Topic

That's so ghetto! Bitches and gypsies discuss language, culture, and changing expectations.

To avoid derailing the Guidelines thread wrestling with a specific part of the Guidelines.  I thought we could move this discussion to its own thread.

When someone uses a word that you feel is a slur during a conversation that you are part of, how should you handle it and what do you expect of staff when you report it to them? 

If the slur is addressed to you by someone who intends it to be derogatory, then you've got a pretty clear case for the Report Abuse button. 

But what about the cases when someone isn't speaking to you or even directly about you specificly but uses an offensive term?  And continues to use it after you ask them to stop?

When someone describes something as "that's so ghetto".  When someone says "that bitch had it coming".  When someone says "I'm going to be a gypsy on Halloween".  When someone says "that's so geh".  What can we as a community do to help make folks comfortable?

Who is responsible for which parts of the strategy to handle a situation like this? 

Long ago and far away, one of my elderly relatives continued to refer to African-Americans as "colored" long after general society had begun to use the term "black". She was using what had been respectful terminology, but the world changed around her, and she innocently thought she was being polite, even as people around her cringed. 

What do you do in that situation?  What if the polite term you (and most of the rest of society) are currently using is pointed out to you as a slur by a member of the target group?  Do you become someone who leads the education and change?  Do you bite your tongue?  Or do you defend the current, non-hateful use of the word?

Posted 14 months ago by WindBorn Subscriber! | Permalink

Replies

1 2 3 4 Next
  • @ennuistreet  Thank you for saying what I was trying to say better than I could say it! LOL

    @tk-855 again. It seems to me that you are being quite defensive.  I know what you were trying to say, which you said much clearer in your last response. The problem is, that is not what you said in your post that I was commenting on.  I pointed it out to demonstrait that even the most well intended people can simply make the same mistake we all have done at some point. To put put out figurative foot into our mouth.
    I encourage you to go reread that post from an objective point of view, without considering what your intent was. Do you not see it?
    By the way, I did not make any attempt to define what a cowgirl was and I don't view the word cowgirl as an insult or slight. I also don't think that a cowgirl needs to own a ranch to be viewed in a higher regard.  I don't think you do either.
    To quote you from an earlier post   "A case in point where you meant one thing, and it's being read differently by someone else." That is my point entirely. Even if you don't see it.
    By the way, I personally am not offended or traumatized by your unintended insult. I am not nearly that delicate
    Posted 14 months ago by megan76 Subscriber! | Permalink
  • So just out of curiosity, are we all trying to say that regardless of intent the perception is the important part? That makes sense to me that in that case there are certain words/phrases that you just don't say because the company you are with will take offense. However, does this conversely mean that at events such as fraternity parties or teenage slumber parties for example it is okay to use bad language because all parties agree on the usage of such terms. Well I of course think this answer is no because we should all learn to be better than that. Just because someone tells us we can do something (if we know inside it is morally wrong) does not mean it is okay to then do it. So there are certain things we just don't do or don't say. Although, this is different for different groups of people in different cultures and upbringings. It is okay for Americans to finish everything on your plate but if you are Chinese you do not do this. It is impossible for everyone to know everything about all cultures, so for now isn't it just best to say a polite "that bothered me" in order to inform and then move on.
    Posted 14 months ago by Holly Waterfall Subscriber! | Permalink
  • It seems like there's a severe lack of listening going on in this thread.

    Intent isn't magic. If someone calls you out on something you've said, apologize, don't defend, don't try to explain.

    And Poppy, I really don't understand why you're defending the use/rebranding/reclaiming of a slur. Words do not exist in a vacuum; if a marginalized group says something is offensive, listen to them. I know you've said repeatedly that you're just "trying to understand", but it is ultimately up to you to educate yourself. You've been given links and articles and explanations, so now it's on you to figure it out on your own. Still don't understand? Read more. Read blogs and forums, Youtube videos, whatever; there are plenty of resources at your disposal. The key thing is to listen.

    I'm putting this bluntly, because this goes for all topics of social justice: It is not the job of the marginalized to educate the privileged.
    Posted 14 months ago by Jedusor Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @TK-855: No one was objecting to your broader point, or to your use of the word 'cowgirl,' just saying that some of the words that you used contained some inherent bias. If you're interested in figuring out why, then try going back and re-reading what we said. If not, it's ok. I'd be happy to talk to you separately to try to explain, if it's easier.

    @Holly Waterfall:
    Exactly! (on all points)... Perception and audience are key. I will say and do things in the company of my friends that I would NEVER say to my parents, or in public, or in the company of someone who doesn't have the context for understanding why that's acceptable, without me explaining that the unspoken (or spoken) social contract in our group has more permissive limits than the implicit limits that let strangers interact without automatic hostility.

    In a situation that warrants it, if someone says something that I find offensive, I TELL them and try to explain, if they're interested, as to why I find it offensive. Usually, I'll speak up because it's someone I have chosen to spend time with to a greater degree or lesser and feel it's important to our relationship. I then trust that they will make the correct decision for themselves as to whether or not they want to change their behavior. Once I know what their choice is, I can make a decision that is right for myself as to whether or not to continue to spend time with them. Does that make sense?
    Posted 14 months ago by EnnuiStreet Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Megan75: If you disagree, fine - you need to say, "Holly, I disagree with TK. His use of the word is still a stereotype," AND SUGGEST AN ALTERNATIVE - because you have said you do not view the term as an insult or slight, but claim I just insulted a group from lack of knowledge.

    Can't do both simultaneously. The word is either an insult, or it's acceptable to use for a range of professionals, from handlers to property owners.
    Posted 14 months ago by TK-855 Subscriber! | Permalink
  • It seems like there is some group here on Glitch that wants to claim who can be the most oppressed - all over a video game.

    I guess I am going to be called bigoted for not getting all over in arms for what someone calls me in a video game, but I would seriously say I don't care.  For the most part, I don't speak with anyone in this game. Seriously, in this entire time, I can count on my fingers the amount of times I've significantly interacted with other people.

    However, if anyone would like to call me demeaning words, I would just merely block them and move on with my life. The problem here is no matter how rabid you are about your situation, no one is going to care about what you have to say over the internet. People already have different assumptions than you and yelling in all caps in a game isn't going to change that. I have seriously not realized that. I feel that people would rather feel good about their conscience and how much they're changing "oppression" than educate other people in a meaningful way.
    Posted 14 months ago by Reirei Umezaki Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Jedusor - :') +∞ to everything you said.

    @chaosakita -
    1) You can't block people in game completely. If people are talking in Global/group chat, there is no way to ignore their lines.
    2) There are plenty of people in this thread trying to change things in a meaningful way by explaining things as coherently as they can and not stroking their own conscience and definitely not yelling in all caps.
    3) Just because you can ignore things doesn't mean everyone wants to. Those who feel marginalized WILL speak up. Again going back to "Don't tell people that they're oversensitive".
    Posted 14 months ago by Asperity Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @chaosakita -
    1) You can't block people in game completely. If people are talking in Global/group chat, there is no way to ignore their lines.
    2) There are plenty of people in this thread trying to change things in a meaningful way by explaining things as coherently as they can and not stroking their own conscience and definitely not yelling in all caps.
    3) Just because you can ignore things doesn't mean everyone wants to. Those who feel marginalized WILL speak up. Again going back to "Don't tell people that they're oversensitive"
    .

    Haha you may be not typing in all caps but that doesn't mean you can't be stroking your conscience. To be honest, I don't see what other purpose this sort of "discussion" can have on a MMO message forum that I doubt the majority of game players have even heard of. I'm pretty sure the conclusion was already implicit in the first message.

    I never said anyone wanted to ignore things, but that doesn't mean that there's a real solution besides doing just that. I cannot believe that anything said anonymously over a game, especially in the global chat, can be meaningful, much less be an effective platform for whatever social cause you felt like you haven't advocated enough for in your regular life.

    In any case, looks like our Furry glitches need the most advocacy.
    Posted 14 months ago by Reirei Umezaki Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I never said that I was trying to understand anything.
    I have a point of view and I'm sticking with it.

    QUOTE:
    "And Poppy, I really don't understand why you're defending the use/rebranding/reclaiming of a slur."

    If you are referring to my question about the word 'retarded', that word is not a slur.  It was a valid word used for years and years to describe retarded people.
    It was only recently that society deemed it unacceptable, for what reason I don't know.  But if they don't want it anymore, then it's open to be re-branded. 

    It seems to me that reclaiming and re-branding words is a common practice.  Black Americans took the "N" word away from white people and made it their own.
    From the article that was posted for me that I read, the word 'gay' had a very negative connotation, but gay people took it and made it their own.
    Nerds and geeks took those "offensive" words and made them their own and now they are chic and can be found on Web sites and T-shirts everywhere.
    For Pete's sake...even the word slut has been hijacked...

    This is at the heart of my argument that I've been trying to make.  Words have the weight that you lend to them.  Period.
    Posted 14 months ago by Poppy of Detwoit Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Oh come on......

    How am I to know what someone on the other side of the world will take offense to?  My friend can call his boyfriend a fag, and its ok. In England they smoke fags, and if they say that, it as well is ok. Different cultures, different meanings.  I choose not to be upset by either. 

    I can only control my intent, not another person's perception.  How they choose to perceive what I said, that is up to them. They can stop and think that maybe I did not mean offense, or they can choose to go crazy and freak out. 

    I think that is what is meant in the guidelines by "Avoid assuming bad intentions in other players: some of them will think differently than you; or English might not be their first language; or their kid will have spilled a glass of milk on the cat a second ago; or they might not understand the particular nuances with which you play. Or … who knows? A willingness to forgive will go a long way, especially when directed towards new players who might not yet have fully learned what effects their actions have on others."

    We make our own decisions on how we feel, how we respond or react, and what we are willing to let slide off us.  You know what they say "Too assume is making an ASS out of U and ME".  I prefer not to assume the worst.
    Posted 14 months ago by Innie✿, Obviously Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @ennuistreet   Thanks again!  :)

    @tk-855  You are missing the point entirely. There is no alternative words to give you because there is nothing wrong with the current word. That would be your own personal perception. What is wrong, is the negative spin YOU put on it. To imply, which you did, that a cowgirl would not be a negative term if she where also a ranch owner. To state that "simply moving horses and cows around" were somehow a negative thing.  Those were your words.

    To quote Holly for whom you blame this backlash..."So to label someone with any descriptive word is to stereotype them. To name the group they belong to is not. Example:
    Saying, "I have a female friend who lives in Texas and raises cattle as an occupation" is okay.
    Saying, "My Texan cowgirl friend" is not." 

    I do not see what your point is. You are the one who decided that you needed to "expand the term" to give it credence. What does that have to do with Holly? What power do you have that your expansion somehow makes the trade more respectable? Why are you telling other people to be more aware when you yourself are not?

    This brings me back to my original post.......the righteous and the "entitled" need to step down. You are not doing anyone any favors if you refuse to see others point of view.
    Posted 14 months ago by megan76 Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Side bar....my mom's middle name is.....wait for it......Gay. Literally, that is her actual name. She was born in '49. Appparently, it used to be a name. Who knew?  Just sayin'
    Posted 14 months ago by megan76 Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Whew so much to read so I thought I would put my 2 currents into the mix here. If I have repeated anything anyone has already said I apologize.

    You have to realize the online community is world-wide. What one says that may sound disrespectful or vulgar may not be meant in that way at all. Take for instance. I am American but I live in New Zealand. When I first got here nearly 12 years ago I made many verbal errors that actually shocked a few of my friends and then fiance (now husband). One example was I saw my now husband's little niece and said "Oh! what a cute little bugger!" Now where I grew up in Colorado bugger was equal to a cute little bug. In New Zealand culture and other Britain cultures like the UK bugger is NOT a nice thing to say at all. Bugger is terminology for buggery (aka sodomy).  Sometimes it is best to find out what the person means rather than go off the handle and if your offended, nothing wrong in saying it offends you and why it does.

    Now stuff like the "F bomb" or the "C word pertaining to a woman's body part" IS offensive no matter where you come from. There is no good reason to use that sort of language other to be offensive, disrespectful and rude. As I have always said, if you have to type it you have to think to type if first.. if you type it and hit the enter key it is outright intentional. Those sort of words I DO report.

    Now comments pertaining to race, sexual preference and so on. Another example in New Zealand, the word Pākehā means for the Maori (the native people in New Zealand), The word Pākehā is also sometimes used to refer to any person of predominantly European ancestry, including those that are not New Zealanders. The true meaning is "white pig" derived when the English and other white settlers first came to New Zealand and the Maori used the act of cannibalism against their enemies. Many, including myself find it very offensive. How do I react when this word is used to refer to me? Well, here is a personal experience. A young man that was Maori was taking a course to learn his native language (the language was nearly eradicated but that is another history lesson). We had invited him with a few other friends for a small dinner social and he arrived. During conversation he called me a Pākehā. Little to say I was shocked he would call me such a thing but I held my cool knowing him well and asked if he knew what the true meaning of the word was. He stated, "It means newcomer or white person". I then explained to him what the word REALLY meant and of course he was shocked. He went back to his Maori language instructor and asked if that was correct. The next day he came over and apologized profusely and to this day has never used the word again.

    So again one may need to find clarity. Different words can mean different things in different cultures and be open to respect that.
    Posted 14 months ago by Casombra Amberrose Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Asperity... did you read the links you provided. It talks about gay as not meaning anything really bad per se at that date. And the links about 'that's so gay' were all just opinions from other people. 

    Regardless... if a gay person is offended by someone saying 'that's gay' no amount of research or opinion is going to take that away from him. He's offended on his own. Someone can be offended by anything. It's all context. That's why I'm saying... let's look at intent. 

    The individual who says something is gay, probably isn't trying to oppress gay people. He probably isn't anti-gay. He's probably not even thinking about homosexuality when he says it. If he says it around a gay person, he might offend that gay person, but I doubt it.

    Again, I know you guys are like saying language is used to oppress people. It is. Language, when used to control the thoughts of people, is powerful. Language, when used in informal discourse, isn't that powerful. It's just communicating. Our culture has 'that's so gay' in it. We use it informally. We don't use it to oppress. If someone is using it, you almost have to admit they're not doing it because they hate gays. If they are, well then, do you really think you're going to sway them away from using it? Chances are that individual uses a lot of worse phrases as well.
    Posted 14 months ago by Mr. Dawgg Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Now stuff like the "F bomb" or the "C word pertaining to a woman's body part" IS offensive no matter where you come from. 

    Not to everyone.

     If I'm in, say, a pub, I have the right to use words like that without needing to worry about children present if I wish. 
    Posted 14 months ago by shhexy corin Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Megan75:

    I took Holly's question to mean, "Do I need to use a generic term to avoid giving offense?"

    My answer was, "No. because 'cowgirls' are more than a textbook definition."

    You appear to be objecting to anything beyond the stereotype, because sometimes the stereotype is true. You have failed to provide an alternative term, stated that you do not consider it to be offensive, yet somehow maintain that I have managed to insult people.

    You most recently suggest that the problem is that, in suggesting a cowgirl can be more than the stereotype, I have reinforced the stereotype.

    Cowgirls just handle horses and cows. (Stereotype.) 
    No, some are ranch owners. (My observation/expansion of the definition.)
    Not always. Therefore, you have insulted cowgirls. (Your apparent point.)
    My error. What term should I use? (My response.)
    ::: no answer ::: 

    I can't see your point, because there is none. You are implying that someone, or somehow, that my usage/definition is offensive/wrong, because the starting point is itself a stereotype. But, when asked either for a new definition of the term or a preferred word, you cannot add to my understanding, only insist that, if my 'cowgirls can be ranch owners' is not always true, then I must believe and will, at every turn, perpetuate the stereotype of cowgirls as something less. 

    A is true. (Cowgirls handle horses.)
    B is true. (Cowgirls can own a ranch.)
    A + B is true. (Cowgirls can handle horses and own a ranch.)

    How has A become a stereotype, and how am I responsible? Are you stating that 'cowgirls do x' is a stereotype, and all stereotypes are bad? Or that there's a regional difference in language? That I'll be lynched if I dare show up at a Landry's restaurant?
    Posted 14 months ago by TK-855 Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Let's just settle on: "Cowgirls handle horses and cows."
    The "just" added to it makes it a bit derogatory, like they're not good for anything else.
    If it is used like a statement "Cowgirls handle horses and cows" it doesn't say anything about other things they might or might not do.

    @Shecyxorin: So you only have to behave when there are children around? You don't have to behave when there are strangers around? Sure, you can use the word, but it is still an offensive or disrespectfull word.

    I agree with Innie, Mr. Dawgg, Poppy of Detwoit, Holly Waterfall, Casombra.
    I'm sure some of you contradict eachother, but when reading those posts I'm nodding. I'm sure some said it's intent that matters, and others say perception is that matters. It all depends on the situation.

    And I love these discussions about semantics!

    TK-855, Holly Waterfall and megan76: it seems like you are really trying hard not to see eachothers points. I think your discussion is discussed out, all agree that the word cowgirl is, in itself, not offending. If you say it to someone in a derogatory way and that person perceives it as something bad, the word itself is still not offending, it's the entire sentence, the way someone says it, the context, the situation that is offending.
    Posted 14 months ago by Miriamele Subscriber! | Permalink
  • No , I don't "behave" when children are in a place which is meant for adults.  

    If I'm out with my friends, I talk about what I want to talk about.   If someone has a problem with it, then they have to deal with that how they see fit.
    Posted 14 months ago by shhexy corin Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Miriamele: Thank you! However, Holly only made one post that I'm aware of, and the bulk of the disagreement has been between myself and Megan. (And, please note, I have repeatedly stated that, if I gave offense, I apologize; and that if there is a better term or preferred term, offer it to me.)
    Posted 14 months ago by TK-855 Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Asperity - Perhaps you should be the one to read.

    You are implying that the original definition of gay is homosexual this is not the case, it is happy. If I wanted to say that something was homosexual I'd say 'that's so homo', I don't, get over it move on, taking a common word that once meant happy (the original meaning of the word gay), using it for something else homosexual, and being mad when someone uses it for something else entirely 'That's so gay', third meaning as 'stupid', whatever, is foolish, childish and immature.

    @EnnuiStreet - By doing the following you basically ensure that the stereotype perpetuates:
    1)Telling people what the original word means when they honestly don't care
    2)Telling them that you are restricting their freedom of speech because you are offended

    The second one is the big problem, if you're offended that's your problem, there is hate speech "You're a damn faggot" , "Hey you thieving gypsy!" and then there is just speech "I'm dressing up as a gypsy for halloween", "Wow that's so gay", and no I've never heard of anyone in America at least actually call someone a 'thieving gypsy' when they're not actually stealing something and doing it in the fashion of a gypsy.

    Most people here in America
    A)Don't give a crap
    B)Don't associate gypsies at all with any specific group, we see it as a characacture.
    C)Don't make fun of them like 'hahaha oh man those gypsies stealing things!'
    D)That said from all I've read and heard I've never really heard anything good online (spoken with many Europeans) about gypsies, they are the ones usually complaining about them, while Americans don't care
    E)Not many people at least in America connect 'gipped' with gypsies.

    Your resolution also clearly hasn't stuck if you're complaining on the internet that people are 'dressing up as you' for halloween.

    @Crowdedsky - It's not derogatory now and there is a difference between 'You're so gay!' and 'That's so gay!', a big difference.

    "Mommy I changed the meaning of a word and then he did too, but I won't accept his meaning so he's making fun of me!"

    @Asperity - Don't talk in global chat, ignore local chat. Oh my, was that hard?
    The only thing that could really be argued here is to allow blocking to block that as well, huzzah. But of course people will instead continue to complain.

    If I wanted to be a bigot on the internet I wouldn't due it using a main anyway, as most trolls wouldn't, they would make fresh characters (considering it's so easy!), make tons of them and just attack you verbally that way, but you must have a big ego if you think anyone is thinking of you and your personal life and background in an online game and are saying 'that's so gay' or something like that to intentionally hurt you... in an online game... when they've never met you, or know you, or even care.
    Posted 14 months ago by Bluigi Subscriber! | Permalink
  • ETA: TL;DR version: words words words words.

    @TK-855:
    Thanks for trying to understand; no one was offended, and no one objected to the gist of your answer to Holly, which was, basically, "if you're using it to pigeonhole the hypothetical friend, that's bad"; that was a good answer... I'm sorry you are frustrated because it's not apparent to you what Megan76 was saying. Miriamele hit it on the head by singling out the word 'just,' which can be a signal word. I'll see if I can use a different example to make it clearer.

    Any time you use one group to define another, you have to be very careful, because you will automatically apply your own filters and bias to those words. If you use phrases like "not just X" or "more than X" in a definition, you marginalize people who self-identify with X...

    In other words, if I make a big deal about administrative assistants doing more than "just answering the phone all day" then how would you feel if you heard me say that and your job, quite literally, is answering the phone all day? It's a very sneaky form of bias, but it can be pretty marginalizing to someone and because it's so integral to how we see the world (everything has relative value and everything must be put in a neat place in the world as it touches me). Or if I said, "Well, at least I'm not teaching high school anymore," and that's what you do. And you're good at it. And you enjoy it...

    I did something somewhat similar to one of my friends earlier this year, and I handled it poorly when she pointed it out, because I felt bad for making my friend feel worse about herself. Was that my intent? Of course not! Did she know what I meant? Yes. Was she still hurt and offended? Yes. My intent didn't change the fact that what I said minimized something that she self-identified with.

    ***
    I was debating for the last few hours whether or not to post that explanation (so I hope it helps explain what the point was earlier), since I agree with the people that are saying that this is WAY far afield from the original topic and that most of the people that read this thread probably won't change their behavior in a significant fashion because of it. This discussion has probably over-reached the limit of its usefulness, but I also really appreciate the people on all sides who came in and tried to have a rational, reasonable discussion. It started as a "what do I do if I'm offended by something I read in this game" and quickly changed gears to Privilege and Prejudice 101, which is absolutely not as practical, but should still be discussed if there's actual discourse going on.

    For the record, if you said "I'm not offended by words and you can't make me be offended by them," I totally agree with you. I can't control your thoughts or your values and it would be ridiculous of me to try. At the same time, you can not tell others NOT to be offended and expect that to magically be true.

    The heart of this discussion is that while YOU might not feel that words alone have the power to affect people deeply, you don't know what experiences and thoughts and values others might have that might cause them to react with shock, or disgust, or fear, or even physical terror or revulsion. It totally sucks that some people have that reaction, but they have been exposed to words coupled with actual hate, which is something totally different than just an academic discussion of hypotheticals shielded by the fragile anonymity of the internet. It really does still happen. It really does affect others, even if it doesn't affect you, or even if you don't believe "it is as big a problem today," or even if you WERE exposed and had to toughen up and deal so why can't everyone else?

    I'm not telling you what to think or how to react or how to talk. I'm not saying "Oh, boo hoo, I'm oppressed so you owe me." I'm telling you that as tough as you are to shrug off "just words" and as "non-offensive" as you intended to be (or as much as other people should "get over themselves"), your words still have the potential to harm other people who are exposed to them*. What you do with that information is up to you, as a thinking, reasoning human being who is responsible and accountable only for your own actions.

    (*As a side note, anyone who is arguing that intent matters (or that words can't really hurt you) or that the privileged can "reclaim" a word is encouraged to go to a group of people marginalized by a particular slur or term and address them by it. Tell them it's ok, because you don't mean to offend them and you're reclaiming the word for everyday, positive usage.)

    Purely from a game standpoint, my opinion is that if you're offended by something enough to feel like you need to change your normal behavior to avoid it, report it. I'll do the same. If you're not offended, just let it go, and assume that if someone else is, they'll do something about it. Simple, right?

    No, I'm not advocating a "thought police" or any other term you might throw at me. I'm not asking for you to change the way you talk because of me. Since I, personally, have learned how best to deal with things for me, about the only time I might report someone is if I see someone spamming chat with obscenities and hate speech over and over... At that point, I'm probably reporting them just as much for HOW they are saying it as the actual content of their words. (Realistically, with what I've seen lately, my only reports might be for people spamming chat begging for FOOD PLZ!!!) ...and maybe if twenty other people are bothered by the same behavior and report it, that gives the staff here a good idea of what's going on so they can work with the person doing it and make it not a problem. But that's just me. YMMV.

    If anyone wants to talk to me more about any of this (or tell me what an idiot or whiner or ____ I am), feel free to contact me and we'll take up the discussion in another forum, because yes, this is way beyond the original scope of this thread, and yes, I think that there are better places for this discussion to happen.

    If you made it all the way down here, thanks. If not, I don't blame you at all.

    ETA: @Bluigi -- I don't think you intended those comments to be directed to me.
    Posted 14 months ago by EnnuiStreet Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Bluigi:

    As an aside, 'just a caricature' isn't a defense. Take a look at political cartoons of past eras, and you'll see that 'caricatures' aren't entirely free of malice. I'm thinking, specifically, of anti-Chinese cartoons of the Chinese Exclusion Act Era, which helped push the meme - now being refitted for immigrants from Mexico - that the country is in imminent danger from 'others.'

    Chinese would come and take American jobs, bring their filth and foreign ways to our shores, teach their language to our children, and so on. In one case, a screed suggested killing judges who 'didn't understand.' Compare this to some of the rhetoric today, where another immigant group is facing the same kind of criticism, and people talk of of '2nd Amendment Solutions' while others opine that we should revise the 14th Amendment (which covers more than birthright citizenship - it addresses the apportionment of represenatives, the public debt of the United States, and is the basis for equal protection under the law: "Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ..." (the political ramifications beyond immigration are another topic).
    Posted 14 months ago by TK-855 Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Bluigi- 
    "Most people here in AmericaA)Don't give a crap B)Don't associate gypsies at all with any specific group, we see it as a characacture.C)Don't make fun of them like 'hahaha oh man those gypsies stealing things!'D)That said from all I've read and heard I've never really heard anything good online (spoken with many Europeans) about gypsies, they are the ones usually complaining about them, while Americans don't careE)Not many people at least in America connect 'gipped' with gypsies."

    Yeah, most of that essentially proves my point. Thank you for proving what I was talking about to begin with, and with such panache and cultural insight. Didn't think I was going to post further here, but it seems as though the reasons behind what I've already said have completely been missed somehow, still.

    (A) Americans don't give a crap about a lot of things; we're sort of an infamously self-centered country who often ignores the rest of the world, and that's sadly proven, especially in the last several years. But the problems we're so good at ignoring somehow don't seem to go away on their own, just because we don't give a crap. 
    (B) Pretty sure I've covered the caricature aspect pretty thoroughly, and TK's made some pretty valid points, but I might've just imagined all that.
    (C)'s not true for pretty well any area that actually has a sizable Romani population, either- ever heard of Jimmy Marks? Might have to Google that a little more thoroughly. 
    (D)'s a major problem, and not just in Europe, but I'm unsurprised you don't think it is judging by the other statements you've made. And everybody knows, the best place to get your information online is from somebody blaming a different culture than their own wholesale for their problems. 
    (E)'s the point of telling people about it to begin with, though well more people than you think completely understand- it's not exactly a giant leap of logic.
    Posted 14 months ago by Djabriil Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Ennui: I understand that Megan perceived my answer as perpetuating a stereotype, regardless of the disclaimer/qualification. But if you allow that there's nothing wrong with the definition of 'cowgirl' as someone who handles horses, then there should be nothing wrong with saying they can be more than that. I *will* acknowledge that 'simply pushing horses and cows around' was an inelegant, overly familiar, and, perhaps, crass way of describing someone.

    And, as I have repeatedly said, if I gave offense, I apologize. If there's a better word or a preferred word, tell me what it is. I'm not over here saying I have a right to call someone a cowgirl, or that anyone should Get Over It or not be offended.

    I actually looked up the word to see if there was a pejorative usage, and there is - but only in regard to reckless behavior. A second definition is someone who handles horses and cows. To express that someone can be more than that textbook definition does not inherently render that definition as a stereotype, nor does it turn its usage into an insult.
    Posted 14 months ago by TK-855 Subscriber! | Permalink
  • cow·girl   [kou-gurl] Show IPA noun 1.a woman who herds and tends cattle on a ranch, especially in the western U.S., and who traditionally goes about most of her work on horseback.2.a woman who exhibits the skills attributed to such cowgirls, especially in rodeos.

    @tk-855  I personally did not find a pejorative usage for this word, although I did for cowboy. Of coarse, I looked that up after I looked up "pejorative usage"  LOL

    I think the biggest problem here may be my inability to properly explain the angle I am coming from. I am sorry If I made you feel brow beaten about your post. I think you took what I was trying to say, to a much deeper level than I intended. It was simply poor choice of phrasing, that's all.

    ".....I *will* acknowledge that 'simply pushing horses and cows around' was an inelegant, overly familiar, and, perhaps, crass way of describing someone."

    That, is precisely what I was trying to say all along. That, is why a person reading that post could easily be offended by it. That, is all I have to say about this.

    @ennuistreet   Are you in my brain? LOL  I appreciate you clarifying my point, again, because I obviously was not able to do it myself. I agree that miriamele did hit the nail on the head.  :)
    Posted 14 months ago by megan76 Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Megan76: Cool beans, glad we're finally on the same page.
    Posted 14 months ago by TK-855 Subscriber! | Permalink
  • TK-855 and Megan76: you made me smile! (In a good way: that you two are smoking a peace pipe together and having a drink. Like two people in a bar who have a good discussion and then they offer one another a beer, and then one more, and then they'll be clasping arms and trying irish dancing while singing along with "The Wild Rover" and in the end forgetting what the argument was about.)
    Another little bit of positiviness!
    Here, have a beer :) 
    [_]>
    (That is my attempt at a beermug, though it looks more like a coffeemug. Add a little of your imagination to see it!)
    Posted 14 months ago by Miriamele Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Miriamele: Close enough and good enough. Slainte!
    Posted 14 months ago by TK-855 Subscriber! | Permalink
  • LOL  Salute!   *burps and orders another round...   :)
    Posted 14 months ago by megan76 Subscriber! | Permalink
  • ...
    Posted 14 months ago by Cefeida Subscriber! | Permalink
1 2 3 4 Next