|
Post by eumenide on Mar 25, 2010 7:16:01 GMT -5
I tend to grats most achievements, as I mentioned in guild chat, just on the grounds that Gevlon (the greedy goblin) has as one of his guild rules that you should not congratulate anyone. I tend to think that SAN is the polar opposite of his anti-social guild (not that there's anything wrong with playing however you like).
I generally gz when I'm in imminent danger of getting killed.
Ah but I'm old enough to remember when "gay" meant happy. Those loveable homosexuals hijacked the word in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by valgav on Mar 25, 2010 11:51:42 GMT -5
The following is not an attack at anybody here, it's just one of my pet peeves.I would like to point out, that words only have meaning so long as the shared consciousness of the speakers agree on the meaning. As a result, 'gay' now means: stupid, annoying, bad, etc. As someone who used to use the word that way a decade or so past, I will say this as well: Use of the word 'gay' to mean bad or distasteful is not actually a bash at homosexuals. Perhaps during the inception of that definition it was, but like most words, it has grown past it's initial origin (or in this case, second origin) an no longer truly carries that connotation amongst its users. It really all falls on those who are offended. I for example know a few homosexuals who refer to annoying or frustrating things as being 'gay'. I know this seems to fall into the 'the people being mocked or belittled are doing it, so it much be okay' logic fail, but that is not the case. Which leads me to the following statement: I once (some time ago) responded that someone jewed me out of my change at a store I was at. (Not a Jewish establishment) My mother said, 'don't say that, it's offensive'. Which it is. So I asked what I should use instead and she said jipped. Many people write 'jipped' or 'gipped', when the actual spelling once upon a time (and still rightfully is) gypped. Which is just as racist, we just don't have gypsies here to complain about it. Point is a lot that we say has negative roots, it really just depends on where the shared social consciousness resides. Yeah yeah, unrelated wall of text ftl. I'm so gay. Somebdy gratz me.
|
|
|
Post by pewter on Mar 25, 2010 12:35:16 GMT -5
random thoughts prompted by valgav, also not an attackI think it is possible to avoid words with 'ist' connotations, even if your disabled/black/gay/trans/whoever friend(s) are not offended by it, or that you are unaware it is offensive (such as jipped or gypped) is not an excuse for using that language in the long run. It may not be 'intentionally a bash' and onceupon a time the word 'gay' had entirely different meanings, but that doesn't take away the wider context of such language. No one is perfect, and I'm not yelling at anyone for being un-pc (also on the note of 'fail logic' I highly recommend reading this: www.derailingfordummies.com/) but use of 'ist' language is not neutralised because the speaker doesn't understand the wider context, and shouldn't mean that it is just accepted as the norm. Just because someone isn't aware of the exclusionary impact of language use, doesn't mean they should not be called out on it (if you are such a person.) Am not expressing myself very well. I'm not much of a feminist (or any type of ist) activist, so I don't live my life going 'omg your language is ableist/racist you are OPRESSING SOMEONE', I'm just of the opinion of 'Well, I don't think it is cool to use this word this way anymore, so I'd rather you stop and I'm going to try and stop myself.' deeplyproblematic.blogspot.com/2009/08/blinded-by-privileged-ableist-language.html <-- how complex it gets. The words I have to work to not say especially are 'retard' and 'lame', but I have no expectations that the rest of society is suddenly possess the knowledge and the awareness. liz-henry.blogspot.com/2009/10/changing-ableist-racist-and-sexist.html(Apparently the older I get, the more of an activist I become. I at least wish there was more general awareness about language in the WoW-o-sphere that wasn't just dismissed as 'overly PC'.
|
|
|
Post by valgav on Mar 25, 2010 13:46:23 GMT -5
Still not an attack. This is just a friendly dialogue. Normally I'd agree that ignorance is not an excuse, however with language you cannot apply a wider context than is intended. People frequently bash the use of 'gay', 'retarded' and 'lame' because they belittle groups of people. In fact, none of those words are used by 99% of their users to actually draw a parallel to homosexuals, the mentally handicapped, or or the maimed. The nature of language causes words to lose context. For example, gay, meaning happy, is in fact the root of gay meaning homosexual. Gay was actually a tongue in cheek derogatory term. However, homosexuals use the word gay to refer to themselves... should not someone explain their ignorance of the term. Because if we're going to constantly apply a wider context to words based on previous meanings, any homosexual man who calls himself gay is saying that he's flamboyantly happy as a result of his sexual orientation, which people find unpleasant. Of course we wouldn't, the meaning and intent has changed. Gay meaning homosexual has gone from being a slur, to just being an adjective. An adjective that people apply to themselves proudly. Similarly, the word 'retarded' doesn't actually mean mentally handicapped. It means to have progress slowed. As such I will continue to use the word retarded to mean broken, useless, and so on. And if defenders of the mentally handicapped want to bash me for it, I will call them retarded, because socially they are. (Anyone who seeks out reasons to be offended is standing in the way of social progress.) Now that's not to say I'm in defense of derogatory terms becoming part of the common vernacular. I'd just as much rather we found other words, but with our society the way it is, I'm not holding my breath. My point really is, if no intent is meant, no offense should be taken. And if you're the sort of person who takes an offense through someone's etymological ignorance, I have no time for illogical twits. Edit: Has anyone seen my pedantic hat? I think I should be wearing it.
|
|
|
Post by salvaenus on Mar 26, 2010 7:04:13 GMT -5
Still not an attack. This is just a friendly dialogue. any homosexual man who calls himself gay is saying that he's flamboyantly happy as a result of his sexual orientation, which people find unpleasant. Now that's not to say I'm in defense of derogatory terms becoming part of the common vernacular. I'd just as much rather we found other words, but with our society the way it is, I'm not holding my breath. Why is it unpleasant when someone is "happy as a result of his/her sexual orientation"? Regardless of sexual orientation I see no problem with people using this word to typify their choice. Ergo your definition I am Gay although I am completely heterosexual. No one says"Damnit man why did you pull that second bunch of mobs that is so hetero!" Perhaps I shall start using this as a means to opening others eyes. Be the change you want to see in the world! Start by not using these words as words to express anger/discontent and perhaps our Society would not be "the way it is." Remember you to are a part of Society and the only thing you can truly change and influence is yourself.
|
|
|
Post by valgav on Mar 26, 2010 9:12:01 GMT -5
First, I myself am too old to change.
As for why it's unpleasant: I only say that because back when it was originally used as a slur against homosexuals, people would only call people gay if they were uncomfortable with their orientation. People who didn't care if someone was homosexual would never have called em 'gay'.
For a while in the early 2000's we used to call things hetero around here. It didn't catch on.
|
|
|
Post by valgav on Mar 26, 2010 9:14:09 GMT -5
On a more related note, I was talking to a buddy of mine yesterday and he said he managed to catch the bus, to which I said 'grats'. His response, 'it's not like it's some kind of achievement'.
He doesn't play WoW, so he didn't understand why I though the exchange was so funny.
|
|
|
Post by pewter on Mar 26, 2010 11:19:53 GMT -5
Continuing in interesting dialogue, because I'm not expressing myself very well. Apologies for the out of context quoting Val. I am not looking for ways to be offended, it certainly isn't my right, but I'm interested in this stuffUnfortunately 'wider context' and different meaning really doesn't take away that those words have other meanings. Original dictionary word meanings non-withstanding (as they don't pull much weight with those who are against -isms and -ist language in general). When 'retard' is used as an insult it is using the word in a derogatory manner. Just as a 14 year old calling something 'gay' is not being descriptive but derogatory, the word still has the loaded meaning even if the user is ignorant of the way it is used. 'Gay' as a good adjective is something that is used all the time, and obviously the word is not inherently bad, but using it as a 'bad adjective' is. Positive or neutral meanings/usage does not neutralise the bad meanings of a word. I don't think it is okay to ignore things you find offensive just because no offence was meant. I do speak from a position of privilege here as a white british woman, and I'm not trying to be outraged on behalf on anyone, I'm still learning about this stuff. This is exactly what I referring to. 'Retard' may also mean to 'slow' in a general term, and if you're using it in a certain context 'The use of this hormone retards the growth of plants under these conditions' it certainly isn't offensive. In no way am I suggesting one avoids all use of these words, because there are cases where they are obviously appropriate. I'm kind of short on time here, so I'll quote what I'm actually trying to get at here. Sorry for the chunk of text here. On further reading it seems that a huge amount of words become 'ableist' under the above description (halfwit and nitwit included.) The offence is not inherent in the words, almost, but in the attitude that mental disabilities (or any disabilities) should be excluded, disdained and ignored by 'normal society'. The etymological 'offence' is only the surface. The offence isn't the ignorance, it's the deeper attitudes the words imply. Calling someone a retard who is medically a retard is not offensive, calling them a retard when they are not, with the implication that they don't deserve to be part of normal society (and that is generally the underlying meaning of 'retarded' when used as an insult) is ableist and therefore offensive to someone out there. EDIT: Man that's kinda long. I should probably do a blog post about this sometime >< Apologies for talking your ear off Val!
|
|
|
Post by hadawako on Mar 26, 2010 11:44:52 GMT -5
People frequently bash the use of 'gay', 'retarded' and 'lame' because they belittle groups of people. In fact, none of those words are used by 99% of their users to actually draw a parallel to homosexuals, the mentally handicapped, or or the maimed. If only that were true. The reality is that the people who use these words as insults know full well what they mean and are deliberately choosing to use synonyms for sexuality, membership of a racial group or disability as insults. It's the use of the word as an insult that is bad. By saying "You are bad because you are X" you are effectively saying that "X is bad". This isn't etymological ignorance - you can't seriously expect me to believe that people don't know the origins of words like "gay","jewed" or "retard". It's deliberately using membership of the respective groups as an insult.
|
|
|
Post by valgav on Mar 26, 2010 12:39:19 GMT -5
Firstly, I should say that I was not speaking at you when I referred to people seeking offense. However there are a lot of people who go out of their way to find examples of how something has its roots in something offensive, and raise a battle standard against it. I find such behavior deplorable. Firstly, words can be derogatory without intent to belittle others. If I say something is 'gay' because I don't like it, I am not actually drawing from the original offensive term, because though it's roots lie there, the word just means stupid now days. I understand that it comes from some sort of exclusionary background, but I refuse to be straitjacket by a bigoted origin twenty years past. As for the belief that words mean that we should exclude or avoid such people, I just think that's bull. It does however denote that they on average have a lower quality of life. These days we seem to have some sort of idea that all people are equal, which is not true... Let me say that again, not all people are equal. All people do have equal rights to quality of life and certain freedoms. All people's lives value, and I would never say that someone's life has less value than mine. However, that does not mean we are equal. And honestly, trying to not point out how people are different seems insincere. (Before anyone calls this a racist paragraph, I did not say that some races are not equal, I said all people are not equal. Men are stronger than women on the average. Scandanavian men are stronger than native americans, on average. Those are not stereotypes, those are genetic facts. People aren't equal, but that's okay. Personally I like there being people out there that are 'better than me' and many common pursuits. I like being an underdog.) As a result, some people with deficiencies are not equal. Being blind, handicapped or mentally deficient does lower the quality of someone's life significantly. This does not make them lesser persons. However I know that given the choice I'd like to keep my legs intact, because being lame would indeed be undesirable. Lame people are not undesirable though as a result of their condition. Again, pewter, my somewhat strong comments about people who stand on the other side of the discussion, are not meant to be directly at you as I've said. And I never meant to infer that you were one of the illogical twits I playfully mentioned. I hope you did not think I did.
|
|
|
Post by valgav on Mar 26, 2010 12:46:49 GMT -5
People frequently bash the use of 'gay', 'retarded' and 'lame' because they belittle groups of people. In fact, none of those words are used by 99% of their users to actually draw a parallel to homosexuals, the mentally handicapped, or or the maimed. If only that were true. The reality is that the people who use these words as insults know full well what they mean and are deliberately choosing to use synonyms for sexuality, membership of a racial group or disability as insults. It's the use of the word as an insult that is bad. By saying "You are bad because you are X" you are effectively saying that "X is bad". This isn't etymological ignorance - you can't seriously expect me to believe that people don't know the origins of words like "gay","jewed" or "retard". It's deliberately using membership of the respective groups as an insult. Perhaps not 15 years ago when such terms became fashionable, (when I was a teen). However, I don't think that people really consider it any more. Think for example about the word 'suck'. People say it all the time. What is it that people or objects suck when they 'suck'. Dick. The term 'That sucks' is a shortened form of the saying 'that sucks dick' which was popular almost 20 years ago. I remember my mother disallowing the word sucks in the household. Now everyone says 'this sucks', 'he sucks', my mother even told me the other day that the engine on her car 'sucks'. Do any of these people saying the word think of fellatio? Of course not. The term has moved on. The only difference between 'gay' and 'sucks' is that 'sucks' was only offensive vaguely in a moral way, where as 'gay' was bigotry. And people in the western world do not forget bigotry. So I think that many of the young teens who pick up use of words such as 'gay' or 'lame' take them from the common tongue, extrapolating only the meaning that something is inferior, not as a way to draw a parallel.
|
|
|
Post by valgav on Mar 26, 2010 12:51:37 GMT -5
I am thoroughly enjoying this off topic discussion, but it occurs to me that it's dangerously close to trade chat politics. And as I've said before SAN is like a vacation and I know we all like SAN because its an escape from the annoyances of normal WoW and its crap. Additionally, since SAN is a group of bloggers, I've found it's a great place to talk about things and get a well worded and thought out response from people with a fine command of the language. It's refreshing to be able to talk about some hot button topics without rage taking hold. Even so, I wouldn't want to be 'that guy' who comes in and causes discomfort. So I'm thinking that if this derailment has become distasteful to some, I will gladly finish my discussion with anyone who is enjoying it in PM's. I figured since this has become so long winded that some might be feeling antsy. Personally, I'm having a great time, and in no way mean to antagonize anyone here.
|
|
|
Post by hadawako on Mar 26, 2010 13:17:44 GMT -5
Perhaps not 15 years ago when such terms became fashionable, (when I was a teen). However, I don't think that people really consider it any more. Think for example about the word 'suck'. People say it all the time. What is it that people or objects suck when they 'suck'. Dick. The term 'That sucks' is a shortened form of the saying 'that sucks dick' which was popular almost 20 years ago. I remember my mother disallowing the word sucks in the household. Now everyone says 'this sucks', 'he sucks', my mother even told me the other day that the engine on her car 'sucks'. Do any of these people saying the word think of fellatio? Of course not. The term has moved on. The only difference between 'gay' and 'sucks' is that 'sucks' was only offensive vaguely in a moral way, where as 'gay' was bigotry. And people in the western world do not forget bigotry. So I think that many of the young teens who pick up use of words such as 'gay' or 'lame' take them from the common tongue, extrapolating only the meaning that something is inferior, not as a way to draw a parallel. I think you have a fair point when you're talking about terms whose meaning changed before the person involved was born, but I don't think that applies to words like "gay" or "retard". Teenagers know full well what those words mean, but they use still use them in a deliberately insulting way. Of course that isn't solely due to bigotry, part of it is about winding up adults and establishing their their own personality independent from their parents, much as earlier generations used "fuck" or other taboo words. Unfortunately, none of that is much consolation if you happen to be a gay teenager overhearing it. One of the guys I raid with on my "main" server is gay and, having extremely conservative parents, was absolutely terrified of the process of coming out to them (with good reason - his father was extremely unpleasant when told). Every time he heard that word used as an insult, it hurt him deeply. The atmosphere in our virtual worlds can matter more than we imagine. The friendly atmosphere in that raiding guild meant he felt able to tell us long before he was able to tell his family and hence talk through some of his fears. If he'd been in an a group where casual use of the word "gay" as an insult was considered acceptable, he'd have been cut off from that.
|
|
|
Post by valgav on Mar 26, 2010 14:10:48 GMT -5
Perhaps I'm just old then. I assume that the heyday of 'gay' 'retard' and 'lame' was before current teens were born. =P
Well in the case of that raider, I don't think he should have felt hurt hearing the word. He was being oversensitive, in my opinion. Of course I'm the sort of guy who, when my parents suspected I was gay, told them I was even though I wasn't, because I can't stand people tiptoe-ing around issues. /shrug
I had a gay friend who didn't come out to their parents for like 15 years. I kept prodding them to do so, but they were terrified. Eventually after being in a long relation with a partner they finally decided to break the news to their parents, who were very stongly opinionated... and who also weren't at all disturbed by the news.
|
|
|
Post by Spiritusrex on Mar 26, 2010 14:23:37 GMT -5
*PG13 Warning* In a poor attempt at injecting levity in this otherwise enlightening, but heavy, thread. And, now that it has been mentioned, we've certainly come a long way from the discussion "to gratz or not to gratz." Anywho.... I wish my name was/were* Dick. That way everybody who said you suck would actually be talking about pleasuring me. This would make me so happy I would not mind if I was a lame nitwit, as I would be happy and gay as a clam being sucked all the time. Which by the way, if I am remembering my middle school science classes correctly some 30 years after the fact, clams actually are bi-sexual - in the true sense of the word, as having both reproductive organs. Nonsensical reply ended. *subjunctives confuse the crap out of me, especially since it was just explained to me a couple of days ago in guild chat. ps...sometimes the little, immature boy in me peeks out from behind the manly, professional facade However, I will not apologize for it as to do so would be to delude myself (and others) into thinking it would not happen again, which I'm certain is not the case.
|
|