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

  • @Bluigi- "...what is exactly the harm?" Is anybody gonna dress up as you for Halloween? No? Then I don't really guess you would see the harm. And the original meaning of "gypsy" is (*drumroll please*)- "gypsy". Shifting meanings don't really apply in every case. 

    Believe it or not, my intent here isn't to get anybody in trouble, which is why I haven't put any names out there (what would be the point?); my intent is to maybe educate a bit. People in my neck of the woods *know* the word "gypsy" has negative connotations- that's why they use it. Not everybody else knows, however- not everybody has the exposure to know, and to be honest (and contrary to what you might think) I don't fly into a rage on hearing the word... because many people don't know. I might groan at it, but I know that the vast majority of people don't understand. 
    But being told takes that excuse away.
    Posted 14 months ago by Djabriil Subscriber! | Permalink
  • We are social beings. Words, the method by which we communicate, are extremely powerful no matter whether we decide to let them be so or not.

    Of course the only person's behavior who I am responsible for is myself. I feel that my reaction to hearing something that I perceive as detrimental to the well-being of myself or others should be to say something about it that just might, if I'm lucky that day, make a positive difference in the world. Apparently that makes me look like a whiny baby to a few people. OK. I wish I could call out offensive or hurtful language more than I do, but don't always have the energy and time. (Having a job really cuts down on my internet time, but beats being unemployed.) Just lighten up and walk away? Ultimately that may not be the best reaction. Positive social progress is not achieved by people sweeping things like predjudice and discrimination under the rug.
    Posted 14 months ago by crowdedsky Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @crowdedsky - +1
    Posted 14 months ago by Djabriil Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @TK-855,
    I still maintain that, although I'm sure it's hurtful emotionally to hear people saying that you should be deported, it's entirely another thing for it to actually happen.
    People saying that you should have to move to another country isn't the same as them having the power to make that actually happen.
    Nobody likes to be embarrassed or hurt by words, it's unpleasant.  But...that is a part of life.  People will try to cut you down with words.  It's up to whether or not they succeed in doing that.

    As I stated, if those words turn into actions, a different situation has spawned and that is when action is required.  

    EDIT:
    Case in point...
    Are there still white Americans that refer to black people in America as niggers?  Yes there are.

    Have black Americans been able to advance their rights and their positive presence in this country IN SPITE of that?  HELL YES!!
    Posted 14 months ago by Poppy of Detwoit Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @walls: "If a critical response can be made in a non-insulting way, then it's worth making--even if it doesn't change anyone's mind immediately, or even register, perhaps several such responses over the years will have an effect."

    I can certainly see your point there, and it's something that I'll keep in mind, though my inclination will generally be to avoid conflict. An activist I am not, preferring instead to lead by example and hope other people are able to pick up on my understated awesomeness and follow in kind. I'm only half-joking ;P

    @Poppy: "What you can do is take personal responsibility for your reactions to people and decide whether or not, on a case by case basis, a particular situation warrants your time and energy to involve yourself in it any further."

    That's pretty much it, yes. 

    Though, I do disagree about words not being hurtful, whether casual or pointed, as things which sting can definitely skew a person's attitude and perspective and change their own behavior for a time. Just as walls noted about repetition helping to correct bad behavior, hearing a trigger word can also reinforce bad feelings and habits and labels others have shoved at you. But I won't put the responsibility of making me feel better on the person who offended me; it's my job to deal with my junk and their job to deal with theirs. For the most part. Some battles should be fought, as you noted, while some can be handled diplomatically; mostly, though... I'll deal with my feelings myself.

    There are definitely good arguments being made for speaking up, but I'm still not 100% sold. I think there's a good chance that well-intentioned correction will turn into argument which just adds to the negativity rather than promoting a positive environment. So... what happens if you politely correct someone and it evolves into a discussion which escalates into an argument? Where's the net positive?
    Posted 14 months ago by Lelly Subscriber! | Permalink
  • If a gay man hears a group of teenagers saying "that is so gay" at the mall, it doesn't REALLY affect him in a true way.

    @Poppy: I was going to just let this pass -- I don't like engagement -- but this kept nagging at me, so I'm just going to have to disagree as respectfully as I can with an example from offline life. (Namely, mine.) It takes place outside the US so the language is different, but I think it translates just fine.

    For instance, take:
    - people who say, "please make me a cup of coffee, gay-style" (by which is meant, weak coffee, with lots of milk)
    - a group of boys joking around and calling one of them "gay" when he fails at something (by which is meant, weak, a failure)
    - protesters outside a government building shouting "GAY! GAY!" at public officials (by which is meant, cowardly and dishonorable)

    Now, you could argue that although all these could have been enacted in the presence of a hypothetical gay person, none of those slurs are directed at said hypothetical gay person (from hereon, HGP), so they don't affect the HGP and zie shouldn't be harmed by them. But they do affect the HGP and (much as zie would like not to be and much as some people in this thread apparently think zie the power not to be) they do cause hir harm. Because they contribute to [perpetuate, enforce, propagate] a mode of thinking in which gay people are weak, failures, cowardly, and dishonorable; in which gay people are somehow less (because you wouldn't use an adjective to insult someone unless it was derogatory, normally); in which being gay is something to be ashamed of and a negative thing.

    None of this was directed at the HGP; none of this had hir as the target. But it causes hir harm anyway, because this thinking is precisely the sort of thing that caused said not-so-hypothetical gay person to lose hir job because, and I quote, "gay people don't belong in [specific industry]" and there is no legal recourse to protest this. And to separate those instances from the attitudes that make up the structure of a society is not very wise, because it's precisely the aggregate of those instances -- those expressions of attitudes and ways of thinking and beliefs -- that interact with modes of power to shape a society and push certain people to the margins.

    Think about that for a little bit. And think about why some people are speaking about this so passionately. It's not just a matter of terminology or social setting or politeness or live and let live or words only having weight when you let them (really?) or whatever. It's not about riding the high horse of PC-ness or attaining the high moral ground or... I don't know, it's not like conversations like these are at all pleasant, or like they give me anything except yet another heartache and one more hope -- for someone to actually listen, and take this to heart -- shattered. For many of us it is real, it is our everyday struggle, and yes -- it causes us actual harm.
    Posted 14 months ago by miir Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I agree with many that intent matters most. If your opinion, assumed-knowledge, etc is that a particular word or phrase isn't disrespectful, and your intent isn't negative, then you shouldn't be hated by the people who stand up for others.

    stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/20...

    I wish I thought of that guy's site myself. It's often spot-on how I feel about things. Though I know I couldn't have written it as snarkily as he.

    In any event, I think it's on the receivers end to allow language (and others) to have power over him. American society as a whole is no longer anti-black. Self-evident because of Obama. As such, blacks in America, as a whole, are not being oppressed . If a black American takes offense to the word nigger, it's in his mind entirely. It's just word. Sticks and stones may break my bones? If someone is using it to be offensive, be offended. But otherwise, just see it as a word. In my opinion it goes both ways. It takes being offended in order for someone to offend you.
    Posted 14 months ago by Mr. Dawgg Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Miir,
    I do appreciate what you are saying.  Honestly, I do.

    But I will state once again, gay people and black people (in America) have been able to advance their positions in this country IN SPITE of groups who hurl slurs at them on a daily basis.  These groups go beyond words and actually take actions against these "minority" groups in order to hinder their advancement.  And yet, these two groups CONTINUE to advance.  This is because they don't let the words hurt them.  And when action is required (when things get beyond just words) they cause an appropriate reaction towards their aggressors.

    This is how people gain rights.  This is how people overcome adversity.  You cannot gain by trying to tell other people what words they should and should not say because they offend people.  You will never convince a KKK member to stop calling black people the "N" word.  But, people in the black community continue to thrive and move ahead despite this.  

    This is what I mean when I talk about personal responsibility.

    No matter how much it may hurt you and others, people will not stop using the word 'gay' in the manner in which you detailed.  Do I think that is good or right?  No.
    But it's a fact, and all you can do is become active in your community to work towards equality and fairness.  Asking people to stop using that word is not an effective method.  Reasonable people have already stopped using the word in that manner, or never did to begin with.  True bigots will not be thwarted.

    Stay strong within yourself, and that is the best defense against hateful words.
    Posted 14 months ago by Poppy of Detwoit Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Poppy: Well, the rational side of me understands that argument.

    The sentiment directed at me, however, is not taking place as an isolated incident. States across America are coming up with harsh laws to deal with the perceived problem of illegal immigration. Some of the same arguments used over 100 years ago for the Chinese Exclusion Act are being fired off against other immigrants now.

    So the words are lodged somewhere, and the person who suggested deportation was so forceful in tone that there's some kind of political or social belief in place, which informs their actions (voting), and therefore carries a very real potential for harm.

    That being said, I did walk away from the argument. But I'm not fooling myself that it's 'just words.'

    (And, back when California's Proposition 8 was on the ballot, some kind, loving person went through the neighborhood and stole signs against it. Some lesbian friends had their rainbow flag defaced, repeatedly. Ain't very far from words to actions.)
    Posted 14 months ago by TK-855 Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Data point: I am 36, have lived in the US all my life, am reasonably well-informed about language (I even minored in English), and this forum post is where I learned that the word "gypped" is derived from gypsies.  Maybe the connection is more known in the EU?

    To a middle class American kid, gypsies were these fantastical roving people who may not have actually existed as far as I knew.  I'll be more sensitive to the use of that word in the future; it sounds akin to people who say "I'm being Jewish" when they mean they're being stingy.
    Posted 14 months ago by mirth Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @miir

    Your assumption, miir, is that HGP will be offended by people saying "gay" and using the term to mean stupid or the like.  I'm an actual GP (no H!) and do not get offended by that; does that make your stance wrong? Does that make me wrong, should I be offended? 

    Every time we use language, we make the assumption that the person/people to whom we communicate will understand us.  When that doesn't happen, people get offended, there is confusion, etc.  Pushing your own sensitivities to certain terms upon others is just as offensive as me pushing my lack of sensitivities by use of crass language spoken without intent to offend.

    I'm in favor of the "Flag It And Move On" approach -- if someone says something that doesn't sit well with you, tell them privately or report it, and then move on with your life.  If it's out of line, it will be dealt with; if you're being overly sensitive (because, perhaps, the offensive word used was the same term screamed at you while getting your face kicked in by a group of homophobic redneck teens), you can feel justified that you took action (reporting it) and can move on.
    Posted 14 months ago by Zimmi Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I have to chime in, because I can't stand it anymore. For disclosure, I'm a white, 20-something homo. I don't believe slurs and other derogatory remarks should be used intentionally, but I really do see a problem with the way unintentional remarks are jumped on sometimes, especially on the internet. To me, sometimes it goes so far as to loop back around on itself and cause far more drama than it should.

    I was with a gay man for almost three years. I talk to him every day on the phone, literally. We're still really close. I also answer the phone with "Hey, faggot!" when he calls. I can't count the number of nearby people offended over time, straight, gay or otherwise. I mean, really? I'm obviously a huge lesbian if you happen to notice boobs; if you don't, I look like a very gay man. I live in West Virginia, so it isn't like I've never dealt with gay bashing. I know what it's like to have someone shout derogatory nonsense at me. I used to let it get to me, but then I grew up and decided to just let it go. Now, when someone calls me a faggot as they drive down the street, it makes for a great story.

    I obviously can't speak for anyone of others races, but the homos need to tone it down a bit. I rarely hang out with anyone in the GLBT or LGBT or QUILTBAG or PFLAG or PFLAGBTITS (full disclosure: a lesbian friend of mine made the last one up when some people protested PFLAG because the name didn't have enough letters in the acronym- Parents and Families of Lesbians and Gays, Bisexuals, Transexuals, Intersexed, Two Spirited) because of the hate in the community over all of those sodding letters.

    It seems sometimes that I can't be around more than three people of the non-just-heterosexual variety for more than three minutes without someone flouncing because you didn't know which letter of the alphabet soup the belong to. An activist group I belonged to in college imploded once and accomplished nothing the entire year because we didn't have enough transsexuals, and they must have felt left out. We actually had none, because none joined the group. Most of the people in the group were great people, and would've welcomed them, no problems. Then new people, who weren't transexual themselves, joined and wasted group time because there were none. They kept it up all year. Nothing was accomplished, time was wasted. Most of the old people left the group, no one would join.

    Just tone it down, people. This kind of thing is starting to get out of control on the internet as a whole. FWIW, I used to use LiveJournal all the time back in the day. When the wank got to the "insert group here privilege" point, the affected minorities frequently chimed in to point out that it was just as offensive as the original racism, and indicated to them a feeling that people still felt that they needed to protect the minority, and implied to them that the majority still felt they were better and needed to protect the downtrodden minority, because the minority wasn't capable of it on their own.
    Posted 14 months ago by Darius Atrepes Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Poppy:

    I am pretty sure quite a few gay people and people of color in America are quite regularly caused pain by slurs. That they move forward anyway is not evidence of lack of harm but proof of their tenacity.

    Telling me to stay strong within myself isn't necessary; I am fortunate in that I have people who support me. Some of whom are testaments to the wrongness of "Asking people to stop using that word is not an effective method." Some of whom are very strong within themselves but who find themselves still at odds -- and most often losing -- against discriminatory systems that would treat them not as human beings, but as Other.

    Simply saying strong within oneself is not always (or, in my experience, often) the best defense against hateful words. Neither is saying that "such is life, it will not change." While many times I cannot speak out against slurs I find it strengthens me and encourages others like me if I do so when I am able (which for this very short moment I am). Expectations are self-fulfilling; if I simply accept injustice as an unchangeable fact isn't that a surrender to it? I've tried once to change your mind; it doesn't matter to me anymore if you persist in saying that words are just words, they are separate from and less powerful than actions, &etc. But someone may read this who'll at least know that some people did what they could to speak out.
    Posted 14 months ago by miir Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Zimmi:

    It was a stylistic point. Actually I was speaking of my own experience. You certainly don't have to be offended if you don't want to be, but this was an attempt to explain why certain people are.
    Posted 14 months ago by miir Subscriber! | Permalink
  • "I've tried once to change your mind; it doesn't matter to me anymore if you persist in saying that words are just words, they are separate from and less powerful than actions, &etc. But someone may read this who'll at least know that some people did what they could to speak out."

    This is my point, exactly.  You are frustrated by what I am saying.  You tried to change my mind.  You realize that you are not changing my mind, so you are deciding to move on and do what you think is right for yourself to solve this problem.  

    You are making my point.  We apparently don't disagree as much as you seem to think we do. :-)
    Posted 14 months ago by Poppy of Detwoit Subscriber! | Permalink
  • miir,

    As long as they're just words and the society as a whole isn't using the words to call to action a mass oppression of a certain group... I think it's safe to just call them words and decide not to worry about it.

    If a person calls someone who is ugly, ugly, that doesn't mean he's going to lead a genocide on all the ugly people of the world. He might want to, but the society as a whole needs to back that. It's not going to happen. In our day and age, it's not going to happen to gays, blacks, or anyone. For the most part (not entirely), I think the world has evolved beyond that.
    Posted 14 months ago by Mr. Dawgg Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Mr. Dawgg...
    That is one of the things that I was trying to say.  You made the point I apparently failed to make.
    Thank you.
    Posted 14 months ago by Poppy of Detwoit Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Darius: "To me, sometimes it goes so far as to loop back around on itself and cause far more drama than it should."

    That's precisely my concern. Maybe it's what we get from being LJ refugees. We've seen it first-hand :P
    Posted 14 months ago by Lelly Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Poppy and Lelly: I agree with your general position of "pick your battles" and "don't let the asshats get you down." But I still believe that if someone says something demeaning in my presence (virtual or IRL), then I will say something and I would encourage others to do the same. When doing so, I tend to take the "innocent until proven guilty" approach to intent, e.g. "maybe you didn't realize this, but using 'gay' as a pejorative is demeaning to a lot of people. I'm not gay, but even I find it upsetting." I'm pretty matter-of-fact, although I do have my moments (who doesn't?). If the response is a big "FU" then I move on. So, in that, we agree. But if you're suggesting we stop fighting the good fight, then that's where I have to disagree.

    @Poppy: George Carlin had a point about language. Words are important because we think in language. When we change our language, we eventually change our thinking and vice versa. Words and thoughts do matter because they are the way we frame our values & plan our actions.
    I think your example of African-American advances in civil rights is misguided. African-Americans were able to make strides towards equality because they SPOKE UP about injustice and prejudice. They convinced people that words such as negro, colored, or the other n-word were tools of oppression. And they did it at a time when the repercussions for speaking up were far more severe than having some bigot go clickity-clack on a keyboard. Also, regarding your response to TK-855, I you're simply mistaken. Many of the people advocating the repeal of the 14th amendment ARE in power at various levels of government, local, state AND federal. 

    @ Bluigi: The swastika was a symbol of good luck for centuries before it was appropriated by the Nazis. Are you planning to place one outside your home for luck? No, most likely not because the connotation of the swastika has changed. The meanings of words & symbols evolve. Also, your sense of entitlement is overwhelming. You can make suggestions about how others should act, but no one has the right to tell another person how they should feel. 
    Posted 14 months ago by Mama Crass Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @mirth- The disconnect between actual Roma and the "mystical band of roving adventurers" thing presents real challenges to people attempting to raise any sort of awareness... people tend to separate Roma (who often get the "bad" stereotypes of being car-thieves, hucksters, carnies and "gypping" people) from the "mystical wandering sorcerer" schtick, and consequently, trying to explain to people why the latter's not much better is an uphill struggle. It strikes me as very similar to assuming that every Native American is a medicine man who can tranform into a MIGHTY HAWK!!! at the drop of a hat. So yeah, in the US it's a bit harder to get across that things like "gyp" are in reference to real people. I appreciate that you were open-minded enough to understand the difference between stereotype and ethnicity- thank you.
    Posted 14 months ago by Djabriil Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Lelly- I sort of wish this WERE LiveJournal. This needs a GIF of Michael Jackson eating popcorn.
    Posted 14 months ago by Darius Atrepes Subscriber! | Permalink
  • "It is true that words alone carry no weight except the weight that you lend to them.  Words alone can not cause a person TRUE grief or harm.  Only actions against a person can do that."

    But this is demonstrably false if you look at the research (which people seem to not want to do--we just assume our beliefs are true).  We are social creatures.  When we hear over, and over and over the word "gay" to mean stupid, lacking in masculinity, effeminate, or fail, we associate those things both with the word and with the people to whom it attaches.  The same thing when we are repeatedly exposed to stereotypes about women or minorities.

    There is LOADS of evidence that this is true.

    That doesn't mean we have to jump down people's throats, we should take intent into account when we respond to people.  But that doesn't mean we don't respond.  If we have an interest in a fair society then we have a responsibility to make choices that increase fairness.  And choosing to use language that doesn't perpetuate these stereotypes seems to me like a really, really simple thing to do.  
    Posted 14 months ago by noqualia Subscriber! | Permalink
  • +1 million noqualia. Yay for science.
    ETA: I think the original intent of this thread  can be summed up by a quote from Matt Dillihunty. He said basically that we shouldn't live by the Golden Rule. Rather than do unto others as you would have them do unto you, we should do unto others as they want us to do unto them.
    Posted 14 months ago by Mama Crass Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Words are words. If people are going to be hyper-sensitive about words then they will continue to have a hard time in life.

    Imagine all the classic works you will miss out on enjoying but for one or two words.

    Imagine all the popular songs you will have to boycott but for one or two words.

    The downfall of our society is not that any type of prejudice exists but because of the adoption of overly politically correct attitudes. When you seek to edit one person you infringe on their rights.

    The correct way to handle any words is to simply ignore otherwise you lend credence or power to such words.

    Need it be mentioned that you are on an internet full of diverse people, ideas, opinions and not to mention vast distances?

    If anyone is going to fixate on a word or even an inflammatory comment (which is a relative statement) then, I reiterate, life will be tough.
    Posted 14 months ago by MrDrReich Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Since Carlin was brought up, and since I worship Carlin, I will post this as an example of how context is everything...

    Carlin
    Posted 14 months ago by Poppy of Detwoit Subscriber! | Permalink
  • To clarify:  I do not make a habit of abusing other people with language, and I am pretty constantly interested in how my own language influences my perception (married to a linguist).  I am not trying to deny that these things happen or that there are no good reasons for being nice to each other.  This does not mean I don't stand by my other comments, though.  You don't have to get over anything; that's your right.  I may or may not be sympathetic, however, depending upon my mood and the case.  In particular, if you are someone who is offended by my gay friend wearing the term "f****t" with pride, then I'm going to call you butthurt... or maybe something else, once I think of a witty replacement.  Ultimately, you must take responsibility for your own feelings.  We all fail to do this quite frequently, but it's only ourselves that lose out when that happens.  I may also make verbal mistakes.  I only ask that you attempt to grant me some courtesy, and not assume the worst -- which is the same exact thing offended people are usually asking people not to do about their identity group.

    ...btw, everyone is a part of a minority group.  I am conventionally a member of a couple of legal minorities, but the way I see it, everyone can be labeled.  It all hurts more or less the same.  What hurts is being labeled, and then letting that label stick, and seeing that you have become limited by your label.  I certainly have a lot of sympathy for anyone who's being judged based on aspects beyond their control (even white people).  It sucks.  I'll happily slice someone verbally and/or physically for certain insults.  But I will not ask TS to ban people for words.  And I wear what sticks to me with pride.
    Posted 14 months ago by FlirtyvonSexenhaven Subscriber! | Permalink
  • How about a compromise?

    The people who 'stand up for others,' how about you guys agree to be more understanding of those who might not be intentionally offensive. Send them a PM and ask them what's up. Express your opinionated opinion, and then you two normalize.

    Those who use any slurs be it for benign or neutral use, maybe we should refrain from use in public chat channels. Only use in private channels among like-minded individuals.

    Gay is a tough one because gay the word isn't a slur, but 'that's gay' is a slur sometimes. So let's agree that we shouldn't say, 'that's gay' or any of it derivatives while in GC. Gypsy is another one of these tricky words, and I think the consensus was that it's not a slur.
    Posted 14 months ago by Mr. Dawgg Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @walls    "........Yes, this is similar to the principle that your leg isn't really broken in a car accident unless the driver was deliberately gunning for you. Walk it off! And by no means suggest that the driver watch where they're going next time."

     Not sure your comparison fits but OK. I believe you interpreted my post wrong but it is your right to do so. At no time did I say that a person who has been hurt by another should not express that. I made it quite clear ( I think) that my post was not directed to people who have legitimately been wronged. It is directed to the "poor me'ers" and the righteous who feel they must defend the rights of the underlings who they presume, can not defend themselves.  And to the people who like to make mountains out of mo-hills because they enjoy the drama.

    A word in simply a word. Now, when that word is directed at someone with the intent of hurting them, then it is a little different. That is not what I was talking about. If I were strolling down the road and overheard someone in a conversation use a word or term I did not like, why would I feel the need to say something if it were not directed at me? If I were a righteous know it all, I guess I would feel some obligation.

    I stated  my personal philosophy with regard to how I interact with others as well. I do personaly feel that if a person has been told by someone else that a word they are using is hurtful and they continue to use it....it kinda makes them an asshole. Even though that person is under no obligation to alter their language, it certainly is the nice thing to do. But, none of that is what we were tlking about. Although the replies have gotten quite deep, they are quite far from answereing the OP"s original questions.
    Posted 14 months ago by megan76 Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @ Mr. Dawgg- Uh-oh - you said normalize. I don't know how you meant it but someone's going to be offended, if I've learned anything from the internet. In fact, I'm never sure how anyone means it. I mean, I see you as having meant it in "come to some sort of agreement" way, but I'm sure someone thinks you meant it in a "just act like everyone else even if you can't help it" way.
    Posted 14 months ago by Darius Atrepes Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I wasn't going to respond to this at first but now I am. 
    I am only responsible for the actions of myself and my children. I will choose to act with kindness and forethought. I will be aware that my actions and words can affect others. This effect can be positive or negative. I will try my best to not use words or actions that are known triggers for others offense. However, as there are many words with multiple uses in America, I may not always be successful. I will apologize if I realize after the fact that my actions or words were harmful. If I do not know of my errors I cannot work to change them in the future. 

    Yada, yada and so forth. I follow the above as much as possible. I will admit though that I still use the word Indian occasionally to refer to those that came before me. If I say something incorrect then please correct me by saying politely "that bothered me". I will apologize, but I do not need to know about your personal sexual experiences, your awful childhood, or your ancestors (unless you want to talk genealogy with me). Everyone comes to the table with life experiences both good and bad. I would hope that in a game such as this we are all the same-people trying to have fun. So, if you are not having fun (or I am not) I would suggest turning off chat or leaving the game and returning at another time.

    By the way, if I offended anyone with any of the above (I don't think I did but...) I'm sorry.
    Posted 14 months ago by Holly Waterfall Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I'd like to see this thread pushed to Off-Topic.
    Posted 14 months ago by Parrow Gnolle Subscriber! | Permalink
  • "The downfall of our society is not that any type of prejudice exists but because of the adoption of overly politically correct attitudes. When you seek to edit one person you infringe on their rights.

    The correct way to handle any words is to simply ignore otherwise you lend credence or power to such words."

    I can't edit anyone,I'm hoping that people will decide to edit themselves if they think they are saying something hurtful. With all of the diversity in the world how can you know what offends or hurts others unless they bother to tell you?I guess the more 'correct' thing is for the offendee to not speak, while the offender gets free reign?

    "I made it quite clear ( I think) that my post was not directed to people who have legitimately been wronged. It is directed to the "poor me'ers" and the righteous who feel they must defend the rights of the underlings who they presume, can not defend themselves.  And to the people who like to make mountains out of mo-hills because they enjoy the drama."


    I'm not sure how you can make a distinction between strangers on the internet who have been legitimately wronged, and drama loving righteous poor me'ers. You are judging motives when you don't know these people's circumstances.

    Context and intent are meaningful, I don't think anyone of us here has been coming down hard on those who have innocently said things that they didn't know were going to bother someone. I'm sure I must have said "gypsy" at least a few thousand times in my life, and I'll probably say it again, if for example, I ever get into a conversation about a famous burlesque performer. But I'm glad that I know more about it now, and I'll probably think differently about its usage.

    But I find it ironic that some of those who are concerned with avoiding censorship respond to this topic by saying that anyone who feels offended should keep quiet.
    Posted 14 months ago by crowdedsky Subscriber! | Permalink
  • It is incredibly confusing to me that people in this thread are insisting that the word "nigger" is totally okay to use because hey, at least I'm not lynching a black person! It's like buying child porn and asserting it's okay because you personally are not raping a child.
    Posted 14 months ago by Effigy Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @crowdedsky: oh i find it ironic too!  but it's not just here, really.  the sometimes-to-the-point-of-religious attempts to enforce one's own definition of tolerance are ubiquitous in the world.  i'm at the point when i'm just confused :D
    Posted 14 months ago by Lara Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I guess I will clarify one last time. My comments were specifically made about in game behavior. This whole thing has gotten way off base.

    "....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?......"

    This is main idea of the OP's post. My comments were based on the posts of others. I was not speaking about RL issues. This thread is so lost now I am not surprised things are being misunderstood. ..good luck.
    Posted 14 months ago by megan76 Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Example: Gay got a negative meaning to many people. So should we avoid saying it? Why not use it in a positive way and thereby change the meaning to something positive? If enough people use the word gay in a very positive way, the trend might spread and it changes from a swearword to a complimentous word. Example: if you are amazed and impressed by how detailed and well-matched someone decorated an interior and you'd say: "Wauw! That's very gay!" you give the word gay a complimentous meaning, it means someone has eye for detail, colour and composition. Too bad now it's still mostly used in a semi-complimentous way. (Very good of you, but now you almost appear gay and that is something you should be ashamed of)

    Ofcourse, if a word is used in a "joking" or derogatory way, like in dutch, sometimes when someone screws up he's called "homo!" (gay), then I do think it could be pointed out to that person that that is not a nice way to use that word.
    So yes, I do think intent matters.

    Kind of offtopic, so please don't waste too much time on this, but I still don't understand why "gypsy" is offensive - If I speak of gypsies I speak of the ones from movies or fairytales, truthsayers, hypnotizing beautifull ladies, sparkling music, bellydancing, spirited people. A romanticized image. I think the same way about Indians - Those are the ones wearing feathers, live in wigwams, know lots about nature and are like in the movies.
    Romani and Native Americans are to me not those people, I would be very surprised if I saw them living like Gypsies and Indians. Cowboys too is a reference I use when I mean the old western kind of cowboys. The ones that fought indians. What is wrong with that romantisized image of a nation of the past? How does it offend people?
    When I think of Romani I kind of think of native tribes in the jungle, or nomad tribes in the middle east: People who, because of being travellers and not warriors, have not conquered or claimed a spot of land. They are being oppressed, the people who did draw lines on a map and divided lands now say they have no place in their land. It feels higly unfair, and I get sad because of it. They have no rights, as they do not have a piece of land. They just get pushed around and, because they're strangers in the places they are, blamed for every wrongdoing in town.

    Why can't gypsy be a proud title? How else should I describe a nation, dressed in colourfull clothes, with energetic violin music, bellydancing, mystique, travellers? What is the name of those people? How do you call the people who wear feathers, are masters with bows and axes, have animal names, smoke a peace-pipe and live in big tents and travel around, with leaders who have even more feathers, and a doctor who knows how to speak with ghosts?

    I do believe in minor censhorship for keeping the peace, both ways. I also agree that sometimes it can be blown out of proportions if someone who didn't intend it bad is corrected, that person can feel hurt themselves by being corrected. It's also in the way the correction is done, like one example above about the blonde joke, I did like the response of "Drs Ir Blonde disagrees with you". That is soft correction, and I like that :).
    Posted 14 months ago by Miriamele Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Miriamele - My disapproval (and many others') stems from the things I've outlined above. The reasons "gypsy" doesn't strike most of us as a proud title I've outlined as well, including the stereotypes the word conjures up, and the way it is often used, and to our faces, on a regular basis everywhere.
    Posted 14 months ago by Djabriil Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I don't think this thread is lost yet as there is still a discussion going on, and not just namecalling. It still has valuable information (and I hope a bit more once someone can clearly explain why Indian, Gypsy, Cowboy are bad words). (Or are they only bad words when used in a certain context?)

    Anyway, back ontopic:
    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? Imagine 3 circles, the first one is a small dot, then a bigger one, then an even bigger one. The dot is you. The next circle is the circle you have direct influence on. The circle beyond that is the circle of things that affect you but which you can't influence. You can try and change things in the 3rd circle, but it's a waste of time and energy. Better spend energy on the 2nd or first circle. We can only influence others behaviours to a certain extent - in your above example it looks like this person is in the 3rd cirle, so nothing you can do directly is going to change that. You could influence the 2nd circle though, and maybe in there there is someone who has this person in his/her 2nd circle and thus can influence this person.

    So you have 2 options:
    1.) don't waste energy on it,
    2.) or try to find someone who can do something about it. The last one would be TS, and can happen if you report this person.
    More talking and direct action from you against that player is useless. I think it's better for your own blood pressure to relax, look away, turn the other cheek and focus on something fun. (Perhaps after reporting this person. Let it go, you have done what was in your power).Maybe someone said something sweet in chat. Focus on that/those positive thing(s) instead on that one negative thing, don't let it control you. Don't let it consume you.
    Posted 14 months ago by Miriamele Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Miriamele: I don't really see how changing the meaning of "gay" to "great interior designer" would make anything better. That's just restricting gay people into this one little stereotype, ascribing traits to them rather than letting them have their own individual traits. Many gay people are gigantic hairy lumberjack men that probably wouldn't know the first thing about interior design (also a stereotype in itself, but I'm trying to counter the skinny feminine interior designer gay stereotype). In fact, most gay people are just normal people, but gay. It's the same with other stereotypes, like "gypsy." I'm not in that minority group, but if I was I would probably be really, really bothered if somebody came up to me all like "OHHH YOU'RE A GYPSY!!!! SHOW ME YOUR FORTUNE TELLING MAGIC!!!" It may not be a "negative" stereotype, but it's weird and degrading, and reduces an entire group of people to some ridiculous, mocking fantasy fairy tale.

    Also, since when was "cowboy" a negative word? Who even brought that up before you?
    Posted 14 months ago by Effigy Subscriber! | Permalink
  • i'll say this.

    if you see/hear something that offends your sensibilities and you feel compelled to say something about it, say something about it.  if you don't, don't.  the person who offended you is under no obligation to change their behavior on the spot to accommodate your sensibilities, but if they are consistently confronted with the fact that they are offending people wherever they go (especially if the people who call them out make an effort to politely educate rather than angrily confront) then they may just feel compelled to rethink  their behavior.  they may not, and that might be a damn shame, but that's the nature of life - as much as we all want the freedom to be who we are, we must afford that same freedom to people with whom we may not always agree.

    fwiw, i've never once witnessed a conversation in-game that i would describe as offensive, but i'm sure they happen.  there are certainly blithely offensive people out there who could stand to change their behavior, just as there are most definitely hypersensitive people out there who could stand to lighten up and not get so easily offended over situations that may not merit their outrage.  most of us fall somewhere in the middle, and i don't think it benefits anybody to keep polarizing this conversation into "either you're a big jerk who just wants carte blanche to not have to think about other people's feelings or you're the over-sensitive pc-police, trying to suck all the fun out of human interaction."  i don't think most people here are either delighting in offending those around them or poring over every interaction for a reason to stir up drama, we're all just trying to be ourselves in this community.  if i offend somebody, i'd like to hear about it from them, and i'll generally be more than happy to take their input under consideration.  i have, however, never been given any indication that anything i've said in-game, on the forums, or out in the world is hurting anybody else, so i'm inclined to believe i'm not part of the problem here.  in any case, i think most people are of a similar mindset - if they discover their words or actions are hurting others, they'll more than likely try to adjust their behavior accordingly. 

    so, yeah, i'll say it again yet another way: if you feel someone needs to be called out over something they've said or done, then by all means, do so.  don't expect the world to always bend to your will, but trust that people will generally be more than willing to accommodate your concerns, both in the altruistic interest of building a cohesive community as well as the self-interest of not wanting to have others think they're an asshole.  if not, at least you've said your piece and tried to make them aware of how their behavior has affected your experience of the game.  beyond that, it's no more your prerogative to control other people's behavior than it is theirs to controls yours.

    oh, and...

    this thread is gay.

    in the best possible way.  :)
    Posted 14 months ago by BeatFreq Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @BeatFreq: Thanks. I had finally gotten frustrated enough with this discussion to write a post and I wasn't really happy with the way it turned out, but I checked the thread first and found that you had written the post I WANTED to write, but didn't.
    Posted 14 months ago by EnnuiStreet Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Why is anyone annoyed by this thread?  It's a lively discussion.  It hasn't devolved into poop-throwing or anything like that.  
    I think it's a great thread.  People can disagree without it being a bad thing.  I think it's extremely interesting.  
    Posted 14 months ago by Poppy of Detwoit Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Effigy:
    Before I make a statement, I have to ask you a question.  Were you referring to my post about the "N" word in your last posting?  Or was that directed at another person's comments about that word?
    Posted 14 months ago by Poppy of Detwoit Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I was in the middle of another big, long post, but Effigy put things so well, I can just add a few points. In general, a designation given by a people's oppressor is usually meant to, well, oppress and dehumanize. For example, until the 20th century, white men of European were referred to as "the white man" whereas African-American men were "the negro" or "negroid." Not "negro man," just "negro." Another way of devaluing a people is by choosing a label that mangles their origin. Gypsies are not from Egypt and Indians in the Americans are not from India. 
    As for cowboy, I don't know if the word itself is offensive to anyone. If it is, I hope someone tells me rather than let me go around ignorantly offending people. Romanticizing the Old West, however, yes, it annoys me as a Hispanic and a woman, and I can see how that would be upsetting to Native Americans, Jews, African Americans, and any other group who was abused, marginalized, raped, or murdered in those not-so-good old days. It bordered on genocide. It's like romanticizing the Old South.
    Posted 14 months ago by Mama Crass Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Djabrill
    I'm maybe a bit thickheaded and me being not english probably doesn't help, but if I'm talking about the stereotype, romantic image, I call that stereotype a gypsy, it is not linked to romani other then that it is a romanticized past. To me, there are no gypsies anymore. Maybe only at a dressup party. Native American's aren't Indians, Romani aren't Gypsies. Is the word Gypsy, in itself, offensive? Or is it the way it is used when spoken about romani? What should I call that stereotype? Or should the stereotype be banned, the image of the seductive dancer banned?
    Or should I say: I am going to dress up as a romani, and then put on the gypsybellydancercostume, make my eyes dark, wear a scarf, bring a glass ball? I think that is definitely offensive?

    As you have noticed, I have never ever had a negative association with the word gypsy, to me it's like... fairies, kobolds, knights, Arthurians, Indians... sort of legend, something of the past which was both good and bad (every nation has their good and bad citizens). To me it sounds like it is a heritage, an image to be proud of.
    I have done lots of bellydancing, and there are different styles: baladi, gypsy, egyptian/classic... Is gypsy used in that way offensive? Is thinking of gypsy dancers in that bellydancing way and mentioning that to others offensive? Gypsy kings? Jalilah's
    Raks Sharki - Journey Of The Gypsy Dancer CD?
    I guess I just really really don't want it to be offensive, as it kind of destroys this image I have of gypsies. It would taint a wonderfull dream, give it a nasty aftertase. What is meant by people who use gypsy in a bad way? How is it a negative thing?

    @ megan76: sorry to go offtopic, but I just want to understand this, and it just doesn't seem to get through to me.

    @ Effigy: First, I feel attacked/hurt by your post, it sounds very angry while I was very open and tried to share my thoughts. Don't assume I am out to hurt people. I am out to understand stuff or create more understanding.

    Why is a stereotype bad neccesarily? There are stereotypes for every group. Stereotypes will form, it is impossible to not have stereotypes. And with my above example of the word gay, I tried to explain that the word isn't used anymore as first meaning someone who is homosexual, but that the first meaning becomes something else. Like the original meaning of the word is "happy". If I would use the word in that meaning again, and if everyone would use the word in that meaning again, would it mean that all homosexuals are happy or walk around smiling? No, it just takes away the negative charge a word has. And why can't it be used that way? I could say: "This clearly needs a femals touch!" to a mans interior - that doesn't mean all women are good designers, or that only a women can add warmth/cosiness to a place, or that any woman can do that. Or that that is the only thing a woman can do. No one would think it would mean that. How would you suggest to remove the negative content of the word and make the word a positive one, something people wouldn't mind being complimented with?

    And why cowboys: because to me they are also a relic of the past, like indians and gypsies. To me, cowboy is not a negative word, but neither is indian or gypsy. I am still trying to understand why indian or gypsy is a negative word (and for instance cowboy isn't.)

    If it were possible, I'd split this topic into the original topic and "why are certain words negative and how can we change that" but alas, I can't. And I'm too curious to let go. But it is bed time.

    The thing is, I don't want all those negative words to be negative, as they are not in my head! I don't use them in a negative way, and I would love it if the words weren't so negative anymore. It's getting tiring to keep using different words because the old one has become dirty, how about cleaning it and reusing it? How can that change be made?

    Edit:@Mama Crass, thank you for explaining it. Do you know, I never ever linked the word Gypsies to Egypt? And yes, ofcourse, terrible things happened in the past. The dutch were great tradesmen, had rich colonies, were a small but very rich country. And were slave-handlers. That is a part I am not proud of. But I am proud of the ability to negotiate with many different cultures, to trade with them. To become such a big tradespartner while being such a small country. I do not want to be remembered of every evil that has been done in the past. It would make me depressed. I do want to remember good and happy things of the past. (This does not mean I want to not know about evil, I just don't want to be reminded of it everytime.)

    Indians are not from India, but when they were named that they thought they were from India? Was it then meant as a devaluation? (Ofcourse it was, as the white man thought himself superior over all of earth).

    I am not romanticising the old west, or the old gypsy days, or the old indian days.. I am romantisizing the stereotype. Zorro stories, Transformers, the sherrif against the bad guys, the old simple tv shows where good was good and evil was evil. I would wish history had happened like in certain movies or series. Or wished I could go back in time and DO something against slavery. I do romanticize pirates (hello Captain Jack Sparrow!) but I would not ever want to see one in real life or would want to have met one if I had lived in those times.
    Posted 14 months ago by Miriamele Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @beatfreq    +1000  very well put!

    @miriamele   You have nothing to apologize for!  :) I understand your confusion. I wish I had some answers for you.
    Posted 14 months ago by megan76 Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Ah! Ah! Ah! I don't think I should be fanning these flames, but they are burning me.  I wrote a screed (a screed I say) but I don't know if I should post it.  Can we have a breather about this, and maybe some staff direction about this discussion and how it is proceeding? Is the staff interested in letting this play out, or in hearing what people have to say? I'm interested in saying what I have to say but more so that the staff can read one more position paper than in engaging with particular people and their words above. 

    What to do?
    Posted 14 months ago by Scarlett Bearsdale Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Miriamele: Sort of. Native Americans were designated "Indians" because Columbus thought he landed in the West Indes. Native Americans did not choose this name themselves. It was assigned to them. Even after the mistake was realized, European conquerors couldn't be bothered to correct themselves because these were just animals whose history & civilization were savage. Like you said, Europeans considered themselves superior, and if they wanted to call people Indian, then that's what they were going to do.
    In fact, if Native Americans of the time had any say, the various nations never would have lumped themselves together. 
    Posted 14 months ago by Mama Crass Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Scarlett: Here's my 2 cents (feel free to leave them on the table if you don't want them). If you want to share an opinion & hear what others' responses are to it, then post it. If you just want staff to know what your opinion is as a consumer of their product, then perhaps communicating with staff only via email or bug report is the way to go. I would understand if you chose the latter (following & responding can be exhausting), but I'm interested in what you have to say. I know this thread looks hairy, but overall it's been pretty civil.
    Posted 14 months ago by Mama Crass Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @ miriamele  I don't doubt that in your head all those words are not negative. But meanwhile outside of your head who knows what kind of crazy stuff is going on!

    I just had an interesting memory relating to the word "gypsy". When I was a teenager my Italian grandmother used to accuse me of being a gypsy (in Italian) when she was mad at me for being too wild or something (wild=normal teenager). I never thought about why she'd call me that when she was angry at me, but maybe she had a negative association from her own culture. I imagine that if I had a friend who was Romani standing next to me at the time, it could have been traumatizing for them to hear me called that with negative connotations.
    Posted 14 months ago by crowdedsky Subscriber! | Permalink