It does seem to be enough for a majority of them. They are just arguing with people who insist that their usage of it is sexist, regardless of the fact that it’s not sexist where they come from. This is basically the entire argument as far as I can tell.
3 Likes
What are you talking about? We’re just waiting for the pole to close. There’s really no reason to keep talking about this once it does.
Like 12 people have repeatedly stated that they didn’t think using the word was evidence that the person was sexist. They stated over and over again that the intent of censoring the word is two-fold: to avoid unintentionally offending someone of the disadvantaged group; to avoid creating a situation where the moderators are forced to read the user of the words intent to determine the motive of their use of the word. I’m not aware of anyone who has taken the position that you are now. I’m sure some people’s thoughts are a bit more nuanced or slightly different flavor than the above but that’s probably >50% of the people’s view.
There are a few outliers like one person who stated that if a word offended anyone we should consider banning it but I don’t think there would be majority support for this as its a pretty problematic idea.
Hope you can put this strawman to rest because you keep saying it over and over but its simply not true. Sorry in advance if I’m misunderstanding what you are saying.
1 Like
You should instead apologize for confusing me and my strawman for somebody else.
I’m probably not the one who should apologize from this exchange.
u wot m8
1 Like
In case you missed it, Wookies viewpoint is an outlier here and jman doesn’t even say what you are claiming. Obviously neither camp in this discussion is a homogenous group with a single viewpoint and I state that pretty clearly. Why is that lost in the plot here? Do you really just want to argue for arguments sake?
Your earlier mention of outliers didn’t include people taking Wookie’s position and jman’s post is saying exactly what it appears to be saying.
This discussion is preposterous. I literally said that the reasons the majority of people want to ban the word and noted there were some people who thought other things, some of which are unreasonable in my opinion. I need to make list of everyone’s opinion and everything wrong with them?
I’ll start here
All-inFlynn, his opinion is wrong because hasn’t read my post
I have no idea what you’re talking about with me posting my strawman over and over. So yes, you should. Because you obviously have me mixed up with somebody else.
You characterized the post below as my “strawman” and said I have posted it “over and over” when I believe it was my first time attempting to summarize those the thoughts of those arguing that position.
“It does seem to be enough for a majority of them. They are just arguing with people who insist that their usage of it is sexist, regardless of the fact that it’s not sexist where they come from. This is basically the entire argument as far as I can tell.”
I agree. You said something and I then demonstrated that what you had said was false. How you carry that is your affair, doesn’t bother me.
1 Like
You have to literally read their posts believing that they already believe that to infer the meaning that you are you saying it has. This is no different than assuming when someone uses a word that they mean it in a derogatory manner. You are literally making my argument for me. ITS IMPOSSIBLE TO DETERMINE SOMEONES INTENT WITH THEIR WORDS ON A FORUM. You won’t even understand these words even though I’m crystal clear!
[quote=“marty, post:1332, topic:3572”]
I still object to any of my use of the word being described as sexist or misogynistic.
Co-signed.
I’ll try not to use the term here, out of deference. But may toss it out occasionally depending on circumstance.
1 Like
Piraha are anarchists.
1 Like
They trade Brazil nuts, wood, and sorva (rubbery sap used in chewing gum) for soda-can pull-tabs, which are used for necklaces.
I always wondered why everybody used to save those stupid soda can pull-tabs.
The lines before that were more interesting.
They trade Brazil nuts and sex for consumables or tools, e.g. machetes, gunpowder, powdered milk, sugar, whiskey. Chastity is not a cultural value.
That’s cool and all, but why people saved soda can pull-tabs has been a mystery to me for decades.
Also, I liked how they all get Obama-canoes, or they just substitute with a piece of bark, no worries. They seem like total bad asses.
I’m grunching a bit, but I find UP appealing because of the opportunity to engage with intelligent and empathic people who seem generally dedicated to improving the world’s standard of living. I’d have expected us collectively to be eager to reduce the negative impact of our language.
Avoiding certain words only restricts our speech if we’re incapable of finding inoffensive synonyms, and it seems like our vocabularies should be easily up to the task.
3 Likes
The only time I ever got into a real fight with my grandmother was over Brazil nuts. This fight is one of the most vivid memories of my younger years.
She was born, raised, and died in the heart of east Tennessee. I’m sure you might imagine what the fight was about. This thread is basically a recreation of that fight!
1 Like
I can imagine, but I don’t think I knew that until like 10 years ago. I’m with my kids now and they don’t know…well, now they do.
1 Like