I’ll take your lack of response as a declinature of my offer. Don’t say I didn’t try.
(Cross-replying because imo it moves beyond the censorship discussion per se) This attitude — and it’s a shitty attitude — is one of the reasons censoring the word is unlikely to work. It even feels somewhat disingenuous; I mean I assume the N-word is censored here (don’t feel like testing that) but I also think someone who was very clearly using it, censorship be damned, would be banned and would be banned for doing that, even if they carefully avoided doing anything else banworthy. In fact, I’d hope so. IMO, the mere fact that you’re willing to accept the use of ■■■■ if censored indicates that you don’t really think what you’ve just said you think. You just think it will be a compelling argument if accepted at face value.
I’ve argued ITT that the word is just different in other parts of the English-speaking world, and virtually everyone from other English-speaking parts of the world agrees. Are we all lying? Or just mistaken about our own language? I’ve even been patient about the fact that non-Americans seem to understand that it’s highly offensive in American English while Americans seem to have genuine difficulty grasping that it’s just not in other forms of English. We all grew up watching far more American movies and TV shows, reading far more American books etc than the converse. But past a certain point, maintaining this attitude, this notion that the word means what it means in American English and nothing else is just ignorance. Provincial, parochial ignorance.
I’m sympathetic to the argument that the sensitivity of those who are offended by it matters more than the sensibilities of people who don’t see it as a big deal. If people want to censor the word, well I may think it’s futile, but that’s all it is, I’m not being oppressed or even actually censored in any meaningful way. But I object in the strongest fucking terms possible to the insistence that no it is sexist when a Brit calls Johnson a ■■■■ , it just is!!!1!
You’re going to get your asterisks or whatever, you’re going to get what you want. You won. It’s bad form, and bad for the forum, and just bad generally, to maintain this idea that Oh we had to ban the c-word because the sexist Brits kept sexistly using it in a sexist way because they’re sexist. If you need to tell yourself you’re committing to a noble lie and merely pretending that non-Americans use the word differently, then go ahead and do that, take the W and shut the fuck up.
False choice.
7 Likes
If your company hired a single American female ex-pat at your company, and after hearing your use of the term told you that it made her extremely uncomfortable, belittled, and unwelcome even though you used it to describe Boris Johnson, would you insist that your usage wasn’t sexist or drop your use of the word?
I want you to moderate your posting all the time, not for just a 12 hour window during most of which you’ll be asleep.
1 Like
Is there anyone here who thinks this?
1 Like
It’s odd you think I don’t. You should hear how my friends and I talk to one another.
I don’t see any other way to interpret:
I feel that would be like justifying the use of a racial slur amongst a group that did not include the slurred race.
Also:
Like it’s been a whole discussion, mate.
Then what would you do?
I’d do what ‘false choice’ implies and what I was already doing before this entire discussion began — I’d curb my use of the term in areas where it was likely to cause offence. I certainly wouldn’t send an email around saying “Sexism now banned, no more c-words lads” and if I did do that, I’d expect people to object to it.
It’s just locker room talk!
1 Like
Yes. It’s hard to believe you haven’t seen this said. I mean, this was the whole of the original thrust - the word is sexist wherever in the world it’s used because you must bow to our definition.
1 Like
It’s not, though. “Locker-room talk” implies that it would ordinarily be abstained from in the presence of women. That’s just not the case here. Like you are emphatically proving my point here about the inability of certain people to process that no, it really does mean something different outside America.
Tempban for abuse of someone who I just found out is still posting here.
I’m sorry, I thought you were answering the previous question about what you would do if an American expat joined your workplace and told you she found your use of the word uncomfortable or peoblematic.
As in, it’s ok to say it in the “locker room”, just not around her.
Are you allowed to tempban mods? Because there are several personal attacks in the other thread and some of them are from mods.
4 Likes
Well, right now, you are in a place where you know it causes offense. And many of the “lads” want to continue to use the term knowing it causes offense.
1 Like
How the fuck was mike supposed to know that cuse’s gimmick was still posting?
6 Likes
I’ve thought about reporting some posts for trolling and insults.
1 Like
Dunno, but it was already kinda fuzzy whether or not CW counted as a person who could be abused. My thought is that no, he is not open to abuse, but if he really weren’t a member here I wasn’t sure I would have legit authority to moderate attacks on him. I think this means I do. I could see an argument either way though.
Don’t know and assume not.
LOOOOOOL
And we can’t even put them on ignore either.
Q. If someone posts a jpeg of a section of literature in context that contains the unexpurgated c word, will it result in a ban?