NUS tells LGBT societies to abolish gay men’s reps because ‘they don’t face oppression’
148 replies, posted
[QUOTE=GarbageCan;49993529]Uh, who are you to say what black people can and can't get offended by? Yet again, words don't exist in a vacuum, they have decades and history surrounding them in how they were used relative to black people. Try going up to a black person and say "Hey good looking nigger" and see where it gets you. Make sure you pronounce your r as hard as you can, really stress it and let roll off your tongue. I'm sure they'll love it.
Meanwhile, tell any normal ass person they're cis in a relevant context and they probably would say, yes, they're cis![/QUOTE]
But who are you to say they have to get offended by those words, or by any words? If the word "nigger" is profoundly racist, why do black people use it? I mean again, you're saying "see how that goes" what if you were talking to a black guy when you said that? Because how it would go is fine, normative, and uneventful.
Also, try telling anyone they're "cis" and it's going to sound like an insult, or like you're talking down to them. "Oh what you don't know this old latin word that's popped up in popularity in just two years?"
[QUOTE=emly;49993497]Becasue the perception is that advancing/defending LGBT policies appears to have largely paused and groups like HRC have stopped caring, once gay marriage passed? And the rest of the groups are just kind of left out in the cold.
[I]Right now[/I] in NC it's very likely to pass into law a statewide bill banning LGBT anti-discrimination policies. But if you look around basically only trans people are saying much about this?[/QUOTE]
It's an inevitability that people are going to be more concerned with more well known issues that specifically affect them, you cant really blame anyone for that. What needs to happen is a widespread awareness movement of BT rights and issues so that it falls into the scope of more peoples personal concerns.
[QUOTE=GarbageCan;49993529]Uh, who are you to say what black people can and can't get offended by? Yet again, words don't exist in a vacuum, they have decades and history surrounding them in how they were used relative to black people. Try going up to a black person and say "Hey good looking nigger" and see where it gets you. Make sure you pronounce your r as hard as you can, really stress it and let roll off your tongue. I'm sure they'll love it.[/QUOTE]
I dont think you understood what scorpio posted. They aren't saying that calling somebody 'nigger' isn't offensive, they're saying that words that seem innocuous can be deeply insulting depending on how they're used. An example of this would be calling a black man "boy" which in of itself isn't a bad word but it has a negative association in that context due to its historical usage. As a self proclaimed enlightened progressive, I would've assumed you knew that already.
[QUOTE=Duck M.;49993525]Eh I'd have to disagree with this. Lots of words are more offensive than others due to historical context, origin, primary usage, etc.
Choosing to use a certain word when there are alternatives shows intent and motivation. The term cis is more of an inevitable conclusion to the term trans and is reasonably empirical in nature.[/QUOTE]
Is the word "nigger" offensive when used in the sentence "the word nigger is an insult, primarily used to demean people of African ancestry"?
Is the word "black" offensive when used in the sentence "Get the fuck out of here you black piece of shit"?
Language is contextual. Yes, some words may be perceived as offensive in more situations than others based on common perception and history, but that doesn't mean there's such a thing as an inherently offensive word.
[QUOTE=Thlis;49993534]I am going to be blunt. You have clearly shown time and time again that you have no interest in determining the facts involved in that issue. You see a thread about Milo getting his verification removed and you assume everyone's angry because it's Milo, and not because it's Twitter trying to police politics.
If you want to try creating another cherry pick collage then feel free to because all I really have to do then is click the ethics tab and post a screenshot.[/QUOTE]
Huh? Garbage is like the LEAST likely person on here to "cherry-pick" or "ignore facts". They've always been pretty good with backing up their thoughts with substance. What he proposes is absolutely a problem with GG, TiA, KiA, etc. that stop a lot of people from taking them seriously and prevent them from being what could be productive movements to get rid of toxicity in their respective communities.
[QUOTE=GarbageCan;49993529]Uh, who are you to say what black people can and can't get offended by? Yet again, words don't exist in a vacuum, they have decades and history surrounding them in how they were used relative to black people. Try going up to a black person and say "Hey good looking nigger" and see where it gets you. Make sure you pronounce your r as hard as you can, really stress it and let roll off your tongue. I'm sure they'll love it.
Meanwhile, tell any normal ass person they're cis in a relevant context and they probably would say, yes, they're cis![/QUOTE]
There are plenty of people who talk like that with their black friends and everyone is just fine with it. Most of them(but not all) are black themselves. I never would, but they aren't me and they have every right to speak in the way they find most comfortable.
This only goes to further prove my point that any word can have positive or negative connotations based on how it's used.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49993586]Is the word "nigger" offensive when used in the sentence "the word nigger is an insult, primarily used to demean people of African ancestry"?
Is the word "black" offensive when used in the sentence "Get the fuck out of here you black piece of shit"?
Language is contextual. Yes, some words may be perceived as offensive in more situations than others based on common perception and history, but that doesn't mean there's such a thing as an inherently offensive word.[/QUOTE]
Well obviously. However, when context most often relegates a certain meaning or motivation behind the usage of a word it can certainly be perceived as relatively "more offensive" than another word. I see your point, but the origin and historical primary usage of a word can always provide insight to whether it is appropriate for more neutral contexts (if that makes sense) or not.
[QUOTE=Duck M.;49993631]Well obviously. However, when context most often relegates a certain meaning or motivation behind the usage of a word it can certainly be perceived as relatively "more offensive" than another word. I see your point, but the origin and historical primary usage of a word can always provide insight to whether it is appropriate for more neutral contexts (if that makes sense) or not.[/QUOTE]
no it doesn't and this is a really strong example of ignorance of the transormative nature of languages and words
Faggot changed meaning like 10 times in 500 years.
How are you exactly going to narrow it down to the definition you want to argue a specific point without being incredibly dishonest
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49993655]no it doesn't and this is a really strong example of ignorance of the transormative nature of languages and words
Faggot changed meaning like 10 times in 500 years.
How are you exactly going to narrow it down to the definition you want to argue a specific point without being incredibly dishonest[/QUOTE]
I know how transformative the english language and words are. My argument is applicable to contemporary use, I cant see why it wouldnt be.
Your point is sort of self-destructive. You say that "Faggot" has a new primary meaning in it's popular usage than it did 500 years ago, but what exactly would that be? A derogatory term for homosexuals? If so you're essentially saying that "Faggot" has evolved into a word that is offensive in it's primary meaning in the vast majority of contexts that it's used in.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49993655]no it doesn't and this is a really strong example of ignorance of the transormative nature of languages and words
Faggot changed meaning like 10 times in 500 years.
How are you exactly going to narrow it down to the definition you want to argue a specific point without being incredibly dishonest[/QUOTE]
I think there's some miscommunication going on here that has to do with the nature of offense.
Racial epithets are near universally considered to be offensive. We have the reasonable expectation that people won't use them in public without purpose. And so, if someone decides to use them anyway, we default to the belief that they meant offense.
In that way, racial epithets are more offensive than other words. Not because they are in and of themselves intrinsically offensive, but because they are considered to be offensive by practically the entirety of society.
Think of words like movies. Citizen Kane is "good" not because it has the measurable and inherent quality of "goodness", but because it is so widely considered to be "good".
[QUOTE=Duck M.;49993603]Huh? Garbage is like the LEAST likely person on here to "cherry-pick" or "ignore facts". They've always been pretty good with backing up their thoughts with substance. What he proposes is absolutely a problem with GG, TiA, KiA, etc. that stop a lot of people from taking them seriously and prevent them from being what could be productive movements to get rid of toxicity in their respective communities.[/QUOTE]
Making false claims and generalisations isn't really backing up an argument. By the nature of GarbadgeCan's arguments, there's absolutely nothing that the people who disagree with them can do since their only apparent crime is being arbitrary labeled as bad things by GarbadgeCan regardless of what they actually do or believe. It should be obvious that this scarlet letter approach doesn't foster a positive discourse or betterment of society, it only serves to feed a nescient superiority complex and a toxic environment of partisan politics.
[QUOTE=Duck M.;49993603]Huh? Garbage is like the LEAST likely person on here to "cherry-pick" or "ignore facts". They've always been pretty good with backing up their thoughts with substance. What he proposes is absolutely a problem with GG, TiA, KiA, etc. that stop a lot of people from taking them seriously and prevent them from being what could be productive movements to get rid of toxicity in their respective communities.[/QUOTE]
Pointlessly name dropping those things when they absolutely nothing to do with the topic is shameless narrative pushing, not my idea of good posting.
Furthermore he's blatantly dense and calling his arguments backed up with thoughts and substance is a huge joke. Dropping a list of people you don't like isn't substance.
[QUOTE=Duck M.;49993717]I know how transformative the english language and words are. My argument is applicable to contemporary use, I cant see why it wouldnt be.
Your point is sort of self-destructive. You say that "Faggot" has a new primary meaning in it's popular usage than it did 500 years ago, but what exactly would that be? A derogatory term for homosexuals? If so you're essentially saying that "Faggot" has evolved into a word that is offensive in it's primary meaning in the vast majority of contexts that it's used in.[/QUOTE]
If you're talking about contemporary use, then why bring up "historical primary useage" in the first place?
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49993724]I think there's some miscommunication going on here that has to do with the nature of offense.
[B]Racial epithets are near universally considered to be offensive. We have the reasonable expectation that people won't use them in public without purpose. And so, if someone decides to use them anyway, we default to the belief that they meant offense.
In that way, racial epithets are more offensive than other words. Not because they are in and of themselves intrinsically offensive, but because they are considered to be offensive by practically the entirety of society.[/B]
Think of words like movies. Citizen Kane is "good" not because it has the measurable and inherent quality of "goodness", but because it is so widely considered to be "good".[/QUOTE]
Yes, this is PRECISELY my point.
[editline]23rd March 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;49993741]If you're talking about contemporary use, then why bring up "historical primary useage" in the first place?[/QUOTE]
Because contemporary use derives from historical use and how words naturally evolve (hint: from primary use in the population).
I feel as if this is a foregone conclusion.
[QUOTE=Duck M.;49993744]Yes, this is PRECISELY my point.
[editline]23rd March 2016[/editline]
Because contemporary use derives from historical use and how words naturally evolve (hint: from primary use in the population).
I feel as if this is a foregone conclusion.[/QUOTE]
Yes, it's not the words themselves that are intrisically offensive, it's the (historical and situational) context and how they are used that makes them so. When a word can only be used in a negative context, the word itself is considered to be offensive.
[QUOTE=mooman1080;49993735]Pointlessly name dropping those things when they absolutely nothing to do with the topic is shameless narrative pushing, not my idea of good posting.
Furthermore he's blatantly dense and calling his arguments backed up with thoughts and substance is a huge joke. Dropping a list of people you don't like isn't substance.[/QUOTE]
You're discrediting everything else their posts bring to the table because of the TiA namedrop, which was hardly pointless and irrelevant, if not a little misguided. The type of people to take the term "cisgender" and it's abbreviation as derogatory terms are the same type of people that derive their social agendas from reactionary communities like, for instance, TiA.
Dont ignore the rest of someone's argument because they used one argumentative tactic that you disagree with.
[QUOTE=Duck M.;49993793]You're discrediting everything else their posts bring to the table because of the TiA namedrop, which was hardly pointless and irrelevant, if not a little misguided. The type of people to take the term "cisgender" and it's abbreviation as derogatory terms are the same type of people that derive their social agendas from reactionary communities like, for instance, TiA.
Dont ignore the rest of someone's argument because they used one argumentative tactic that you disagree with.[/QUOTE]
Is that really the case however? Are you perhaps making a generalization as to how any prospective person would come to a belief? What about the argument that even if a term itself isn't offensive, it can be used in an offensive way? Isn't that the whole point we've been making about a few posts up? You're generalizing a whole range of perspectives into a single category. Your argument has about as much tact as saying that everyone who uses tumblr is a militant social justice warrior who believes they are a fox trapped in a human's body.
Also, if an argumentative tactic forms the basis of a person's argument and is proven to be false, why is it wrong to argue that their contention isn't based on a solid foundation?
[QUOTE=Duck M.;49993793]You're discrediting everything else their posts bring to the table because of the TiA namedrop, which was hardly pointless and irrelevant, if not a little misguided. The type of people to take the term "cisgender" and it's abbreviation as derogatory terms are the same type of people that derive their social agendas from reactionary communities like, for instance, TiA.
Dont ignore the rest of someone's argument because they used one argumentative tactic that you disagree with.[/QUOTE]
And there we go, using the list of people you don't like as an excuse to explain away and disregard the argument through generalization, why actually discuss how the person could be wrong when you could compare them to your approved list of bad people?
I discredit a large part of what they say because that's not argument, and that's not an argument tactic that's my idea of inane bullshit. I have no interest in your generalizations to people you don't like, I want to hear the reasoning why these things I'm saying are wrong, not through generalizations or "history," through actual reasons and logic.
I get why people are upset by generalizations, but I don't think there's anything wrong with generalizations as long as they're only applied to groups. "British people like tea" is a reasonable statement, I think.
Now, if someone tries to apply a generalization to an individual, like "that person is/you are one of those tea loving British people", then by all means, feel free to be upset.
"I disagree with you, here's a list of people I also disagree with who have nothing to do with you! Take that!"
[QUOTE=Zyler;49993847]Is that really the case however? Are you perhaps making a generalization as to how any prospective person would come to a belief? What about the argument that even if a term itself isn't offensive, it can be used in an offensive way? Isn't that the whole point we've been making about a few posts up? You're generalizing a whole range of perspectives into a single category. Your argument has about as much tact as saying that everyone who used tumblr is a militant social justice warrior who believes they are a fox trapped in a human's body.
[B]Also, if an argumentative tactic forms the basis of a person's argument and is proven to be false, why is it wrong to argue that their contention isn't based on a solid foundation?[/B][/QUOTE]
Because it was [I]hardly[/I] the foundation of their argument.
[QUOTE=Duck M.;49993893]Because it was [I]hardly[/I] the foundation of their argument.[/QUOTE]
What was the foundation of the argument?
[editline]24th March 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49993858]I get why people are upset by generalizations, but I don't think there's anything wrong with generalizations as long as they're only applied to groups. "British people like tea" is a reasonable statement, I think.
Now, if someone tries to apply a generalization to an individual, like "that person is/you are one of those tea loving British people", then by all means, feel free to be upset.[/QUOTE]
Its the difference between
"British people are known for drinking tea, so maybe a prospective British person likes to drink tea"
and
"You like to drink tea? You must be a British person!"
[QUOTE=Zyler;49993905]What was the foundation of the argument?[/QUOTE]
Their claim that "[cis is] not a derogatory term" as "It's a dictionary definition term used in academics, LGBT organizations in understanding transgender issues, and various other institutes".
[QUOTE=Duck M.;49993893]Because it was [I]hardly[/I] the foundation of their argument.[/QUOTE]
[quote] Places like TumblrInAction and KotakuInAction poison your mind into building some narrative of an enemy that barely exists. Then as you build up this, you slowly disassociate the extremists from the moderates and in doing so become more extreme yourself.[/quote]
"You disagree with me, ergo you're brainwashed by reddit" is a pretty dumb argument to make.
Honestly, I'm not even sure what the argument is. It just seems like they disagree over how the word is used, which isn't really something that can be proven either way.
[QUOTE=Duck M.;49993934]Their claim that "[cis is] not a derogatory term" as "It's a dictionary definition term used in academics, LGBT organizations in understanding transgender issues, and various other institutes".[/QUOTE]
It's still used by laymen as a divisive and aggressive term regardless of its true meaning
[QUOTE=Duck M.;49993934]Their claim that "[cis is] not a derogatory term" as "It's a dictionary definition term used in academics, LGBT organizations in understanding transgender issues, and various other institutes".[/QUOTE]
Thats not the argument, thats the claim being argued for. Iregardless or whether or not it's true, it doesn't make the argument logical or rational. I personally don't think "cis" is an insulting term, it can be used as one however. Just like "black" or "boy" isn't intrinsically offensive but can be if used in a specific context.
It's just a bad argument. You don't need to mislabel and insult people in order to make an argument.
If you're going to argue over the usage of a word, argue over the actual usage of the actual word, not "you disagree with me therefore you hold beliefs that you don't have".
[QUOTE=Zyler;49993905]Its the difference between
"British people are known for drinking tea, so maybe a prospective British person likes to drink tea"
and
"You like to drink tea? You must be a British person!"[/QUOTE]
It all gets down to Groups=/=Individuals, and information that describes one does not describe the other
[editline]24th March 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49993962]It's still used by laymen as a divisive and aggressive term regardless of its true meaning[/QUOTE]
Has anyone said otherwise? I think the only point of contention is how often it's used in a derogatory way.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49993950]"You disagree with me, ergo you're brainwashed by reddit" is a pretty dumb argument to make.
Honestly, I'm not even sure what the argument is. It just seems like they disagree over how the word is used, which isn't really something that can be proven either way.[/QUOTE]
To me this just seems like they're explaining the origin of their generalization, in which it (the origin) is pretty based in reality. I disagree with their fallacious use of generalization in this instance but once again, you're isolating this secondary point and argumentative tactic they're making that is independent of their primary argument as their primary argument itself. The quote you isolated is a means to an end, not the end itself.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49993971]It all gets down to Groups=/=Individuals, and information that describes one does not describe the other
[editline]24th March 2016[/editline]
Has anyone said otherwise? I think the only point of contention is how often it's used in a derogatory way.[/QUOTE]
GarbageCan pretty much has yes, to my understanding by stating its never a term to get upset by
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49993962]It's still used by [B]laymen[/B] as a divisive and aggressive term regardless of its true meaning[/QUOTE]
I [I]really[/I] personally don't think so, but neither of us can back it up with statistical evidence that would amount to anything on this front.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.