>I’m going off the rails on an [ableist slur redacted] train. Also: Cat poll!
>
Well, discussions about my second Scott Adams piece over on Feministe (which was basically identical to my post here) have now been completely derailed by a number of commenters who’ve decided I’m “ableist” because I used the word … “idiot.” That word, they have decided, is offensive to the “cognitively impaired.” If you want to wade into the mess, here’s the comment that, while polite in itself, started the long slide down this particular rabbit hole. You can see my responses in blue further down in the comments.
I consider this kind of language policing to the EXTREME! to be bad for feminism (and frankly insulting to people with disabilities), and I’m glad a number of others have stood up against it in the comments there. I don’t think that the language police are in the majority at Feministe, much less in feminism at large. But these debates are so frustrating that many feminists who disagree with the language police end up biting their tongues and/or just walking away. At some point I may post more about this fraught topic here.
In the meantime, I’m am conducting a little poll about cats. Please click the appropriate button in the graphic above. Clicking it won’t actually do anything, but I’m pretty sure what the results are going to be anyway. Go kitties!
-
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.
Advertisement
Posted on April 3, 2011, in bullying, feminism, idiocy, kitties, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. 264 Comments.
>I just need to say that this blog doesn't seem to support more then two hundred posts, and I wrote a really amazing post about topics that made me look brilliant and then my internet connection went down. I'm going to have to give my provider a piece of my mind tomorrow.Also David: I have tomorrow off as well, I've decided I'm going to read some book written by Douglas Coupland but I'll need a break. Could you be a dear and write something scandalous, interesting, and or debatable again?
>This is the internet, dude. Given that all you know about me is pixels in the shape of words on a screen, I'd say you're best sticking to judging me by the words I write and nothing else. IRL I use my intuition, because that's based on facial tics, eye movement, body language, that sort of thing. I don't think there's anything energetic to it, excepting inasmuch as we are all made of energy. Long story short, you gave the impression of being a troll on the previous thread. You've done nothing to alter that impression here.
>It must have had bacon in it Kave.
>Elizabeth…..You meant Iberico ham?
>"The phrase "sucks don't it" was meant to be interpreted more or less literally. As in, "Yes, we can all agree that that is an unfortunate state of affairs."I'm sorry, really, I'm supposed to interpret 'sucks, doesn't it, but you see, men have been oppressing women for all of eternity so…..' as "we can all agree that that is an unfortunate state of affairs."? I really would like to give it to you, but it's just not credible. The implication was very clear.
>So, sorry victor. If you interpreted it that way then I'm sorry, that sucks, but the implication was not at all clear, as evidenced by the differing interpretations of it.
>"No, sorry"not "So, sorry"Typo.
>A: "I am a white wealthy man who has had problems."B: "Yes, having problems is terrible. Now imagine having those problems and being something other than a white wealthy man."That's what was meant. If I was unclear then that's on me. Since there were differing interpretations of what was meant then I will cop to being unclear. However, some people DID understand what I meant, so I wasn't THAT unclear. Now that I've clearly explained myself, victor, are you going to believe me? Are you going to continue to believe that I was INTENTIONALLY justifying hatred of wealthy white guys and stealing all their stuff? If the latter, why?
>Sally: your post about Kave is now out of the spam filter. But because it's sort of a pain in the ass to ask people to scroll up and then go to the previous page to read it, I'm pasting the whole thing in below:SallyStrange said: Jesus Christ on a Cracker, Kave, that was laughably pathetic. I just lost a lot of respect for you. To sum up: Kave says he's a wealthy white guy. victor responds: you just became an irrelevant non-person. To me, "irrelevant non-person" is a perfect encapsulation of the frustration that comes from dealing with discrimination. I feel like an irrelevant non-person whenever politicians talk about shutting down funding for contraceptive services because trying to be not-pregnant is a Bad Thing which should be separate from normal medical care for normal people (the ones who don't have to worry about being pregnant or not-pregnant). Because the most important thing about me is my fucking uterus (ooo! dirty word!). For my boyfriend, who's African American, it's dealing with co-workers who refuse to give him constructive criticism until months after the fact, because they're actually afraid of him, like he's going to curse them out and throw shit or something. What evidence do they have for him being a scary violent guy who can't take criticism? None, aside from the fact that he's black and male. My comment was intended to inspire Kave, and any other wealthy white guys out there reading, to imagine what it would be like to have his problems, which are real and important, PLUS a whole host of other problems that arise due to factors beyond his control-being born with the wrong skin color, the wrong genitalia, the wrong sexuality, etc. IOW, try a little empathy on for size. It might suit you. But instead we were treated to a paranoid rant involving the persecution of the Jews in Germany. And how my request for a little empathy was really my way of saying why it's totally justified to hate Kave and take all his stuff. And they say feminists play the victim card. And they say Black people play the victim card. Shit. We ain't got nothin' compared to wealthy white guys when it comes to playing the victim card. April 4, 2011 6:58 PM
>Mille mercis, M. Futrelle. The uterus being a dirty word thing was a reference to the FL state legislature, where Repubs recently chastised a Dem politician for using the word "uterus" in his speech, saying that it was "inappropriate" for the kiddies to hear. This, at a time when they are pushing a bill for force women to view images of their uterus before getting an abortion. The link was embedded. Misogyny in our government. And language policing run amok!
>Now Kave, stop using that wealth given quality education against us ghetto rats.
>I can't remember who said but somebody accused me of Godwinning. Yeah..no. Rich white dude whines about how haaaaaaaaaaaaaaard he has it, then compares himself to the Jews during the Holocaust? Oh, heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelllllll no. HELL NO. And he does nice things? Really? OMG, give him a cookie! Dude, doing nice things is not something you get rewarded as, especially as your amount of privilege rises. By God, you should do nice things and lots of them if you're lucky enough to be rich—especially these days. That's the problem with a lot of so-called allies—they want to get a cookie no matter how easy they have it, how little they do, because they know the bar for womens' rights issues is ridiculously low. So if the first time I see a guy he's simultaneously boasting about how great he is, yet how he suffers as a victimized rich white guy—-while acting like nobody else has problems—and then compares himself to the victims of the Holocaust? Yeah, no. My father's family was wiped out in the Holocaust. Great grandmother, uncles, cousins, etc., etc., etc., My father himself fought in that war, and my mother's brother was killed by the Nazis. Don't try that shit around me. Things you can compare to the Holocaust…… The Holocaust. The end.
>DavidFirst my last post was in jest, I hope you know that. (about you coming up with a witty entry for tomorrow etc)For the record. I am the most privileged person. Ever. Can you please tell me though where I ever said I was a victim? I did say everyone has bad things happen in their lives including myself. Either we have a great misunderstanding David or you just attacked my character and told me I lack empathy.
>GinmarNothing. I can't possibly respond to you. You are the same as every bat shit crazy mra who grabs onto a small statement for dear life to decide they are going to tear someone down with it.
>The most privilege person ever was George W. Bush. And we all know what happened to him.
>I was the person who mentioned Godwin's Law, and it wasn't directed at you, Ginmar - it was referencing Kave's Holocaust metaphor. By using the term 'Godwin's Law', I was conveying that I thought that bring up the Holocaust REALLY wasn't helping his greater point.
>Kave, I have lost rack of what I said to whom, but I believe I was talking generally about the general idea of anyone being able to claim victimhood. Which is true, anyone can, and endless pissing contests over just who is the biggest victim may not be very constructive. But at the same time I think that we do need to keep in mind that some groups really are victimized more than others, and that some people really do have privilege.
>Kave, actually, I think what happened here is that you mistook the spam-filtered comment from Sally that I pasted into one of my comments above as being from me.
>And Kave's true colors come out. God, how guys do love to whip out the crazy label when their argument sucks and they've been hoist by their own petard.
>Kave pointed out that even his fairly privileged situation wasn't enough to insulate him from grief and sadness, that's all. Love is universal, which means that the suffering which comes when that love is lost is also universal. He's not the enemy. Being rich, white and male doesn't mean that someone is automatically the enemy. It's possible to be all three and be for feminism and for equality. I won't defend Kave's Holocaust metaphor, because I think that was ill-chosen. But it's not enough of a faux pas to roundly condemn him as lacking empathy. Come on, flip through the archives and read his comments. He's not our enemy.
>Trip you have to come out and meet the real world. Standing in line in the grocery store if you turn to your side you will find dozens of tabloids which deal exclusively with knocking down the rich and/or famous. Picking on me , my wife, my family, etc is a national pastime.You have got to be kidding me. For starters, there are multiple facets to this public attention that the famous receive. Sure, the tabloid media can be seen to delight in the misfortunes of the rich to some extent. But what a middle- or lower-class person really sees when s/he looks at the cover of People or a tabloid is that the problems of rich people are way more important than the problems of other people. People who aren't rich and famous don't get headlines plastered across People Magazine when they get cancer.
>But whatever the nature of this public attention, you're trying to tell me that it's as bad as the issues faced by poor people, and that is complete and utter bullshit.In fact, for the sake of contrast, consider what happens when lower-class people do get national attention. It ain't pretty.You're the one who's detached from reality. The disadvantages of being rich are that you get your face on tabloids and you have a lot of shit from the IRS to deal with? You poor thing. I feel so sorry for how hard it is to manage the MASSIVE FUCKING WEALTH you possess. And then, in the finest tradition of conservative pundits, you any calling you out on your privilege denial as class envy. You're ridiculous.
>He's not the enemy. Being rich, white and male doesn't mean that someone is automatically the enemy.Not automatically, no. But it is incredibly difficult for upper-class people to sympathize ingenuously with people of lower classes. We've seen this pattern repeated many times. Kave isn't the first rich liberal who turned out to be blind to much of his own privilege.It's possible to be all three and be for feminism and for equality.Certainly. In the same sense that it's possible for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle.Jesus was pretty clear and unambiguous when he said, multiple times, that owning a lot of wealth and being a good person aren't compatible. I'm not Christian but I have to agree with Jesus on that point.
>I'm going to say it's really hard for people who were born wealthy to realize what it's like to be poor or even middle class, and that people who WEREN'T born rich but BECAME rich might forget what it was like. I'm sure there are some fabulously wealthy people who try to be as good as possible. And there are plenty of Dick Assmans of various socioeconomic levels. Also, what if you liquefied the camel and squirted it in very small water jets through the eye of a needle?? What then??? I mean, it wasn't EASY but if all a rich man needs to get into heaven is a blender and some kind of tiny hose …
>If Kave were living in Nazi Germany, he would be complaining about how Aryan Germans had things hard too so the Jews, Roma, communists, etc. shouldn't be complaining so much (okay, so I Godwined, but he went there first).
>Recent studies have shown that as wealth inequality increases, the degree of empathy rich people feel for the less-rich decreases.
>Kave, again, you're missing nuances of the conversation because of your privileged position in society. Guess what? When women talk about problems we encounter specifically because we are women, and how we’d like to change society so that merely being a woman doesn’t mean having ton of extra, unnecessary problems, we’re accused of playing the victim card. When POC talk about experiencing racism, racist discrimination, and racist stereotypes, and how that causes problems for them in their lives, they are accused of playing the victim card. See, if you weren’t wealthy, white, and male, you’d be aware of this trend. I was mocking that silly trend by saying that when you stated that, “Hey I have problems too,” you were “playing the victim card.” Also, when you compared the problems you faced just for being rich to the problems Jews in Germany faced just for being Jews, you really were playing the Victim Card, in the truly negative sense that the haters mean by it when they deploy the phrase against social justice advocates, and in a really despicable way. You should really own up to that.
>(okay, so I Godwined, but he went there first).Yeah, you didn't commit a Godwin when the discussion has already been Godwinned. Can of worms is already open.Recent studies have shown that as wealth inequality increases, the degree of empathy rich people feel for the less-rich decreases.That makes sense. Not sure which way the causation flows, but the correlation does make sense.And as most of us here probably know, income inequality in the US hit its highest point in 95 years in 2007.
>Standing in line in the grocery store if you turn to your side you will find dozens of tabloids which deal exclusively with knocking down the rich and/or famous. Picking on me , my wife, my family, etc is a national pastime.Seriously, I can't get over this. Our ENTIRE SOCIETY is built to the advantage of the wealthy, and you think you're being oppressed by tabloid coverage.I could write an entire book about all the levels on which that statement is incredibly awful.
>The title of this post made me spew coffee out my nose I laughed so hard. Nicely done.
>Captain Bathrobe said… " This issue, like so many, is complicated. There are people who are genuinely offended by what they consider to be ableist language and/or contemptuous of those who use it. There is definitely a value to examining the words we use. It is naive, however, to suggest that the motivations of everyone who calls out other people's language are pure as the driven snow. There are very definitely those in the left/liberal/feminist movement who engage in oneupmanship (sorry, no gender neutral term came to mind) for its own sake. Often, these are people who are fairly privileged themselves and, feeling insecure about it, take it upon themselves to pile on anyone perceived as being more privileged any chance they get as a way of burnishing their street cred. Thus, we get the 200+ post pile-ons we saw on Feministe. "I'd just like to second this. And add that another issue I see is that too often, people take a name and a handful of sentences posted on a blog like Feministe and make extremely broad generalizations about the person behind them. Furthermore, from those generalizations, they decide focus their comments to reflect those generalizations in a personalized manner and use that as an opportunity to brandish a string of insults and accusations. Meanwhile, unless the person offers a narrative about their background in detail, there's no way to know what social status and experience any given commenter has. And even if you get the narrative, there's still the chance that it's all bullshit. And so conversations - including a lot of this one over the past day - go from discussing and debating actual issues to things like "You're a feminazi cunt supporter!" and "You're an evil, privileged dipshit oppressor." And members of audience chime in on whether said commenters are "angry" or "violent," or if they are "justified" in insulting others because of their "status." As far as I'm concerned, it makes any discussion about the careful use of language totally laughable.
>It comes down to He jests at scars that never felt a wound. Yeah, and Nathan, sometimes it is possible to tell what a person's status is. Maybe you're just not paying attention or don't want to see what it is. Kave's a good example. His sufferings, let him show them to you. Just like Nazi Germany. I see he didn't take me up on my kind offer to make things easier for him in the way he claimed he desired. And I'm really curious—where are these death camps for rich white guys in America?
>ginmar - What's the point in pushing a whole discussion in the direction of a guy like kave?I find it amazing how often people will derail discussions about issues of social justice, oppression, sexism, and all the rest in order to "virtually" - i.e. online) tear some guy a new asshole. Taking Kave down a peg does absolutely nothing to address the systemic issues that land us in conversations like this in the first place. In fact, even if the goal is to perhaps educate someone, it's more likely the case that a person with piles of privilege is simply going to walk off and ignore every last word that was said. Except the insults and personal attacks. They'll remember how those righteous fucks online said such and such, and that's about it.
>I was going to write a letter to Feministe to say that they've shot themselves in the foot with their commenting policy. It is truly awful, and moderator Cara reminds me of a Chinese village enforcer during the cultural revolution, policing every word for ideological purity. It does silence voices, and certainly deters me from commenting, or even reading, on their site. I looked up Cara in their "about" section. She does a lot of writing, including the anthology for "Yes Means Yes", which I highly admire. And the first word in the their comment policy is "safe". So, what they're doing is fully supported, and I even understand why they're doing it. I just completely disagree with the final results.And really, the women who agreed with David got called "cheerleaders"? And that wasn't called out for the rampant sexism that it is? Not ok.So, I won't write to them to say they've lost a feminist reader, but I'll say David, keep up the good work. This is a tough blog to run, and tough sometimes to read. But an eyeopener, and highly enjoyable if I'm up for the fight.Also, Diane K., I heart you.
>@ NathanYour concern is noted.
>Gee, Nathan, I notice you're implying that I'm the righteous asshole for taking Kave down a peg, while he devoted paragraphs and paragraphs to whining about how hard he had it as proof that rich people don't have it so great. It's always fascinating to me how men stand up to men and don't like it when the uppity women don't tolerate the bullshit.
>God mother fucking damnit, I had the best comment ever just eaten by the internets.
>Yeah ginmar, didn't you know that the only way to move the cause forward is to be unfailingly nice to anyone who doesn't get it? I mean, being NICE has worked so well for women for the past 2,000 years… wait…
>I'm going to try this again, but the shorter, less thoughtful version. Humor me by imagining that whatever I say was going to be much more brilliant than it is.Personally, the "safe space" ideal is one that doesn't make sense online. Safe spaces are very useful when you need a therapeutic atmosphere and can control the level of discourse and manage conflict directly. Blogs, especially political blogs, where the level of discourse is motivated by us vs. them outrage and snark, are terrible spaces to try to make safe. You just don't have the ability to create that type of atmosphere in an "unwalled garden".On top of that, triggers are very tricky things. It's difficult even with a lot of training to anticipate your own triggers (and I've had a lot of training). Fifteen-plus years of training still don't prevent me from reacting negatively to triggers, and oftentimes these are triggers I wasn't aware of. The world at large — hell, the internet at large — isn't responsible for my peace of mind. I am. It's my responsibility to manage my triggers and my depression as a part of my own mental health management plan. Which is to say that creating this expectation that blogs should serve as therapeutic spaces is wrong-headed and unfair to all involved, including PWD and the owners of said spaces who, unless they are trained therapists, have no business crafting group therapy for the rest of us. Also. In the comments at Feministe, nobody really got into how problematic it is, nor how arguably ableist it is, to try to protect PWD and women from potentially offensive language and/or experiences. I get the reaction to the language and feel like the disagreement should have died and everyone should agree to disagree. I get cranky about certain words and the nastiness implied, but I also recognize that the usage of that language says a lot of useful things about the speaker and his or her philosophies. I'm more interested in the meat of the argument than its presentation, and I am very wary of anyone who thinks that PWD/WWD are unable to handle difficult discourse without first yanking out a row of fainting couches.
>ginmar - You really proved some of my points far too easily. But hey, go ahead. Lump me in with him, and continue to focus on his whining (which I agree was mostly whining. I never defended the dude's arguments, and have zero interest in continuing to talk about them. Sally, I'm not talking about being nice. I'm talking about strategy. Name calling and personal attacks don't tend to get people to stop talking bullshit. In fact, it often just brings out more bullshit. And it's a sure fire way online to take any discussion away from the issues on the table. On another note, I forgot to vote. Cats. Yes. Gotta love 'em.
>Uh huh. Thanks for the advice. Your concern is noted. Thanks for focusing your disapproval on the feminists in the room rather than anyone else. That by itself speaks volumes.
>I'm going to repost my initial comment, then comment on it. marginalization Here's the thing Trip.I am the "man". White wealthy male who actually owns an industry family owned for generations business . That doesn't stop me from having an insane brother who tried to kill his family, or stop me from holding my parents hand as they died, and frankly I'd think about trading place with the middle class when it comes with dealing with their estate. It didn't stop me from having a child die of cancer, etc.I know my family has privileges that others wish they had, which turns to envy. Envy isn't a pretty thing. It leads to just what this thread is about meaning who can claim being worse off. It leads to people saying things like so what your kid died you have everything.People can be mean or kind, the only thing that is in your control is how you choose to deal with it. You can look up and say "why have you forsaken me, I give up", and put the blame onto someone else, or you can just do what needs to be done and stop worrying about what the other projects on to you.EVERYONE from the weakest human to the strongest goes through shit in their lifetime. You can always find someone worse off or better off then yourself. I'm a white male who is wealthy. That's three points on your privilege guide. I could be a white man who is poor and homeless. Two points?One thing I do know is if someone is going to have a panic attack because someone used the word idiot, that my friend is called natural selection and about the most un-feminist comment ever posted.I believe you are male? If so stop treating woman like they need to be protected by you! If you are female then stop being a prime example that people can point to to say "see, riding the pity party wanting others to make her life more comfortable.".
>My rebuttal.I’ve waited for this thread to die to comment back. Move onto something else, those that are interested can read. My comments were meant to say that shit happens and it crosses race and class and some people are hit with shit and some are not. I came out, so to speak as a poster child of class privilege who has also had to deal with horrible things in their lives. Like watching my son die, etc. I would say that I didn’t word things well. My comment about dealing with my parent’s estate to myself was a bit of a lighthearted thing, I would never for instance compare dealing with my parents estate with being a starving child, but I would compare it with the middleclass arguing about who gets grandma’s china. It’s not pleasant and I would love to whine about it… but I guess I’ll have to find some other online community to do so.I brought up the tabloid reference; my family and myself are in no way in danger of being in them. But I do empathize with say Prince Harry for being born into a fish tank. I wouldn’t want to be him.I had amazing parents which is my greatest privilege, they were bohemians way before such thing was, they let me grow up on the factory floor, hang out with the tool and die maker and learn from him throughout my childhood, they supported my insistence at 18 that I didn’t want to continue my formal education (right when my mother got her engineering degree that she couldn’t get in the 1950’s) I just wanted to be in the Plant. I’m still there and I consider myself a success. PS My wife is a saint. She’s a atheist saint, but one nonetheless.
>Someone at Feministe actually said that David's totally offensive use of the term "idiot" was so insensitive as to be "retarded." I don't know if anyone here mentioned that specific example, but it kind of blew my mind.
>In all honesty, I've used "idiot" fairly regularly. I did find the tone of your response to the first comment about ableism to be pretty condescending, whether you meant it to be that way or not. What's more, while you accused your dissenters of bullying, you did not similarly acknowledge that Diane K was doing some serious bullying of her own. Certainly didn't help things. That all said, holy shitstorm on all fronts, and unnecessary, really. However, one commenter did mention that in one State, the word "idiot" was used for the cognitively challenged right up until 2007. Nobody seemed to respond to that one, but I do believe that, if it's true, that significantly changes things. I personally had no idea, but if it's true, I do plan to check my use of the word "idiot" from now on.
>Reality matters, tit for tat. Sure, anyone can claim to be a victim, but not everyone actually is one. Anyone could claim to be the Queen of England, but that does not mean that they are. Over here in reality, poor people, women, queer people, people with disabilities, etc. are the ones who are being victimized by the system here. Not you, you whiner. To use your Nazi example, the Nazis claimed they were being oppressed by Jews and that was total and complete bullshit, however, when the Jews claimed the Nazis were oppressing them, that was totally and absolutely true. You know why? Because of reality. Also, do you think poor people, people of color, and women are suddenly immune to cancer and insults? I'll remember to tell my mom that while she was trying to keep us from starving that she should feel pity because you rich assholes had to hear someone insult you. Of course, as a poor woman with multiple children, she was insulted publically constantly. She also lost several relatives during that time. But, I forget, this is your pity party, you can cry if you want to.
>No question I could have handled it better, Diane K could have handled it better, a lot of people could have handled it better. The very first comment about "idiot" was polite. I didn't actually notice that comment until the second, extremely not-polite comment was made, and that's the one I responded to with, admittedly, some testiness. As for the 2007 thing, here is where it's from:http://disabledfeminists.com/2009/10/11/ableist-word-profile-idiot/There's no source given for the claim there, or much of an explanation; it seems to refer to the term appearing in a law that wasn't changed until 2007. But this is a far cry from showing that the term was actually being used by anyone in a medical context that recently. Our legal system is filled with archaic laws that remain on the books for decades without being referred to or enforced; it may simply be that this law is one of them. I seriously doubt that any doctors have used this term for years if not decades.
>And Kave and Nathan reveal what passes for so-called 'allies' these days—whiny assholes who want to take center stage and kick women down if they dare say anything. Thanks, Nathan! Good luck with that Buddhist enlightenment. Kave's sense of self pity guarantees he'll never do anything for anybody but himself—whining the whole while about being a rich white dude is just like being a Jew during the Holocaust. And that's what passes for enlightenment amongst some men. Nathan's sense of self-superiority matters more to him than any credo of his alleged religion. Gotta win the last word over those bitches that dared to suggest that being a rich whiny self-pitying white dude is not anything on the same planet as being a victim of the Holocaust. So, Kave, you whiny little shit shitstain, why haven't you identified those death camps for men that exist on American soil?
>I think at this point everyone has pretty much said everything they need to say on this topic and then some, so let's move on.
>Agreed. Let's talk about entirely unrelated things.Cough visit my blog cough
>Kitties!
>Hey,I biffed off from this because it upset me a lot after a while. But I wanted to say two things:1) It's hard to tell who has a disability and who doesn't in a thread. Moreso even than race or gender, people may have systemic reasons why they can't discuss it. Discrimination against people with disabilities is really common; people who expect employers to google them may not be able to talk about, for instance, mental illnesses, in as open a way as they would otherwise. So when we assume that a majority of people calling others out on language are privileged… well, who knows? At any rate, it's unpleasantly reminiscent of the allegations during racefail that there weren't really that many non-white fans of SF and they were probably all sockpuppets.2) Diane K, I really wish my comment to you at feministe had gone through initially instead of yonks later at the end of the thread. I get that you were being prickly and cat-and-mousing and yeah, that was kind of obnoxious from my POV, but I get it. But the comment about panic attacks and not leaving the house was extremely cruel. As I said at feministe, panic attacks are a common cause of agoraphobia. One becomes afraid of having a panic attack in uncontrolled situation outside the house. You're talking about a real situation, a crippling and embarrassing one, and mocking someone for it. Whether or not she is in that situation, it's cruel. And it's cruel to everyone who's in it themselves, was in it at one time, or has loved ones in it. Maybe "idiot" or "crazy" shouldn't be generically tabooed as metaphorical insults, but when you're using them as insults against specific people *in their literal definition*, come on, you have to know that's ableist. It's not okay to walk up to someone with Down Syndrome and say, "What's an idiot like you doing outside the house?" It's not okay to hear someone saying they're having trouble with mental illnesses and say, "Why don't they just put crazy people like you in fucking asylums already?" You really, really crossed the line. That you can't think of anything else to "do with that information" and that you think people discussing their mental illnesses is a "pity party" indicates that you've got some serious fucking problems with this issue.
>My grandfather regards "Hell" as a serious curse word, and is deeply offended if I use it in his presence. So, I don't. I think he's being silly, but I care about offending him, so I choose not to use terms that offend him.It recently came to light that some members of our Congress find the word "uterus" offensive. I think they're being silly, and I don't give two shits about offending them, so I am even more likely to intentionally use "uterus" around them if I ever get the chance. The thing is, I don't DENY that I'm being offensive after somebody has told me that they find a particular term offensive. I know damn well that I'm choosing to use a term that bums them out (for whatever reason). So, I make sure I only use such words if I really am okay with bumming them out. When it comes to groups like, say, gay people, or disabled people, or mentally ill people, folks who are routinely shat on by society at large, I generally feel like I don't really want to bum them out. They get bummed out enough. So, since I don't want to bum them out, I try to avoid using works that they find bothersome. When it comes to groups like, say, right-winger asshats who find ladybits offensive, I generally feel like they get entirely too much attention and positive regard as it is. So, since I am more than happy to harsh their mellow, I try to specifically use words that hurt their feelings and bum them out whenever possible.
>ROFLMAO… Finally got to experience the irrational thought processes that one must endure when debating some of the entitled feminists. I also see you got called on your male "privilege" at least once, were told you were getting to defensive, simply for explaining yourself, and had your honest questions ignored in favour of continuing to attack your character. Not to mention, never to my notice, were you offered a word alternative that actually applied. I especially liked the condescension and entitlement from this line:"You can change one word, or you can expend a lot of energy to get defensive. Your choice."IE " do what you're told or we'll make it difficult for you"I'm especially amused by the fact that, manyof the reasons they give for insisting you change the word ("because it happens to offend "someone" and thus, should not be used" is often completely forgotten when a man says a commercial depicting manhood as the cause of rape, and calling for a need to teach our boys not to be rapists, right from the crib, is offensive.I'm curious, did they manage to get you banned after all? You should have known better then to show an modicum of free will as a man within the hallowed halls. (is that victim blaming? oh well)