Input on thread title appropriateness for rabble 2

Ah, good. I was worrying we didn't have enough threads on this major issue of our times.

Sorry. Bad habit of mine.

I believe this discussion, among progressive folks, has no prospect of any positive outcome. I think it promises division, not unity. I think it provides welcome pretexts to our common enemies to caricature us and encourage interested folks who may be leaning in our direction to dismiss us. I think it bespeaks the luxury of musing about words - unnecessary words - when in real life all around us people are in action and desperately need to find ways to build solidarity, to sympathize with the struggles of others as the only sure way of reinforcing and bolstering support for their own struggles. I believe it doesn't serve our interests to make a very big deal, one way or the other, about terminology of this kind. I believe that if some of us say they're offended by some terminology, then the rest of us should simply avoid using it as a matter of civility and solidarity - unless, of course, there's something real and demonstrable at the heart of it.

You'll note that I use the word "we" and "us" throughout the previous paragraph. That's because of my working assumption - the one that underlies my participation in this discussion forum over the years, and indeed most of what I do in life - that there really is such a thing as "us". If, contrary to my fervent conviction and hope, I'm wrong about that, then by all means, have at each other. But then why are we here?

quizzical wrote:

all i can say is  guess i will go back to my corner "dirty lil Indian" that I am. how could i dare want to have a say 'bout something i think is important.

I'm sorry you feel that's what I'm saying. Just thought I'd correct you - I wasn't. I did notice that this is part 2 of a thread on this topic, and my opinion is that no good will come from this conversation. I'm entitled to that opinion, without being accused of what you just said above.

Gee, two whole threads! No other subject matter has ever had that before! Generally we get everything resolved after the one.

Oh by the bye, babble policy forbids ironic racism.

Quote:

I believe that if some of us say they're offended by some terminology, then the rest of us should simply avoid using it as a matter of civility and solidarity - unless, of course, there's something real and demonstrable at the heart of it.

This makes sense to me. This would have been a useful second post. But instead you shit on someone who is raising something quite reasonable and heartfelt, then cry victim when you hear how your shitting made them feel. And now, it's time for your inevitable high-horse routine.

In the past, you've finally come around to acknowledging how your behaviour might have helped drive a marginalized person off this board. Perhaps you'll come around again. Meanwhile, the dynamic that does the driving continues.

[This is Slumberjack's cue to tell me it's all my fault.] 

We're like the Israeli settler, perched atop our hill, except instead of 60 years and counting it's for five hundred years, surveying as far as the eye can see at all the facts on the ground, shaking our heads with a 'sorry about that' grimace, while gesturing with our hands toward everything and saying 'whattya going to do.'  When the term dirty is flung around, with its unmistakable triggers and everything else, we're really only wielding the caked on muck of own existence on this continent.  You can't build a wider sense of community and hope to put effect to it, which truly is the last and only hope for everyone under the circumstances, while failing to grasp the common origin of what has been instilled by the prevailing culture, which is derived from patriarchy and imperialism.  There are the personal failings in this struggle there's no doubt about that, in addition to the monstrous systemic issues needing everyone's shoulder set against it.

And I'd like to take back all the hurtful remarks if I could(seems to be closed)

I fucked up bad but I'm still a strong ally. I'll get it right.

RW, I'm really sorry, I'm fucked up in the head.

RevolutionPlease wrote:

RevolutionPlease wrote:

Ya, fuck that and fuck this world.

Grow a backbone you wimp.

I will when you grow a vocabulary.

Left Turn wrote:

Quizzical's opening post brilliantly pointed out why the word 'dirty' ought never to be applied to any group of human beings, ever...

What other adjectives should be avoided?

To respond to quizzical's OP, I think we should avoid using trigger words as much as possible.

Those which fellow babblers tell us our trigger words, Sven.

See?

He's ignorable.

As much as possible.

If people are serious about not having trigger words used on babble, then, as a practical matter, there is really only one way of dealing with that: Putting a list of the specific trigger words directly into the babble policy.  Otherwise, unless a person was reading this specific thread, no one would have a clue that "dirty," for example, is a trigger word that should be avoided.

Sven wrote:

If people are serious about not having trigger words used on babble, then, as a practical matter, there is really only one way of dealing with that: Putting a list of the specific trigger words directly into the babble policy.  Otherwise, unless a person was reading this specific thread, no one would have a clue that "dirty," for example, is a trigger word that should be avoided.

Adjectives that attempt to dehumanize a person or group of people.  It's not really that difficult.

Dostoyevsky wrote:

Adjectives that attempt to dehumanize a person or group of people.  It's not really that difficult.

I would actually support a policy that prohibited language that dehumanized individuals or groups.  But, as a rhetorical tool, dehumanizing opponents is highly effective and, as such, it is used all of the time, including on babble (if calling a person "dirty" is dehumanizing, which I think it is, then calling someone an "asshole" is no less dehumanizing - yet I bet I could find fifty examples of that on babble very quickly).

People are routinely called "assholes," "pigs," "fuckers, "terrorists," "extremists," "rich," "welfare queens," as a way to dehumanize individuals and groups.  And babble is no different.

So, is there really support here for stopping the use of dehumanizing language?  If there is, then it really would be "that difficult" to implement such a change because the practice of dehumanizing people is pervasive.

I'll tell you what, Sven: I'll draw up a list of words and their commensurate offence value (COV) optimized to a maximum offence value quotient (OVQ Max) so that you know how many times you can use each word in a post before you go over the limit. It's a complicated table, since the OVQ varies depending on weather and proximity to statuatory and religious holidays. It also varies depending on the income, ethnicity and gender of the speaker. Still, it's easily quantifiable and I'll do anything to help you out.

By the way, my last paragraph hoped to demonstrate that you are not a productive member of this conversation. Sadly, no one thinks your questions are asked in good faith. Those of us who are here in good faith are trying to navigate a complicated and hostile world order which seeks to divide and immiserate us. We are trying to find a way that doesn't happen. It's a tough slog, though, and we don't need jackasses gumming up the works.

I'm triggered by the word "Sven".

FTR: I was using the word "jackasses" in general and not directed toward any particular individual. Any assumptions to the contrary are purely voluntary and in no way sanctioned by the moderator.

LOL @ Maysie.

Dostoyevsky wrote:

...you can simply choose not to dehumanize anyone with the language you use.   Forget what others do and focus on what you choose to do or not do.

So, is that the advice you'd give to quizzical, too?  In other words, she should forget about other people using "dirty" and just focus on not using it herself.

Wow. this is a sad thread.

The opening post was polite and laid out a problem with a simple solution.

It is not a lot to ask to have people listen to what is being said and respond appropriately-- the idea that we would need a formula for that is sad too.

If you step on someone's foot and they say ouch-- do you really need a formula to know that the response is sorry and not to do it again rather than gee your foot is too long-- or why should it hurt you, everyone else has steel-toed boots? No you apologize and stop doing it. This one seems fairly straight forward. When someone is hurt you don't evaluate why or question if they should be-- you, acknowledge it, stop it, then look for insight.

I realize it is possible that in we might at some point forget or have not read something and make a mistake but that is different than being hostile to the request and inflexible in response.

Sven please don't continue this -- it is not a debate question or a sport or a challenge to you. Someone is sharing that they felt hurt and is asking for a little respect. Are we so far gone as to be unable to give it without fighting it?

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

If you step on someone's foot and they say ouch-- do you really need a formula to know that the response is sorry and not to do it again rather than gee your foot is too long-- or why should it hurt you, everyone else has steel-toed boots? No you apologize and stop doing it. This one seems fairly straight forward. When someone is hurt you don't evaluate why or question if they should be-- you, acknowledge it, stop it, then look for insight.

So, if someone uses the word "fuck" (or any other word of your choosing) and another babbler is genuinely offended by the use of that word, then, according to your standard, we'd all have to refrain from using that word.

Is that really the standard you are advocating?

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

 

Sven please don't continue this -- it is not a debate question or a sport or a challenge to you. Someone is sharing that they felt hurt and is asking for a little respect. Are we so far gone as to be unable to give it without fighting it?

Actually, I agreed with quizzical that using dehumanizing language should be avoided.  But that type of rhetoric is pervasive here (although it is not peculiar to babble).

Sven, I don't find your contributions helpful in this thread. Please stay out of it from now on.

That means that other babblers should stop addressing Sven's posts (or calling him obtuse) since he can't respond any more. Thanks.