Topic

"Deadpan Dike"

Maybe there are other slurs/jabs/etc. in the game and I just haven't noticed them?

But this really rubs me the wrong way. (I am avoiding creating other potential names that you could use if you're going to take up this line of naming.)

Posted 16 months ago by clare Subscriber! | Permalink

Replies

  • @Cefeida: both reasons. There are (literally) places, in Europe particularly, where that's equivalent to using the n-word, and in the US, it has a lot to do with the stereotype; tell somebody you're a "gypsy" and they might ask you to read their palms, play the fiddle at their wedding, or be confused by your lack of pickpocketing monkey. Tell someone you're Romani, and you have the opportunity to explain to them what that means culturally and ethnically, mostly without being asked to tamborine-dance. A lot of organizations who so name themselves do so to raise awareness in gaujo, rather than because they self-identify as "gypsy".

    I personally don't care beyond the rather idiotic stereotype it conveys, and I'm only truly offended by it when I know that (a) the person knows better, and (b) they're using it in a specifically offensive way. I mostly brought it up to point out what other people have pointed out about "offensive" words- it's a matter of context, as well as personal interpretation. Even the differing opinions of the word gypsy among Roma point to the subjectivity of offensiveness.
    Posted 16 months ago by Djabriil Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Djabriil, thanks. :) That helps.
    Posted 16 months ago by Cefeida Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Nutmet Botwin.  may the Giants bless your true and appropriate response.  My heart bleeds  for the Gitcherini here who suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune SO needlessly.. Let go of anticipating the worst... the hurt is needless.  The Giants do not want those who play to be sad. If you are a wounded dove you will suffer. Be an eagle, fly high and free.
    Posted 16 months ago by napabeth Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I also arrived late on this thread, and while I found it a fascinating read due to my personal interest in etymology, to be honest, I agree with Bane. This is a pointless thread. 
    My main objection reguards the respect I have for Tiny Speck, and the fact that they haven't intervened backs up my thoughts. 
    WHY should they have the desire to deride gay people?
    Whatever the origin of any word in the game, I have the presumption to believe they were on it before you guys. 
    As anyone who works with foreign languages, I'm used to coming across invented words that in other countries have offensive meanings. More than once I've advised a writer to change the name of a place or character in a story. 
    But here we have a game that is born for an international market, and common sense alone presumes checking every word they decide to use, and I believe they do. 

    Purely for the fun, there's another meaning nobody has brought into the conversation yet:
    In ancient Greek cultureDikē (Greek: Δίκη, English translation: "justice") was the spirit of moral order and fair judgement based on immemorial custom, in the sense of socially enforced norms and conventional rules.
    I like this :)
    Posted 16 months ago by Zira Subscriber! | Permalink
  • If TS were to change the name from it's perfectly descriptive term "dike" to something else they would be doing two things:
    1) Admitting that they did actually mean it as a homophobic slur
    2) Accepting the fact that the term "dike" has lost it's real meaning (just as gay and faggot have).

    The issue isn't that "dike" has the potential to be used poorly, it's that we allow people to use it in that way. By enforcing its original meaning TS is doing the exact opposite of implying that there's something wrong with homosexuals, and is in fact supporting the opposite.
    Posted 16 months ago by Skwid Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Actually, we were told a while back that the game isn't going to be translated into any other languages, so English-speaking people are the target audience. 
    Posted 16 months ago by glum pudding Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I say we go with Zira's ancient Greek version and call it a day.
    Posted 16 months ago by Nanookie Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I am more offended (metaoffended, really) that someone could complain loudly and censor a name based on their flawed construal of it than the possible construal itself. Not at you, clare, or at anyone in particular, but at the idea. If I say "the Burj Dubai was erected recently" and you think of penises instead of the building, that's your construal and your responsibility. There are more ways to get something wrong than to get something right. Tiny Speck should not accommodate the myriad ways a person can get something semantically wrong.

    Most of the arguments here rely on the (poor) premise that because most people will construe a certain word a wrong way and because language isn't prescriptive this gives free license to censor words based on these construals. Presumably, these same people assume they are in the bulk of the population who would also construe these words a certain way. I don't think anyone arguing this has considered the implications of censoring or changing words based on the potential construals of those words because (1) I don't think they realize how many words exist (2) I don't think they realize exactly how many words exist that are construed incorrectly and hence the potential incorrect construals that exist (3) I don't think they realize precisely how many misconceptions most people hold and the potential for misconstrual.

    A good friend of mine administers the Peabody Vocabulary Test regularly and it's full of words that are frequently gotten wrong by a large majority of the population. "Travesty", for example, means "a grotesque imitation" and not "a disastrous scenario" like most use it. Yet, for the 5% of the population who use the word as it should be used, the word's definition is obvious. The dictionary is loaded with words that are constantly misconstrued -- when the misconstrual becomes something you might interpret as offensive, it's still a result of your own ignorance.

    "Niggardly" is one of those words, meaning stingy and miserly. A 4th grade teacher in North Carolina was reprimanded for teaching students the word in a discussion about literary characters, and the teacher was -- no shit -- forced to attend sensitivity training. Sensitivity to what? That other people might be cognitive tumbleweeds? Indeed, the word is phonetically similar. So should Korean dads not name their daughters "Sue Yoo" because it sounds legally threatening? Come the hell on. This is not something we do in an educated society. This is encouraging ignorance.

    The only reason this proposal seems legitimate at all is because to some people, they're slightly above an arbitrary ignorance baseline where they could imagine people slightly less ignorant than they are construing a word poorly as a result of their ignorance. But someone much dumber than they are would have an even lower standard of construal, or an even lower standard of offense. We should not censor "Tella Hella" because stupid people might see it as an endorsement of Satan. I can keep pushing the ignorance baseline lower and lower until you see that the premise under which you'd be okay censoring this just doesn't work.

    And even in spite of everything I've said here this whole discussion is misguided because offense arises from social stigma and sometimes intent, not from existence. If I say "fuck you" and, two days later, my parrot starts saying "fuck you", it's not the parrot you're offended by. If is, you've misdirected your offense. The word "fuck" itself is, in most cases, meaningless. If I loudly scream "FUCK!" after dropping a weight on my toe, my words themselves have no meaning and I'm simply using them to communicate an equivalent emotion to "RRRAAARRGHHH!". "Shit" is no different than "feces" in terms of meaning, it's only the social stigma that makes it offensive and you only get offended by opting-in to the social stigma.

    The exception is with pejoratives, which is where the intent comes in. It's nonsensical to get offended by a computer listing "faggot" in a database of words because the computer didn't actually say the word to you negatively. The computer can't communicate the intent that comes with saying "shut up, you cock-sucking fag." A person with that intent has to program the intent in there. And if you get angry at an inherently neutral phrasing because of a construal you projected on it, that's your fault. YES, language changes over time and meanings change over time, but that's not an excuse to ignore every word only understood by 5-10% of the population because it doesn't have the word frequency to match your baseline of understanding. Most people will also misunderstand "travesty" and numerous other words -- citing the evolution of language will not free you from your err.

    If they seriously change the name because of this thread, I will be furious on principle. This sort of thought is not acceptable to anyone wanting to claim themselves an educated person, or as an enlightened person, or as a progressive person, or as a member of free and open 21st-century society. It's backward thinking and I will not accept it invading Glitch because it's enraging enough to see it outside of the game.
    Posted 16 months ago by The Crepeist Subscriber! | Permalink
  • English speaking, yes, English of origin, absolutely no.
    Playing a game in the English language is the norm for 90% of the population that has a computer. Any gamer  out of UK, USA or Australia and NZ knows he has to learn English in order to play anything. That is what I mean by international market. 
    There will be people who MAY discover a name that's offensive in their language. I'm sure they do a minimum of research before to prevent that happening, but even so it will occur. 
    Posted 16 months ago by Zira Subscriber! | Permalink
  • The Crepeist... I think I love you.
    Posted 16 months ago by Zira Subscriber! | Permalink
  • + lots @ The Crepeist
    Very well said
    Posted 16 months ago by Ebil Subscriber! | Permalink
  • +1 The Crepeist thanks and +1 Zira for both the ancient greek comment and the English speaking one Πολύ καλό σχόλιο.
    Posted 16 months ago by madragoran Subscriber! | Permalink
  • The Crepeist. You are a genius with words.  I salute you on bended knee. Lord Bacon-o take note of this writer, The Crepeist. Please continue to reward us with your erudite observations.
    Posted 16 months ago by napabeth Subscriber! | Permalink
  • "Deadman's Dike" is a Tolkien reference, so to me, "Deadpan Dike" sounds like a pun... but that is esoteric knowledge.  The game is full of puns, so it's easy to see how the word "Dike" could be construed to mean something other than a geographical feature. 

    While I tend to agree with most of what The Crepeist wrote above, I'm also aware that language changes, often at a rapid pace, and that, for example, someone using the word "niggardly" today is often doing so in order to get a rise out of an audience.  If you were to approach random Americans on the street, and ask what a dike is, my guess is that the term "lesbian" would spring to mind far more often than the terms "embankment" or "ditch."  I'd argue that (at least in North America) the disparaging meaning of the term is now the predominant one, so it's odd to assume that the staff named the street with only the original meaning in mind.
    Posted 16 months ago by glum pudding Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Just because a word can be used to insult doesn't mean every use of it is an insult. Misappropriated words need not be banished entirely in the name of respect. Deadpan Dike isn't about you.
    Posted 16 months ago by justpeace Subscriber! | Permalink
  • "it's odd to assume that the staff named the street with only the original meaning in mind."

    I think it's odd to assume that they didn't, since the word hasn't been retired from geography at all, and there's no visible reason TS would want to risk offending people.
    Posted 16 months ago by Cefeida Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @glum

    Your argument relies on the premise that because language changes we should accommodate the poor intuitions of people with even poorer knowledge of the dictionary. In the "niggardly" example I preceded that paragraph mentioning that the Peabody Vocabulary Test is used to determine word knowledge. It also ranks word frequency. Your premise suggests that we should adjust the definition of every word not known by at least 50% of the population -- which is a remarkable number of words --  according to only a potential construal. Not just a wrong construal, but one that only might exist if the person meets a certain range of knowledge.

    If I extend this premise to even more ridiculous examples of more easily offended people and even dumber construals of words, you will eventually see why it doesn't work. I wrote a paragraph-or-so about ignorance baselines. No (mature) person laughs at the last name "Bush", because we know it's a last name and not a reference to pubic hair. It's only when someone doesn't know that they evoke the "language is evolving" excuse, and enough people not knowing isn't going to get me out of misusing "travesty" for "tragedy." The only reason censoring "deadpan dike" sounds even remotely plausible is because it's within a certain range of ignorance to be acceptable.

    If I had said that we should change "Gregarious Grange" because it might make some people feel insecure that they don't know a big word like "gregarious" and language is constantly evolving and fewer people are using "gregarious", you'd tell me to grow up. That's exactly what we should do here. It's not the responsibility of Tiny Speck to micromanage the thousands of ways words could be potentially construed. It's your responsibility to look a word up before jumping on your knee-jerk reaction.
    Posted 16 months ago by The Crepeist Subscriber! | Permalink
  • As a queer lady, "Deadpan Dike" does bring to mind the 'non-geographical' definition quickly, but it also makes me think of deadpan as in the style of humor, and I really like it. I guess it really does depend on your comfort level, and whether or not you think whoever named it (Glitch designers, right? I don't actually know how naming streets works) meant it in a positive or negative way. I've had the impression in my time here that the designers were making a really queer positive game, so I took it as more of an in-joke.
    Posted 16 months ago by Squeakymouse Subscriber! | Permalink
  • We must not let the usage of the English language sink so it reaches the lowest level of comprehension.  Let people use the dictionary,   let them be forced to think and use their minds. Great works of literature contain  the most brilliant and often obtuse use of words. Glitch comes closer to any game I have seen with absolutely incredible writing.   It is a teaching game. so be open to learning.  Do not tie the hands of its creators with  tiny minds and tiny thoughts.
    Posted 16 months ago by napabeth Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Slightly tangential, I'm reminded of this exchange from Buffy the Vampire Slayer:

    Buffy: Like the kid in the story, the boy that stuck his finger in the duck. 
    Angel: Dike... it's another word for dam. 
    Buffy: Oh. Okay, that story makes a lot more sense now. 
    Posted 16 months ago by jasbo Subscriber! | Permalink
  • and my gold star goes to @The Crepeist for being an absolute delight to read, thanks napabeth for suggesting that.



    I am part of the GLBT community myself and I never construed anything from "Deadpan Dike" other than the name of that particular area in the "geological" sense.

    It did make me giggle quite a lot afterwards though as I thought "well, someone is a deadpan dike" (the no sense of humor kind-of-way). Sorry if someone is offended >_<

    We shouldn't nitpick every single detail, we're all just here for the fun, now, aren't we?
    Posted 16 months ago by onizuka83 Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Having started this tl;dr thread, I feel obliged to weigh in that this:

    "I think it's also compounded by the fact that it's preceded by a personifying adjective. If it was "Diggory Dike" I would be less troubled by it."

    is exactly the point. (Quoted from Tally, and echoed by others.) In fact, I would not be troubled by it.

    Also, for the record, I have no objections to the Nova Scotia Dykelands, Dick Van Dyke, or Dike, Iowa.

    I myself think the Glitch namers are clever and always making puns and that this one was intentional. I just don't think this one should have happened.
    Posted 16 months ago by clare Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Cefeida, the game is irreverent in many ways.  While I don't think that the staff's goal is to offend anyone, it can happen (search the forum for "wanks," for example -- there was a lot of in-game discussion of that as well).  Of course, much of the writing is done in Britain, where there is a group called Pig Dyke Molly.

    The Crepeist, that was a long, strange response to points which I did not make. I'll try again, and hopefully my meaning won't be so horribly misconstrued this time.

    The game is funny!  Louise Pasture is a pasture, and ALSO a pun!  Deadpan Dike is a geographical feature, and ALSO a pun!

    If I were to call you a "dick," I would not mean "a guy," or "a detective," or that your real name is Richard, but I do know of the existence of these definitions.  As you seem to be interested in the "true" meaning behind writing styles, I'll say that yours screams, "I think I'm the smartest person here," which, strangely enough, makes you seem foolish.
    Posted 16 months ago by glum pudding Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @glum pudding.   The Crepeist is so far from foolish.  I sense at times jealousy here if someone uses big words.  There are so many really intelligent people here, most of all the devs. NO ONE can be the smartest... we are rather of like minds and stimulate each other never ever with ridicule.
    Posted 16 months ago by napabeth Subscriber! | Permalink
  • "1. A long wall or embankment built to prevent flooding from the sea"

    Living in the netherlands amongst lots of dikes (dykes) (No idea of the spelling..) I never gave it another meaning. Sure I knew it could be used as a slur in English, but I have to consider the word before thinking of it. My first thought about it is a dijk. We can't do without dikes here. (dykes?).
    I don't know what deadpan means (will look it up) but to me it sounded like something to do with the ditch behind a dike, or something in the desert.  Somehow it also reminded me of Pirates of the carribean (deadmen's chest?). And those white plains of Davy's locker.

    I also agree with Gitchy (thanks for pointing out the absence of the L!) about lots of stuff, including that we all shape and make the meaning of a word.
    I keep thinking of Harry Potter and Lord - you-know-who...
    The name itself isn't dangerous or insulting. The idea or thought behind it is.

    I haven't read this thread completely (due to having lots to do) but it sure is interesting! I love to know more about origins of words. And I do believe we can change the meaning of words. I mean, "fuck" has almost lost it's shocking meaning. It is used daily. Ok, better example: "shit". It's almost (note the almost) accepted. The meaning of words change, and we can influence this.

    About PC: Sometimes it almost seems like saying someone is of turkish or maroccan etni..etnicity..(?) is like discriminating those people allready. Like "black guy" has a racism tone to it for most people if it is used to document a crime. It isn't so much so if it is a "white guy". So what's next? Call black people: People with a very dark skin colour? By saying that you do insinuate that the words "black guy" is racism.

    Another thing, it annoys me that people think discrimination is bad. The meaning of discrimination is to exclude, which isn't bad in itself. (All people are required to work, but the children and ill are excluded from this law.) So children and ill people are discriminated.
    The word has gotten a negative charge to it, while I think it shouldn't have that.

    Aaah words :) Mightier then the sword, and also more difficult to handle!
    Posted 16 months ago by Miriamele Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @glum -- I rebutted the premise your argument relied on. If you don't think this is accurate, please tell me how I'm inaccurate. 

    When you say:

    "I'm also aware that language changes, often at a rapid pace, and that, for example, someone using the word "niggardly" today is often doing so in order to get a rise out of an audience."

    You mean that I should not write "niggardly" because some people may not know what it means and think I'm racist. Or, in the case of this game, I shouldn't write a street named "dike" for similar reasons.

    I took the time to respond to you with entirely new paragraphs addressing your point because I did not want to be patronizing and copy/paste something I had already said. But you could be properly rebutted by doing exactly that -- copy/pasting certain paragraphs from my post. 

    Specifically, I could have copy/pasted the paragraph about intent. If you call me a dick like in your example, I have the added benefit of context and knowing that your intent was to insult me. Glitch's context is that it's a fucking weird game. It has street names like "Appam Almost". You don't even need to know that "dike" is a geographical term to know that it's not being used offensively. It could be nonsense Fake English for all we know, like  Prisecolinensinenciousol or Charles Manson Gibberish. Even if Deadpan Dike wasn't an extremely clever reference, you still wouldn't be justified in being offended by it. If you are, you need to grow up. Otherwise, you're being like this clip past the 1:40 point.
    Posted 16 months ago by The Crepeist Subscriber! | Permalink
  • The Crepeist, I'm so very glad that we have you around to adjudicate who is and is not justified in being offended. It makes everyone's life so much simpler when we don't have to consider the possibility that issues are sometimes subjective and complicated!
    Posted 16 months ago by Kittynoises Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Sarcasm aside, you can reason it out yourself -- you don't need me. If I'm short/physically weak/small penis/whatever and someone flings the most hateful words they can think of about my size, I'm justified in being offended. If I'm that same person and take offense to an advertisement that uses the phrasing "bigger and better", not so much. There is definitely justified offense and unjustified offense. 
    Posted 16 months ago by The Crepeist Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Oh my goodness ! my stars. When the game goes down we have some very  testy Glitcherini. Now children....return to your seats and we will watch an ERPI film on proper school ground bahaviour.  Anyone caught making too much trouble will have to sit in  the corner with a DUNCE cap on.
    Posted 16 months ago by napabeth Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Huh. So, my perspective is that I am curious about what offends people, what doesn't, and I like to learn how to be more sensitive to others. I think it's fine for me to adjust my language and behavior to become more sensitive. What is wrong with that? It is good to try to understand one another better to make the world a more welcoming place. (Perhaps this discussion thread is a way to do that.)

    Just because others were not offended doesn't mean that the person who was offended isn't entitled to the feelings of offense.

    I did find that it was helpful to hear from clare that it was adjective+noun (not the noun itself) that was the issue.
    Posted 16 months ago by StarBryte Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Actually, for me it's Glitch's context that makes it a possibly objectionable phrase. In a different game, where landmarks and areas were named with an entirely straight face, no humor intended, Deadpan Dike might not trigger a response. In Glitch, however, many things if not all have a double entendre or pun inherent. If Deadpan Dike is meant as a pun, it involves a slur that I'm not comfortable with.

    Please don't presume to tell me what I should and should not find offensive. Words take on an extremely different personal connotation once they've been used against you in violence. Can we avoid all of those words for every player? No, of course not. But those words that are commonly accepted as slurs or hate speech should, in my opinion, be avoided. To say that instead all those for whom the words are a trigger should "grow up" and "not be so PC" is to speak from a privileged and unsympathetic attitude.
    Posted 16 months ago by Tally Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I hear a lot of people saying that whoever feels offended is entitled to feel offense. That's fine, people can feel whatever they want. 
    But why aren't the rest of us entitled to feel differently? 
    If I think something's silly, or that someone's over reacting it seems like I'm not allowed to. 
    Who makes these rules about entitlement?
    Seems strange to me that only the righteously indignant are allowed to have an opinion and the rest of us aren't...  
    As far as I'm concerned, people can feel offended about anything they like, that's up to them. I'm not denying anyone their 'right to be offended' but I don't see why I should adjust my language and behavior for them if what I'm saying is not intended to be offensive in any way.  
    If I wanted to offend someone, I'd do it directly and in such a way that they would most certainly know about it with no confusion whatsoever. 
    If I say something with perfectly innocent intentions and someone takes offence at it, am I in the wrong or are they or are neither of us?   
    Posted 16 months ago by Ebil Subscriber! | Permalink
  • "If I say something with perfectly innocent intentions and someone takes offence at it, am I in the wrong or are they or are neither of us?"

    neither of you.

    until you start saying that they are being too sensitive and calling them the PC Police and insisting they shouldn't have been offended, instead of just saying "oops, i didn't mean to offend you".

    then it's you.
    Posted 16 months ago by striatic Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Without reading any comments besides the original post, this looks like it will be a fun way to see how the staff reacts to their own overbearing control over things that might be offensive.
    Posted 16 months ago by Taylor Swift Subscriber! | Permalink
  • +a million striatic.

    On to the next big Forum argument.   Telling someone their thoughts aren't right because they are too sensitive or interpreting wrong is just downright stupid, because the world is made up of different people with different ideas.  People will be offended by things that other people don't think twice about, but neither party is ever wrong for their opinions.
    Posted 16 months ago by Laurali Subscriber! | Permalink
  • The Crepeist, reasoning it out is precisely the raison d'être for this whole thread. Which is why it's so dumb for you to come in here and assert that everyone attempting to reason on this thread is being a buncha PC babies or whatever. 

    Here's the thing. I don't really like the word "offensive" anyway. Talking about whether a word is "offensive" is pretty much meaningless. The relevant question is whether or not the word hurts

    Because words, contrary to playground rhymes, do hurt. But what makes it complicated is that different people are hurt by different words, and we can't socially regulate the use of all of them. Say that someone had a severely traumatic experience involving, say, tomato sandwiches, and now can't smell the things without horrible flashbacks. They're perfectly justified in asking their close friends to refrain from eating tomato sandwiches around them to avoid that. But asking all of society to change to accommodate that one individual's experience is just impractical. So that individual does have some responsibility, in public spaces, to find ways of managing their own triggers, instead of asking the rest of society to bend around them. 

    But that's only one individual's experience. Some experiences actually are shared by all of society, and in those cases, society as a whole does have a responsibility to acknowledge those experiences and be sensitive to the triggers that result. Things like Nazi concentration camps, or Jim Crow-era racism, affected huge numbers of people throughout society, and the associated symbols have powerful impact for all those people. That's why we as a society frown on the careless use of the swastika or the n-word—out of respect for that harm that was shared by a large number of people we know. 

    And that's where the debate around the word "dike" comes in. Is it a word that only has negative meaning as a result of a few individuals' experiences? Or has it impacted a broad enough group of people that one should be careful about using it in public spaces? No one person has the information necessary to make that determination alone. The only way to "reason it out" is to ask other people to share their experiences of the word. 

    EDIT: Meant to add—the overall consensus on this thread does seem to be that the word is not, in general, particularly offensive out of context. But that doesn't mean that for the OP to ask the question in the first place was in any way invalid. 
    Posted 16 months ago by Kittynoises Subscriber! | Permalink
  • nleseul:  Great and well worded response :)

    +1
    Posted 16 months ago by Laurali Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @ Tally -- did you read my "bigger, better" example? It really isn't a matter of someone "presuming" to "tell you" what you can find offensive or not, and I hope you don't object to Ethics as a discipline because that's entirely about what people should and shouldn't do. You can reason it out yourself, which is the nature of any ethical system. 

    Yes, offense is personal. That doesn't mean it can't be unjustified.  My intuitions are personal, and those can be unjustified as well. If you make offense an untouchable thing removed from impartiality, then I can negate your offense by being offended at your offense. Even in the most encouraging English class, if I read a text in a blatantly wrong way the professor will tell me so. I must be able to support my argument with the text. "If Deadpan Dike is meant as a pun, it involves a slur that I'm not comfortable with" is an incorrect reading -- dozens of posters here have talked about why that's the case.

     those words that are commonly accepted as slurs or hate speech should, in my opinion, be avoided.

    This is poor reasoning, Tally. "You're a dike" is commonly accepted as hate speech; "deadpan dike" is not commonly accepted as hate speech. The word in certain contexts is commonly accepted as hate speech; the word in this context is not by any stretch of the imagination. This, again, relies on an idea of baseline ignorance -- an ideal "zone" of ignorance to cater to. "Yellow" is commonly accepted as a slur for Asians, but "yellow journalism" is not a term for any Asian news outlet unless you're ignorant enough to construe it that way. 

    I'm going to copy/paste a paragraph from an above post I wrote since there's so much text by this point to think many people would have read it unless they responded to it directly:

    "The only reason this proposal seems legitimate at all is because to some people, they're slightly above an arbitrary ignorance baseline where they could imagine people slightly less ignorant than they are construing a word poorly as a result of their ignorance. But someone much dumber than they are would have an even lower standard of construal, or an even lower standard of offense. We should not censor "Tella Hella" because stupid people might see it as an endorsement of Satan. I can keep pushing the ignorance baseline lower and lower until you see that the premise under which you'd be okay censoring this just doesn't work."
    Posted 16 months ago by The Crepeist Subscriber! | Permalink
  • +lots and lots to what striatic said, with the caveat that once those words are said, both sides should have a chat and hear each other out.

    Like in this thread, for the most part :)
    Posted 16 months ago by Cefeida Subscriber! | Permalink
  • The Crepeist:  calling people ignorant for how the interpret words is offensive in itself.
    Posted 16 months ago by Laurali Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Laurali If you read "travesty" as "tragedy" or "peruse" as "gloss" or "dilemma" as "quandary", you are being ignorant. If anyone is offended from not knowing these words, it should be the person offended at themselves for being ignorant. It is your responsibility to know them, not others' responsibility to assume you don't. I can't imagine a society where everyone objects to every correction on their essays because they were offended at someone suggesting they were ignorant. You're not being realistic.

    @nleseul -- my "you can reason it out" statement was in response to the claim that reactions to the word are subjective and that by telling people their reading of the word "dike" (and reaction to it) is unjustified that I am imposing a will on them, not that reasoning isn't taking place in this thread.

    Some experiences actually are shared by all of society, and in those cases, society as a whole does have a responsibility to acknowledge those experiences and be sensitive to the triggers that result.

    I think you'll find that if you take this reasoning far enough you'll find it doesn't hold up. 

    Many people in society have had a traumatic family member die, for example. We should not censor "knock 'em dead" as a result.

    Many people in society have been made to feel very stupid in English classes. We shouldn't censor big words ("gregarious grange") just because it makes them feel inadequate.

    Many people in society are shorter than average, or have smaller-than-average whatever. We shouldn't censor "bigger, better" to make them feel better.

    I, personally, was mocked a lot for being whiter-than-average. I know a lot of people who were too. It would be ridiculous to censor a street named "pale pansy" just because I might be reminded of those experiences.

    On that note, "pansy" is a word meaning a weak person. It also holds great literary significance. Should I censor "poetic pansy" because physically weak people might take offense? Absolutely not.

    There is a point where you will say "okay, that's ridiculous." That's the point where someone needs to grow up. No one is saying that they're unjustified in being reminded of these experiences. Censoring others based on what they're reminded of, though, is another matter entirely and is based on poor grounds.
    Posted 16 months ago by The Crepeist Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I'm not at my computer and thus cannot respond at length, but I do want to say this: if the name "Deadpan Dike" is taken at face value ONLY, with no secondary meaning or pun implied, then you're correct in saying that the context is completely inoffensive. If the name is taken as a pun and play on words, as so many names in Glitch generally are, then the personifying adjective in combination with a homonym for a common homophobic slur can be interpreted as legitimately offensive. It's the pun that moves it from the category of 'harmless geographic feature' to 'offensive term for a lesbian.'

    As I said above, do I think the developer that named it intended it that way? No. But, to use your English course example, the interpretation is there in the text. In my English classes, we spent a lot of time discussing interpretations that perhaps the author of a piece didn't intend; that fact didn't make them invalid. I guess we could get into a discussion of the validity of different schools of interpretation and critique, but that would be taking us waaay off base.

    Anyway, it seems to me like you're basing your interpretation on context, and I think it's hard to argue that the context of Glitch doesn't encourage players to look for alternate meanings in phrases and names. This alternate meaning - whether or not it was intentional - is inappropriate for the tone of the game.
    Posted 16 months ago by Tally Subscriber! | Permalink
  • The Crepeist: you are comparing apples and oranges.  nleseul (from what I can understand) is talking about events on a much larger scale than a death in the family or being bad at English.  

    "Things like Nazi concentration camps, or Jim Crow-era racism, affected huge numbers of people throughout society"

    I agree completely with what nleseul said, and think that a large amount of the community have been affected by discrimination against homosexuality.  I wouldn't go around naming streets Nazi either, although the term in itself is not offensive, it's all the other meanings that are related to the word that make it bad.  

    Also, it really bugs me that you claim it is ignorant to take words at a certain meaning.  It has nothing to do with other definitions of the word and everything to do with exposure. When someone asks "What's up?" the other person usually does not look up and answer what is above them, because we have heard that combination of words used to ask "What's going on" or "What are you up to".  It really has nothing to do with ignorance and everything to do with how you've been exposed to the word 

    ETA:  I don't even think the name needs to be changed, but I do think its important to accept everyone's ideas on the matter
    Posted 16 months ago by Laurali Subscriber! | Permalink
  • + thousands to The Crepeist and Ebil and napabeth
    Posted 16 months ago by Audaria Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I still don't understand the fuss. There's a question of context that simply can't be ignored.  I'm English, know the word dyke and understand why it's considered abusive, however not once while passing through that street did it come to mind. 
    It's a street. As such my mind associated the word dike with the game concept of street, considered it apt and put it aside without involving different definitions. 
    Someone else in the game has gone through that street and immediately given it  derogatory connotations. If it were possible to do a survey, I believe it would be seen that they are an extremely small minority. It just doesn't make sense getting upset about it. 
    Just for the record, the word itself has actually been consistently reappropriated. A great group of women with an even greater sense of humour had to go to court in order to be allowed to use the name Dykes on Bikes. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board permitted them to register the name. 
    So whoever was offended, make sure you don't go to any Gay Pride celebrations, because they're out there in the front row having fun instead of arguing about the name of a street made of pixels . 
    Posted 16 months ago by Zira Subscriber! | Permalink
  • i think equating standards of offense with intelligence levels is a bit of a reach.

    there's actually a fair amount of reaching in your post, The Crepeist. it's also kind of scattershot.

    things like "yellow journalism" which have established meanings are different from things like "deadpan dike", which don't. that doesn't mean that "deadpan dike" is offensive or not, but comparing it to something like "yellow journalism" is a .. let's say .. 'opportunistic' comparison.

    further - in any circle of people, the word 'yellow' is most commonly used to refer to the color yellow, whereas in many circles the word 'dike' evokes lesbians first and foremost. if anything the 'baseline ignorance' goes the opposite direction, with people not also knowing that it is also a geographical term.

    further -'tella hella'? the game already ha an *actual hell* in it, and no one has found that offensive, or at least hasn't publicly proclaimed it to be offensive. the thing that christans have been offended by isn't hell, it's the idea of donating to 'giants' as being some kind of idolatry. which i think is kind of a fair concern. you have to go waaaaay back but the initial terminology for giants occasionally referred to them as 'gods', but all that language has been scrubbed. and for the best, really.

    further - "English Class"? again, horrible analogy. that's an academic environment, and no one's feelings are going to be hurt if you make a poor analysis of the meaning of a text. it also doesn't mean that there is only one correct reading of a text. plus  it was very sly the way you used "blatantly wrong" in your analogy and then slipped into talking about this thread. there's nothing "blatantly wrong" about reading "Deadpan Dike" as a slur, and while "dozens of people" have talked about how "Dike" can actually mean something other than a lesbian, those "dozens of people" have not described the interpretation as "wrong" and certainly not as "blatantly wrong".

    but mostly - you seem drawn to explanation through analogy, as your post is riddled with it. explanation through analogy can be useful, but it is also more prone to manipulation and error than other forms of explanation you could have used. in this case, your analogies are not apt and appear to be opportunistically structured.

    "And that's where the debate around the word "dike" comes in. Is it a word that only has negative meaning as a result of a few individuals' experiences? Or has it impacted a broad enough group of people that one should be careful about using it in public spaces? No one person has the information necessary to make that determination alone. The only way to "reason it out" is to ask other people to share their experiences of the word."

    nleseul has got it. language is a messy, complicated and based upon shared understandings and determining the meaning of language is a communal exercise.
    Posted 16 months ago by striatic Subscriber! | Permalink
  • "Many people in society have had a traumatic family member die, for example. We should not censor "knock 'em dead" as a result.

    Many people in society have been made to feel very stupid in English classes. We shouldn't censor big words ("gregarious grange") just because it makes them feel inadequate.

    Many people in society are shorter than average, or have smaller-than-average whatever. We shouldn't censor "bigger, better" to make them feel better."


    holy strawman, batman.

    there are plenty of people in this topic who aren't sure if anything should be censored or who don't think the street name should be changed but who also don't think that the OP is being 'oversensitive' because her first reading of "Deadpan Dike" might not be that of the majority of players.

    it sure is easy to conflate simple empathy and consideration for people's cultural sensitivities with continuous censoring of any potentially offensive word in any potential context, manufacturing analogy after analogy along the way but without addressing the specific situation.

    even the OP didn't specifically request the censorship of anything.

    scattershot, all over the map, analogy barrages demonstrate neither empathy nor logic.
    Posted 16 months ago by striatic Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Many people in society have been made to feel very stupid in English classes. We shouldn't censor big words ("gregarious grange") just because it makes them feel inadequate.

    But there isn't a near-universally shared cultural experience where the word "gregarious" instantly conjures images of bad grades in English class, the way that the swastika is immediately associated with concentration camps. Same with "pale" or "bigger"—they may have negative associations for a reasonable number of people, but those associations aren't the first and only thing that comes to mind around the word. The obvious cases are obvious because the racist meaning of the n-word and the Nazi use of the swastika are so predominant in our social consciousness that any other possible meaning gets drowned out. 

    The question at hand here is whether the meaning of "dike" as a lesbian slur is more predominant than the alternate meanings—especially in a context that is full of double meanings—and enough so to justify heightened sensitivity to its use. 

    ("Pansy" is a difficult one, by the way, because it is very strongly associated with aggressive playground masculinity and the stigmatization of all things feminine that is elemental in the formation of the normative masculine consciousness. I personally kind of hate it, but maybe most other people just think of pretty flowers; I don't know. I do know that transgender people have a complicated relationship with the term "sissy," which is somewhat similar.)
    Posted 16 months ago by Kittynoises Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I do not believe that there is a "near-universally shared cultural experience" that "dike" is perceived as a lesbian slur. As a civil engineer, I've used the term often. But, I was also familiar with it prior to attending college. As a child, I fished from the dike. Recently, we heard about dikes being destroyed and towns being flooded to prevent greater flooding of larger cities downriver. Never once did I hear of anyone thinking they were bombing lesbians!
    Posted 16 months ago by Audaria Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Audaria, you said it yourself.  As a civil engineer you are looking at the word from a different context than people who aren't civil engineers.  The word (at least where I have grown up) has rarely been used to describe anything besides a lesbian
    Posted 16 months ago by Laurali Subscriber! | Permalink