individually, whereas accommodation is the thing society around that person does. And, like, I understand your argument about taking care of your own happiness and not relying on the people around you, but in some cases that's not possible. There *are* cases where demanding accommodation is necessary, and there are a lot of cases where accommodation provides greater long term happiness to more people than assimilation possibly can. Even as an individual, you can't always expect to just fit into the mold other people desire of you, and it's absolutely reasonable to expect them to accommodate you.

  • Like 1

My skin is finally getting soft
I'll scrub until the damn thing comes off

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Altruistically, if everyone took personal responsibility it would prevent the problem entirely though....did I get that right?

And that's not the default now? I'm pretty sure most people think they are in control of their consciousness and therefore their actions.

 

For example, the US legal system is completely about personal responsibility and our justice systems in most part rejects social influences. There are no attempts to address what causes crimes, only punish those who have done so. The restorative services are a joke. And yet we ridicule European nations with great restorative systems, like Norway, because criminals aren't tortured indefinitely (life without parole) or murdered by the state. Why?

  • Like 1

ozXHe7P.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

popcorn_stephen_colbert.gif

 

In other news, back from Canada.

Slept 16 hours the first day home, cause the trip was [bleep]ing epic! ... and exhausting...


t3aGt.png

 

So I've noticed this thread's regulars all follow similar trends.

 

RPG is constantly dealing with psycho exes.

Muggi reminds us of the joys of polygamy.

Saq is totally oblivious to how much chicks dig him.

I strike out every other week.

Kalphite wages a war against the friend zone.

Randox pretty much stays rational.

Etc, etc

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was 110 degrees (43 Celsius) yesterday. Cant wait to leave LA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.