Snowflake Language Police Want You To Stop Using The "C" Word

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

If i am expected to act within a society, i should be able to comment on how that society functions.

Exactly

So, when people claim that they are no longer free to be complete asshats - because then people complain about it - I have no sympathy

Have you ever heard of the term passive aggressive?

IN a sense, the language police are the passive aggressive bullies of society. They are the ones who are creating hostility and being controlling by leveraging the power over spoken language.

When it comes to the point that you cannot use simple color words because you never know when someone might hear you say black, for example, in ANY context and be offended by it because THEY find it hurtful (which is certainly not my fault; how can I be expected to know what any complete stranger is or is not going to find upsetting?) or on the flip side be upset because I don't say black ... then the onus of bullying is one them. They are leveraging the power, not me.

When the law gives people the power to manipulate what I can or cannot say or do in ways where I cannot be reasonably expected to know from one person to the next what language I should be expected to use to avoid upsetting them ... then the bully is not me, it's the person who creates the intent inside themselves.

In other words, the intent of so-called hate speech has been shifted. We no longer look at whether or not I said a thing with the actual intent to cause distress. My intent does not matter anymore. All that matters is the impact (and this is how they will teach it to you in the corporate world). And you have no way of knowing what the impact of any damn thing you say will be because you absolutely cannot know what will hurt another person. No one reads minds.

It creates an environment of fear and it creates an environment where you are guilty until and unless you can prove yourself innocent which is absolutely antithetical to everything I've ever been taught about American jurisprudence.

a reply to: ketsuko

Have you ever heard of the term passive aggressive?

Let me get this straight...you have an absolute tanny tantrum right after you have a cow each and every time the mere idea of microaggressions is suggested - but passive aggressiveness is for you a serious problem?

And you don't see a connection between the two -at all?

You are hilarious ketsuko

When the law gives people the power to manipulate what I can or cannot say or do in ways where I cannot be reasonably expected to know from one person to the next what language I should be expected to use to avoid upsetting them ... then the bully is not me, it's the person who creates the intent inside themselves.

Do you have a real life example of what you're talking about here?

a reply to: Winstonian

So they are banning psychology now? Here is what I think is the reason. They do not wish to be pointed out they have a mental disorder. Which many people do so already, because of their lack of common sense & logical reasoning. So in order for them to avoid that and be discredited they ban words that are used to discredit them.

Either way, Modern day feminists are Nutcases built through political correctness. And that is the truth about them.

a reply to: Winstonian


Can you give me the 3 sentence summary of your OP?

Has some law been passed banning the word "Crazy"?

a reply to: Indigo5

A feminist would like us all to stop using the word crazy, because she suffers from ADHD and is offended by it because it makes her physically curl into the fetal position.

She then goes on to talk about how she had to "practice" and "work on" being newly offended by the word.

My commentary is basically "this is another example of social justice warriors campaigning to make anything and everything an offensive word or act."

originally posted by: EveStreet
a reply to: Winstonian

Pretty soon all words will be offensive in some way. We will only be allowed to communicate in small sighs, nods and interpretive dance.

JUST REMEMBER if you do an interpretive dance that it in any way appropriates an IDEOLOGICAL IDENTITY you do not conform to, everything you do will seem like it IS RIDICULOUS to everyone else.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: EveStreet

Pretty soon we are going to be forced to talk like troglodytes. Uga, uga, humm, humm?. Hummm..... Huuuh...

That would be the only way to not "offend" anyone. Heck the word "offend" can be offensive for some people... Heck, the word "people" can be offensive for some, since "some" want to be identified as "it" and not as a person...

What's wrong with Troglodytes?!?! I find them to be a very nice and welcoming species. If only you'd stop being so negative and just allowed yourself the opportunity to spend some time with the Troglodyte community, you might just find true and unconditional love with them.

Now, off to the dungeon with my level 13 sword of reason with +2 charisma to slay some Troglodytes.

forgottenrealms.wikia.com...

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

This is the problem with the internet. You call what I wrote a "tanny tantrum" and you label everything else I write in that manner, but as this IS the internet, you have even less of the cues we would have with ordinary language. You cannot get my verbal tone, body language, facial expressions, or anything in order to understand the full speaking context of what I write.

So you add what you imagine them to be. To you I am "angry" because to you only someone who is angry would possible write the things I write. You are creating the intent in my words. The problem, your "tanny tantrum," is thus being created by YOU and not me. You have no possible clue at all beyond the bare words what my intent and my emotional state actually is.

As for example ... Yes.

There was a case where a city councilman got upset over the use of the term "black hole." He claimed it was racist.

So, yes, now if I am sitting in a budget meeting with colleagues discussing a certain program that eats up a lot of money with no real return and I call it a black hole, referring to the interstellar phenomena, then if I have a colleague of color at the table, he or she may choose to find that offensive. My intent should be obvious there to anyone with half a brain, but to that person, it was a hurtful, racial comment creating a negative environment and that's all HR will care about. So, ergo, the use of the word "black" is dangerous because that's the only possible reason they might take it amiss. Where we discussing a white hole ... I am sure there would be no problem.

However, at the same meeting, if this same project were the pet project of my colleague of color and I were to unleash a diatribe in which I called him a "stupid effing n-word" for defending it constantly. I think my intent at that point would be crystal clear and I would deserve whatever I got for it.

a reply to: ketsuko

When you write straight words on the internet, you are missing all the unconscious cues of nonverbal language we usually read when we speak face to face. Intent is then in the eye of the beholder so to speak.

Yeah? I guess that's why books are so flat and vapid. Movies are so much better!

I guess that's why the Bible has so many interpretations and contradictions. The written word! Pffft, it can't be trusted!

(Did you, were you able to pick up on my sarcasm?. I mean with it just being written?)

a reply to: Winstonian

As someone with a mental illness I use crazy all the time to describe myself because at times I am bats**t crazy! People are so easily offended now a days!!!

"I'm not CRAZY I'm just a little unwell."

I embrace all the crazy I am and if someone wants to be offended by it then they have deeper issues if you ask me.

"We're all snowflakes."

/thread

a reply to: Gryphon66

tosses a giant massive enormous stupendous Snowflake at Griff's head... 'splat'.

/end splat.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
"We're all snowflakes."

/thread

Very good! We're making progress. We are all individuals, just like snowflakes. Now if we could stop people from grouping up into activism groups we might get somewhere.

a reply to: ketsuko

This is the problem with the internet. You call what I wrote a "tanny tantrum" and you label everything else I write in that manner, but as this IS the internet, you have even less of the cues we would have with ordinary language. You cannot get my verbal tone, body language, facial expressions, or anything in order to understand the full speaking context of what I write.

This works backwards and forwards

You can't hear how I say what I say. So much tongue in cheek....so...much :-)

But, you do tend to go on and on about your microaggression topic. In fact! I first heard the word in one of your posts - ages ago. Then I heard about it in your posts many times after - so, there is that

Microaggression is nothing but passive aggressive behavior

So, let's talk about that. You seem to think that passive aggressive behavior is a problem. And you think activism is a problem. What I'm hearing is - anything that runs counter to what you hold dear - is kind of a problem if someone brings it up. You should feel free to call things as you see it - but people who don't agree with you are not entitled to that same level of freedom

...I call it a black hole, referring to the interstellar phenomena, then if I have a colleague of color at the table, he or she may choose to find that offensive.

They might - hypothetically

My intent should be obvious there to anyone with half a brain, but to that person, it was a hurtful, racial comment creating a negative environment and that's all HR will care about.

Yes - to anyone with half a brain - but not that hypothetical person of color with less than half a brain

I'm beginning to understand why the whole microaggression thing seems like kind of a landmine for you

However, at the same meeting, if this same project were the pet project of my colleague of color and I were to unleash a diatribe in which I called him a "stupid effing n-word" for defending it constantly. I think my intent at that point would be crystal clear and I would deserve whatever I got for it.

Your example is flawed - but honestly - if what you're saying is that microaggression (or passive aggressive behavior) is preferable to open hostility - that is a topic too big for this post - and for this thread

But since I think what you're really saying is you might get busted and suffer real world consequences based on some offhand comment you might make without real malice - I'll just agree that that would be wrong

So you add what you imagine them to be. To you I am "angry" because to you only someone who is angry would possible write the things I write. You are creating the intent in my words. The problem, your "tanny tantrum," is thus being created by YOU and not me. You have no possible clue at all beyond the bare words what my intent and my emotional state actually is.

I always go by your words ketsuko - your words say what you mean. How you say them is less important to me to be honest. Humor is everything to me - and you do tend to go off on certain subjects

I can see that the tanny tantrum/having a cow thing bothered you - and I know this because you felt the need to correct me. Sometimes in life, we feel the need to stand up for ourselves - and point out that the way other people see us - and the way they treat us - is not accurate or fair, and it bothers us

Where's the harm in that one might well ask - but then, we wouldn't be where we are if it were only that simple

_________________________________________________

Your example - one guy in a story out of Texas - in the year 2008

Just saying - how is this relevant? Anything else?

Can you see the very obvious problem with this whole snowflake thing?

a reply to: TheLaughingGod

Explain what?

There's your start

:-)

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Gryphon66
"We're all snowflakes."

/thread

Very good! We're making progress. We are all individuals, just like snowflakes. Now if we could stop people from grouping up into activism groups we might get somewhere.

Exceptionally noble thought, Kets.

How are you actively working toward that goal?

Conservative outrage and lone bloggers. This sounds like an infowars article by Paul Joseph Watson.

The kind of stuff that gets all the "awake" people stird up like a group of frantic sheep. However, we "awake" conservatives must remember to fight against the "sheeple" masses.

I dislike psuedo-feminism as much as i dislike sensationalist news. It's full of outrage and emptyiness.

"So now that we know what this poor soul is inflicted with, let us take a look at her entire article regarding her struggle with the word crazy. This is, of course, a very SERIOUS illness. I can see exactly why she would have such an issue with this word, the "C" word. "

Thankfully a mature, thoughtful ITS member decided to introduce this delicate matter to us. I shudder to say so but im afraid other members may have approached this brave souls struggle in JEST, shame to the very thought...

that cant even make their own crazy rules clear. whoops, did i just say the no no word?