louis ck

[Zephyr_Nova]

7 minutes ago, Zephyr_Nova said:

These words can have lots of negative and positive connotations. 

That typo was killing me, sorry...

[Alcofribas]

8 minutes ago, Zephyr_Nova said:

Retarded's also used to mean ridiculously good/fun/extraordinary. 

"That party was retarded." 

"He's retardedly good at gonking steady."

And then there's music that I would describe as gay in a cool aesthetic way.  Of Montreal and Cocteau Twins are like that for me.  i don't know, language is pliable.  Cunt can be a term of endearment.  These words can have lots of negative and connotations.  It really is about intent and context above all else. There are circumstances where they can of course be totally offensive, and other times where they're just not a big deal. 

That said I barely if ever use those terms.

Sorry but not the ‘Twins are not gay in any sense of the word. I cannot allow this. 

[Zephyr_Nova]

I accept your intolerance of my assertion.

[ignatius]

 

[auxien]

44 minutes ago, apriorion said:

But I’m also not attacking other WATMM members personally while doning a phony self righteousness about not being “word police” or whatever while also being an abusive dick about it, either. 

i must've really ruffled your feathers. whatever in your life has got you so wound up, i hope it gets better. 

37 minutes ago, apriorion said:

You know, I'm generally not so into using either the word "gay" or "retarded", but I had a couple drinks the other night (hence the intensity in my tone--I usually come off as more "intense" when I have a couple beers, but I honestly don't really care that much about this guy or this topic), and it slipped. I actually think upon reflection that I probably shouldn't have used the word, but it's passed now. 

cool. i had to train myself out of using those (and other) terms too when i was younger, it can be difficult. not saying you are doing that or should do that, like i said, you do you. just hoping for a kinder, gentler forum dot watmm dot com.

51 minutes ago, marf said:

Instead of policing words I'm for outing assholes and bullies. Get right to the intent. Not the word. The woke culture hasn't helped with kindness, just their own version of controlling people. 

same here. word usage is often a good tell on who is an asshole or a bully tho, so i try and pay attention to that. controlling others ain't cool, agreed. being 'woke' to some extent or another isn't a bad thing either imo tho, and there's plenty of people who might fall under 'woke' who aren't necessarily controlling or assholes or anything. 

[marf]

I was just reading an article on how apparently lots of people say Ellen Degeneres is actually a horrible person. Totally a fake persona, That's basically it. More of that shit. It is down to intent. The words matter a little bit, but usually the hurt is much more insidious than some idiots yelling fag from a passing car window. 

[chenGOD]

What is woke? It’s just not cool to use words as slurs that also happen to describe other people who have characteristics beyond their control. Like just basic common decency right? 

Zeph: sure some context can mitigate, like gay twee pop might be happy, and sure intent is important, but ultimately I think if we truly want to see a world where people of all backgrounds have equal value (at least until they open their mouths and prove otherwise) then using words with those negative connotations should be called out. And in some cases maybe it’s just ingrained - like @auxien I had to train myself out of using those words when I really meant something else. 
i don’t believe in “policing words”, but I would like people to think about the language they use, and how it might impact people they are unaware of. That’s it. 

[Enthusiast]

Enjoyed the new special, many lols. 

[cichlisuite]

6 hours ago, Zephyr_Nova said:

And then there's music that I would describe as gay in a cool aesthetic way.  Of Montreal and Cocteau Twins are like that for me.

Blasphemy!! Outrageous.

[IDEM]

9 hours ago, Alcofribas said:

Sorry but not the ‘Twins are not gay in any sense of the word. I cannot allow this. 

 

3 hours ago, cichlisuite said:

Blasphemy!! Outrageous.

I feel there's a Coc(k) joke buried deeply somewhere in there, but it's just outside of my grasp.

[cruising for burgers]

as always i don't get it... so, if a girl who's my friend tells me something like, oh that guy is hot and i say to her, nvrmn he's gay... wtf am i doing wrong??? and if i look at a guy and say hey man you're so fucking hot wanna go on a date and he replies me back sorry dude i'm straight...

if i make a joke saying that filipinos eat too much rice, i'm wrong, but just the other day the filipinos on my ship complaint that the meals they're being served don't have enough rice... 

Now i bet everyone wants to call me a retard but they won't... :^) 

[Silent Member]

I don't understand your post so who's the moron now 

[chenGOD]

1 hour ago, Tim_J said:

as always i don't get it... so, if a girl who's my friend tells me something like, oh that guy is hot and i say to her, nvrmn he's gay... wtf am i doing wrong??? and if i look at a guy and say hey man you're so fucking hot wanna go on a date and he replies me back sorry dude i'm straight...

if i make a joke saying that filipinos eat too much rice, i'm wrong, but just the other day the filipinos on my ship complaint that the meals they're being served don't have enough rice... 

Now i bet everyone wants to call me a retard but they won't... :^) 

 

Neither of those examples are using the word “gay” in a negative sense. That’s simply describing a person’s characteristic. If you saw someone doing something incredibly stupid (like Trump opening his mouth to speak), and you said “oh man this is going to be fucking gay”, that’s a little insensitive, don’t you think so?
 

A generalization about Filipinos eating a lot of rice is simply a generalization. Generalizations can be positive, negative, or neutral, but usually it is better to avoid generalizations when describing a specific person. For example, “Filipinos eat more rice, on average, than English people” is a fine use of that particular generalization. On the other hand, let’s say you meet Tom, who happens to be Filipino. You and Tom get along so you invite him for lunch. “Oh you’re Filipino, you must like rice”, is probably not the best use of that particular generalization, because you’re trying to apply it to an individual. 

[Zephyr_Nova]

I agree, but I also think it's sort of good to diffuse these words somewhat, and using them in more casual, innocuous ways does do that.  We give words far too much power.  It's not the words that should have the power, it's the way we use them that should count.  Of course "don't be a dick" should be the general rule... though I can even kind of appreciate people being dicks every now and then.  Keeps things interesting.  So does getting offended on occasion.  Jesus I can't even recall the last time I was offended by anything... I get razzed by stupid bullshit I see around me all the time.  Maybe I have offended-envy.  Someone offend me pls.  Sean pls.

[Candiru]

I was listening to a Patrice O’Neal radio show called The Black Phillip Show sort of recently. Patrice would be drawn and quartered these days, but I hadn’t laughed that hard in a while. Comedy was better without all of the babysitters with medieval witch hunt fantasies. 
 

I think people let the idiot in the White House get the best of them by deciding its better to not laugh at all than to laugh at something even slightly off-color. In doing so, people have abandoned a very healthy outlet for daily life’s frustrations. 

[chenGOD]

1 hour ago, Zephyr_Nova said:

We give words far too much power.  It's not the words that should have the power, it's the way we use them that should count. 

Words create social institutions (institutions here can be both informal - such as customs and norms, and formal, such as entities created by the government, like a judicial system), and these social institutions create the objective reality that we operate in. So using words in a casual, innocuous manner, creates a real possibility that these become norms, and we're back at the start of this conversation.  You should check out a book called "The Social Construction of Reality".

Let's put it another way - is there a way to use the word "gay" to mean "inferior" in a casual, innocuous manner, that doesn't at the same time, imply that homosexuals are inferior?

[caze]

5 hours ago, chenGOD said:

Let's put it another way - is there a way to use the word "gay" to mean "inferior" in a casual, innocuous manner, that doesn't at the same time, imply that homosexuals are inferior?

Yes.

[hello spiral]

lol

[Zephyr_Nova]

5 hours ago, chenGOD said:

Let's put it another way - is there a way to use the word "gay" to mean "inferior" in a casual, innocuous manner, that doesn't at the same time, imply that homosexuals are inferior?

It can be definitely be looked at that way.  Or it can just be used as another nothing word that's meaning has changed over time.   When I hear it used there's usually a sense of irony about it (using childish slang rather than something more... mature).  It's one of these words that's like a relic from childhood, when no one was taking these things seriously.

[hello spiral]

ugh I mentioned to a girl I talk to on IG that I had just dloaded the new Louis CK (it was a natural follow on from our convo that was joking about everything being CANCELLED and I said "speaking of CANCELLED..")

And she instantly SWITCHED and was saying she'd never watch it and he is definitely a predator of Weinstein's level etc etc. At one point went down the 'power dynamic' road and said something like 'no man could ever know the fear a woman feels when walking down a dark alley at night and sees another person approaching'

oh fucking please

[manmower]

As a man I just love walking down a dark alley at night and seeing another person approaching.

[hello spiral]

ikr, it really gets the adrenalin going. makes me feel ALIVE

[dingformung]

7 hours ago, chenGOD said:

Words create social institutions (institutions here can be both informal - such as customs and norms, and formal, such as entities created by the government, like a judicial system), and these social institutions create the objective reality that we operate in. So using words in a casual, innocuous manner, creates a real possibility that these become norms, and we're back at the start of this conversation.  You should check out a book called "The Social Construction of Reality".

Let's put it another way - is there a way to use the word "gay" to mean "inferior" in a casual, innocuous manner, that doesn't at the same time, imply that homosexuals are inferior?

Sure, but as someone with egalitarian ideals one should also be careful not to be too much of a buzzkill if you really want to influence people instead of just showing off moral superiority

[chenGOD]

3 hours ago, caze said:

Yes.

Demonstrate.

 

3 hours ago, Zephyr_Nova said:

It can be definitely be looked at that way.  Or it can just be used as another nothing word that's meaning has changed over time.  When I hear it used there's usually a sense of irony about it (using childish slang rather than something more... mature).  It's one of these words that's like a relic from childhood, when no one was taking these things seriously.

It used to be even worse, as in there was less awareness around the impact of the use of the word to mean inferior.

This is the exact process of socialization that is described in the book I was talking about - through the use of it in everyday life, it becomes a social institution. "It's not serious" - except that many people (not you) do actually think that being gay is inferior, which leads to incidents like what happened to Matthew Shepard, or things like conversion therapy being real.

 

1 hour ago, darreichungsform said:

Sure, but as someone with egalitarian ideals one should also be careful not to be too much of a buzzkill if you really want to influence people instead of just showing off moral superiority

Yeah I'm not trying to be a buzzkill (failing miserably at that I guess), nor am I in any way morally superior - I make fuck ups all the time. It's an ongoing learning process for everyone I think.

[chenGOD]

3 hours ago, hello spiral said:

ugh I mentioned to a girl I talk to on IG that I had just dloaded the new Louis CK (it was a natural follow on from our convo that was joking about everything being CANCELLED and I said "speaking of CANCELLED..")

And she instantly SWITCHED and was saying she'd never watch it and he is definitely a predator of Weinstein's level etc etc. At one point went down the 'power dynamic' road and said something like 'no man could ever know the fear a woman feels when walking down a dark alley at night and sees another person approaching'

oh fucking please

I also think that comparing louis to weinstein is fucking ridiculous by the way. I'm not even sure louis did much wrong besides be a little weird - asking people if you can jerk off in front of them out of the blue is just weird. By all accounts, he never restrained anyone or anything like that. I also think that people way overstate his power at the time - he was a writer at SNL, hadn't had any commercial success as a stand-up, etc.