Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

zoochotic wrote

It's not authoritarian to point out troubling language. People often want to know how their speech is being interpreted by others and bloodrose explicitly said that they appreciated the response.

6

bloodrose wrote

Absolutely! I should be better educated on this and it is no one's job to educate me on it so I appreciate the free education - someone took time outta their day to educate me. I feel thankful for that. :)

6

DarkArmillary wrote

u/zoochotic: Regarding harmful or "troubling" language: The N-word and the B-word and so on are fine to "call out/in" because they are actively harmful.

In contrast, the word "female" is not actively harmful. It is a descriptor. For the argument to be made that it is somehow harmful, it has to pass through at least two layers of subjective abstraction, based on an individual's interpretation. Again, contrast this subjective interpretation of "female" to actively harmful bigoted words which are well-established as socially harmful in practically every circumstance used.

Notice how none of us here actually have a problem typing out the word "female." We don't have to censor it. That's because there's nothing inherently wrong with it.

"When comparing the badnes of two words, and you can't say one of the words — that's the worse one."

u/bloodrose

−2

zoochotic wrote (edited )

Very bizarre argument you're making here. You seem to be suggesting that we should change our language not to accommodate or communicate better with other individuals we care about, who subjectively have an experience of a word different than our own, but instead to meet some fickle conservative social norms. The N-word is well-established as socially harmful, it wasn't 100 years ago. The B-word is barely established as socially harmful, it wasn't even just 10 years ago. So if 100 years ago someone voiced discomfort with you using the N-word around them you'd object? 10 years ago you'd tell women that the B-word isn't actively harmful? If you aren't making these decisions based on another person's subjective experience of the world, I don't know what the fuck you think you're doing. Like, is your interest here just in complying with social norms like an automaton? That's cop logic.

Notice how none of us here actually have a problem typing out the word "female." We don't have to censor it. That's because there's nothing inherently wrong with it.

That's because of context. If I said, "I was assigned female at birth", there is nothing offensive about that. If I said "trans women cannot use the women's bathroom because they are not females", that is clearly a problem. If I used the word "female" instead of "women", some people will get TERF vibes. For some people the word has connotations with TERFs that you yourself might not be familiar with, but you might want to be sensitive towards to a) make them more comfortable and b) not come across as a complete asshole or TERF.

"When comparing the badnes of two words, and you can't say one of the words — that's the worse one."

Mulaney is talking about the N-word versus "midget". Mulaney is simply saying that the former is worse, whereas you are arguing that calling little people midgets is fine and they should quit complaining - despite the problematic history of the word & the way people have used it towards them throughout their lives. Mulaney is not making the same point as you, and would disagree. And for the love of God please go read one of the books that you desperately need instead of getting your political philosophy from a comedian.

5

DarkArmillary wrote

So now I'm a conservative with cop logic, when earlier you called me a dumbass Marxist. You're all over the map here. I mean pick an insult and commit, buddy. Maybe you need clarification: I'm an anarchist. That's why I'm here, arguing with anarchists ;)

Very bizarre that you ignored key parts of my argument. My argument is not based on fickle norms of today or any other time, but rather a critical assessment of the harm that's actually done or clearly implied by the word. Bigoted words fall in that category. "Female" in itself does not fall into that category, and it is absolutely an absurd argument to say that the word itself is offensive. If it's used in a specifically patriarchally insulting way, then sure; but as a mere descriptor, that's an absurd argument to say it's offensive.

"If I said this then it's acceptable".. "if I said such and such then that is a problem."

What you're really trying to do is police my speech. I see it for what it is, authoritarian.

I have zero tolerance for hate speech and bigoted words. "Female" is not one of them and you will not convince me that it is.

0

zoochotic wrote

How's that all over the map? Most Marxists are conservative cops ;)

The person expressed exactly what the harm is. Harm is subjectively defined. Bigoted words used to not fall into that category, until over time & with much resistance they came to be. Language evolves when individuals voice their subjective experience with the use of language.

No one has said "female" is inherently bigoted. What is being said is that many TERFs use the word female instead of women to make a bigoted point about biology & gender, and it was suggested that the word women be used instead to make it clear that's not what bloodrose is doing. Bloodrose thought about it, and accepted the point as valid. There is no enforcement, punishment, coercion, or exclusion happening here - no policing. One person just spoke up about what the word represents to them and another appreciated the input.

If I were to use those coercive methods to force you to change your language, then you are correct, that would be policing. But I would not do that, and that is not what happened here at all. I don't understand why people, particularly men, have such a difficult time understanding the difference between policing and someone expressing their feelings about something you did.

4

DarkArmillary wrote

No, actually, there was no description of any harm caused, whatsoever. Apparently there was more discussion not on this thread, but as it appears here, the only thing that happened was someone suggested "oh no, you can't use that word, it's TERFy," so though the magic of social pressure (whatever you want to call it), they literally amended their words to erase the word "female." And you act like this rhetorical bullying doesn't happen all over rad-left spaces.

−2

zoochotic wrote

Immediately after that post bloodrose replied that they did not mean to be TERF-y so clearly they understood the harm, as did everyone else. If you didn't understand it, maybe ask the person?

Look, I'm usually the first to tell people to fuck off when it comes to language policing (policing not a simple criticism), but this just wasn't it.

5

[deleted] wrote

4

DarkArmillary wrote

Stupid trolls like you and the other one here degrade the quality of discourse in this entire space. Anarchism is not your personal social club for you to be snarky and get pats on the back from your buddies and some regular clique. I've seen it play out time and time again. It's fucking annoying. People like you give me less hope for Anarchism, as a movement.

−1

L0rdEMPRESS_GaLaXyBrAiN wrote

I've seen it play out time and time again. It's fucking annoying.

Yeah, class reductionist TERF's tend to not be treated to well here.

3

DarkArmillary wrote

Anarchist cliques and Anarchist egos and Anarchist snark is what gets played out time and time again. It's petty and toxic. Maybe that's just how humans are.

−3

Anarchox wrote

Thank you, comrade. I was inspired by this to speak up.

1

L0rdEMPRESS_GaLaXyBrAiN wrote

So now I'm a conservative with cop logic, when earlier you called me a dumbass Marxist.

Hate to break to to you, kiddo.

2