2011: Best Mafia Performance (Individual) - Best Newcomer
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
FYI: This is actually a pretty mainstream opinion these days. "Gay" is preferred to "homosexual." Also, using either one as a noun is definitely not preferred. Saying "a homosexual" or "the gays" is seen as disparaging (and gramattically improper) -- I would go with "a gay person" or "gay people" instead.
@Highroller - There are a few reasons for this. Mostly because most of the time when people say it, you can really tell they mean other words, or as B_S mentioned, it's almost like you're describing a thing rather than a person.
This is a pretty common thing: most black folks don't like to be called "blacks"
While 'the blacks' would raise eyebrows at it's weirdness in common conversation, 'blacks' is actually a pretty common term. Especially when discussing statistical studies and talking about races in general you would say 'whites', 'blacks' or 'hispanics' if you're pluralizing. It's not a problem unless you're really trying to get at something else. If I said, 'Blacks in the city disproportionately suffer from diabetes', no one would bat an eye.
I assume we're not talking about the term black vs african american here, but just the term 'blacks'.
What can I say? On a rainy island in the north Atlantic, three unremarkable European languages came together and suffered a sea-change into something rich and strange.
'Abomination' should always be used when describing the English language.
Of course, I'm learning Hindi, and that's just as bad. The grammar is yoda-speak, and unlike Latin-based languages, they don't do our simplified tens digits. Every number up until 100 is unique. But I'm digressing.
@Highroller - There are a few reasons for this. Mostly because most of the time when people say it, you can really tell they mean other words
Except, again, that's stupid. Homosexual has no negative connotation. It's a perfectly fine and frankly quite useful word to describe people who like people who are the same sex as they are, especially since gay is ambiguous (it can mean anyone who is homosexual, or it can mean homosexual males. You know what doesn't have that ambiguity? The word "homosexual," which is what they are!)
No, I think we should strive instead to not be stupid, and accept the word with the neutral meaning as a word with a neutral meaning, instead of imagining ways for it to be offensive.
While 'the blacks' would raise eyebrows at it's weirdness in common conversation, 'blacks' is actually a pretty common term. Especially when discussing statistical studies and talking about races in general you would say 'whites', 'blacks' or 'hispanics' if you're pluralizing. It's not a problem unless you're really trying to get at something else. If I said, 'Blacks in the city disproportionately suffer from diabetes', no one would bat an eye.
I assume we're not talking about the term black vs african american here, but just the term 'blacks'.
Moreover, "African-American" should be considered offensive for a very simple reason: the word "black" encompasses people who are neither African nor American! What if a dude's Jamaican? He's black, but he's not African and he's not American. So is he a non-person now? Note the irony.
'Abomination' should always be used when describing the English language.
If by "abomination" you mean, "Best language ever," then...
Well, then I would point you to a Thesaurus because clearly you mixed up the synonyms with the antonyms. But yeah, English is awesome.
Of course, I'm learning Hindi, and that's just as bad. The grammar is yoda-speak, and unlike Latin-based languages, they don't do our simplified tens digits. Every number up until 100 is unique. But I'm digressing.
I don't really care to discuss the topic, but I still think there are similarities. And people conflate Caucasians with Catholics. I'm not trying to twist the conversation into a debate on religion, but, to me, it seems like an appropriate comparison.
Then those people would also be wrong.
Right, but what would you call someone that does that? A Catholiphobe? Is there even a established word for that?
@Highroller - There are a few reasons for this. Mostly because most of the time when people say it, you can really tell they mean other words
Except, again, that's stupid. Homosexual has no negative connotation. It's a perfectly fine and frankly quite useful word to describe people who like people who are the same sex as they are, especially since gay is ambiguous (it can mean anyone who is homosexual, or it can mean homosexual males. You know what doesn't have that ambiguity? The word "homosexual," which is what they are!)
No, I think we should strive instead to not be stupid, and accept the word with the neutral meaning as a word with a neutral meaning, instead of imagining ways for it to be offensive.
I don't necessarily disagree in almost all cases. It's just when certain people say 'homo-sex-ual' (being extra sure to emphasize every syllable) it is kind of creepy, and the impression is that they're a few words away from saying something else.
Moreover, "African-American" should be considered offensive for a very simple reason: the word "black" encompasses people who are neither African nor American! What if a dude's Jamaican? He's black, but he's not African and he's not American. So is he a non-person now? Note the irony.
Yeah, exactly this. I've always hated the phrase African American, because it even makes very little sense in the context of most black people in the US. One of my best friends growing up was half-dutch, half-bahamian. None of his ancestors had been to Africa in over 400 years. He's Bahamian American or Dutch American at best.
Of course, I'm learning Hindi, and that's just as bad. The grammar is yoda-speak, and unlike Latin-based languages, they don't do our simplified tens digits. Every number up until 100 is unique. But I'm digressing.
Non-base 10 counting system? That's horrifying.[/quote]It's still base ten, and they use Roman Numerals, the issue is it's not easily simplified. In English (and pretty much all latin-based languages), you can learn to count until ten, and then learn the tens until 100 and with the exception of eleven and twelve you can form the words for each number. Twenty-two, Thirty-one, etc. In Hindi it's a lot less clear. For instance: 6 is chah, 50 is pacas, but 56 is chappan. And that one makes more sense than some others.
I don't really care to discuss the topic, but I still think there are similarities. And people conflate Caucasians with Catholics. I'm not trying to twist the conversation into a debate on religion, but, to me, it seems like an appropriate comparison.
Then those people would also be wrong.
Right, but what would you call someone that does that? A Catholiphobe? Is there even a established word for that?
Generally, they wouldn't even be worth classifying. The thing is, while some people have strong feelings about Catholicism, it's actually a pretty easy religion to understand because it has a strong central authority. Part of the thing that makes Islam (in all it's denominations) so challenging is that it doesn't have a strong central authority, it's more akin to various protestant Christian faiths like Baptists - who have a central tenant they share in the faith but otherwise a diverse range of views.
You are being informed that, in this context, it does. Don't be one of those "Redskins" defender guys.
Let me expand on this point a bit. There was once a time when 'colored' was an appropriate term to use to describe minorities. It makes logical sense, and there really much of a difference between black/white or colored/white when looking at the words clinically. The same used to be true of the word redskin (as B_S mentions).
The social difference is a big one, though. Look, no one is saying don't use homosexual ever, it's just that in everyday conversation or public speaking, 'homosexual' tends to come from people who believe in the 'homosexual agenda', while everyone else just says gay. It's not at the level of 'colored' and likely won't ever be, but it's one of those things where they'd really just prefer it if you said gay.
Let me expand on this point a bit. There was once a time when 'colored' was an appropriate term to use to describe minorities. It makes logical sense, and there really much of a difference between black/white or colored/white when looking at the words clinically. The same used to be true of the word redskin (as B_S mentions).
The social difference is a big one, though. Look, no one is saying don't use homosexual ever, it's just that in everyday conversation or public speaking, 'homosexual' tends to come from people who believe in the 'homosexual agenda', while everyone else just says gay. It's not at the level of 'colored' and likely won't ever be, but it's one of those things where they'd really just prefer it if you said gay.
There are a lot of differences between "homosexual" and "redskin". What's identical is Highroller's response of emphatically insisting that there's nothing objectionable in the connotation after being explicitly informed that there is.
I don't necessarily disagree in almost all cases. It's just when certain people say 'homo-sex-ual' (being extra sure to emphasize every syllable) it is kind of creepy, and the impression is that they're a few words away from saying something else.
And are you seriously trying to argue that the word "gay" wouldn't mean the same thing used by those people? Actually, I probably shouldn't use the subjunctive, and should instead say "doesn't mean the same thing," because the same people who argue for the "homosexual agenda" are also arguing for the "gay agenda." The words mean the same thing in their usage as well.
Which demonstrates what I'm trying to say: if someone views being gay as marking someone as inherently inferior or wrong, there's no word you can create that will switch that. This is evident in how moron, idiot, retarded, mentally-challenged, mentally-disabled, and "special" (referring to special education) all became insults, despite many of them specifically being created to be euphemisms. When the quality itself (being gay, being mentally-disabled, being a particular ethnicity) is derided, there's no word you can just switch to make it better. It's not that simple.
By the same logic: should we decide we won't call ourselves Americans because a bunch of fanatical Islamists are using it derisively?
No, the response is to not be stupid and take an otherwise useful word that has a neutral connotation and decide it should now be a slur.
Not to mention homosexual people have already earned my respect for doing the exact opposite with an actual slur. The word queer was at one point neutral, then considered offensive, and it is now neutral again. This demonstrates what I am saying.
Let me expand on this point a bit. There was once a time when 'colored' was an appropriate term to use to describe minorities. It makes logical sense, and there really much of a difference between black/white or colored/white when looking at the words clinically. The same used to be true of the word redskin (as B_S mentions).
In a sense, it still is an appropriate term to describe black people (see: "person of color").
Look, no one is saying don't use homosexual ever, it's just that in everyday conversation or public speaking, 'homosexual' tends to come from people who believe in the 'homosexual agenda', while everyone else just says gay.
To which I disagree. I find homosexual is used quite frequently, and "homosexuality" even more so. Moreover, as stated, gay is by its nature ambiguous. "Gay" can mean all homosexuals or just homosexual men. (Further, notice how I used homosexual twice there, because I had to, because it's the only common word that means what I want.)
Furthermore, to say that "homosexual" is used by people who mean "homosexual agenda" and therefore its usage should be avoided is nonsensical for multiple reasons:
1. The same people say gay agenda
2. That's not a valid reason to stop using a word
3. The word "queer" was once a slur and now is a neutral word, and was so because of a concerted effort by queer people to decide not to accept it being a slur.
It's not at the level of 'colored' and likely won't ever be, but it's one of those things where they'd really just prefer it if you said gay.
Again, I wouldn't have a problem if there were any non-stupid reason presented to me why "Homosexual" would be considered offensive.
I mean, there's the great example of black people taking offense at the term "black hole" (as referring to the phenomenon in space) to demonstrate that just because someone takes offense does not mean we should take them seriously. Now, I'm not saying this is analogous, nor am I denying there's an intelligent reason. I'm asking what the intelligent reason is.
Highroller - BS and Jay are giving you descriptive answers and you're coming back asking for the logic behind it. There is no logic, it's cultural usage. Why does the word "cool" have positive connotations and the word "cold" have negative connotations? (i.e. "Highroller's a cool person" versus "Highroller's a cold person"). No good reason. Why is the phrase "colored person" offensive whereas "person of color" is not. No good reason. It's stupid, but that's just how the words are used right now in society.
Right now "homosexual" is dispreferred and borderline offensive, whereas "gay" is fine. Maybe in 5 or 10 years it won't be that way anymore. Who knows. There's no specific reasoning behind it. It's based on the word's complex pedigree of largely arbitrary cultural and linguistic evolution.
Which demonstrates what I'm trying to say: if someone views being gay as marking someone as inherently inferior or wrong, there's no word you can create that will switch that. This is evident in how moron, idiot, retarded, mentally-challenged, mentally-disabled, and "special" (referring to special education) all became insults, despite many of them specifically being created to be euphemisms. When the quality itself (being gay, being mentally-disabled, being a particular ethnicity) is derided, there's no word you can just switch to make it better. It's not that simple.
I might have overstated things a bit here. I don't think Homosexual is going to be a true slur anytime soon like many of those other examples. The point is, if a group has a preferred name for themselves, I don't really see the problem with using that preferred term. American Indian over Native American. Mentally Challenged over Retarded. It doesn't matter that they're all accurate, what matters is that in a cultural sense there is a difference.
I'm sorry, wasn't this thread about people who are reacting to things by claiming that they are offensive, and our scrutinizing those people for whether their reactions have merit or they're acting like dumbasses reacting in a disproportionate and illogical manner?
I seem to recall that was what this thread was.
But now I ask why we should regard the following statement:
Also, using the word "homosexual" with a homosexual is now considered an insult,
as having any merit, and all of a sudden it's beyond reproach? Highroller, there is no logic behind it, you must simply accept it without scrutinizing its merits?
How do you reconcile these two?
Again, I'm fine with saying "homosexual" is offensive if you give me a valid reason why it's offensive. If it's just, "people take offense to it," then how is that any better from the Tumblr crowd whose very lack of logic, reason, and merit were why this thread was made in the first place?
Quote from Jay13x »
The point is, if a group has a preferred name for themselves, I don't really see the problem with using that preferred term.
Ok, so now you're making a blanket statement for all or at least the majority of homosexual people that they view "homosexual" as offensive. I'm asking what makes you confident you can make this statement. I don't consider this an illogical question.
Again, I'm fine with saying "homosexual" is offensive if you give me a valid reason why it's offensive. If it's just, "people take offense to it," then how is that any better from the Tumblr crowd whose very lack of logic, reason, and merit were why this thread was made in the first place?
That's a fair point. GLAAD explains it like someone explained it earlier: It's mostly used in a way to suggest that gays are diseased.
Quote from Jay13x »
The point is, if a group has a preferred name for themselves, I don't really see the problem with using that preferred term.
Ok, so now you're making a blanket statement for all or at least the majority of homosexual people that they view "homosexual" as offensive. I'm asking what makes you confident you can make this statement. I don't consider this an illogical question.[/quote]I would say if the single largest advocacy organization for that group says it, it's got some legitimacy.
Again, I'm fine with saying "homosexual" is offensive if you give me a valid reason why it's offensive. If it's just, "people take offense to it," then how is that any better from the Tumblr crowd whose very lack of logic, reason, and merit were why this thread was made in the first place?
What would you accept as a "valid" reason? In my very first post on the subject in this thread, I gave a reason based on the history of English language usage leading to words with different etymologies having different connotations, and you just came back with "that's stupid, 'homosexual' has no negative connotation."
Oh dear god the sanctimonious prescriptivism. "Don't use these words, don't even quote people who use them unless it's specifically to prove how evil they are"? Writers need to be informed of the meanings of the words they use. They don't need to be told what to write.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
What legit reasons do you think the tumblr kids have to be angry?
homophobia
when youre 15 and theyre literally beating you up weekly, youre legitimate to be angry.
now, an adult hearing a 15 yo beaten up lgtb kid should act like an adult and understand when said kid says "all heteros are dumb" he's just angry at life, not that aaaal the lgtb people thinks that. because theres more than 15 yolds in the lgtb community
2011: Best Mafia Performance (Individual) - Best Newcomer
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
Oh dear god the sanctimonious prescriptivism. "Don't use these words, don't even quote people who use them unless it's specifically to prove how evil they are"? Writers need to be informed of the meanings of the words they use. They don't need to be told what to write.
Yeah.. I wasn't really a fan of that either. But it's at least a consensus on word use.
What legit reasons do you think the tumblr kids have to be angry?
Well, it's not like racism, sexism, and homophobia don't actually exist, and haven't actually affected innocent people's lives dramatically for the worse. That there's a problem isn't even a question. The question is what the rational and humane response is. (And the answer is, of course, "Anything but whining about it on Tumblr.")
It's "their clubhouse" and that's perfectly normal as a means for them to socialize, it's like some of us who go to an LGS and post here on occasion, it's "how our kind communicates." "Normal society" is pretty segmented outside of casual places. We congregate most people below 25 into schools of some sort and low end wage work, while most people 25-retirement are in the workforce or raising children or living in some sort of disability or prison or some such. Even then, we've been self-segregated through the 70's, 80's and 90's from television and reintegrating ourselves since the rise of the internet and the cell phone revolution of the last few years. With that said, Jezebell, 4 Chan, and tumblr are all ready made little localized groupthink places to "hang out." This is really no different than a socially conservative Christian going to church and hearing an anti-abortion message.
The question we need to be asking, is not whether segregating people it's where we can bring people together at of different groups and interests that still hold their group together. Remember that the abolitionists and the feminists early on were allies, but came apart because of their own groups had different allocations and mentalities. It didn't make the rights groups any different, but their trajectory and evolution became quite different and at specific times in history came together to support each other in the Civil Rights Movement.
I think people aren't just whining anymore, since the fall of the old political order we've seen young people, conservative and liberal, step up and try to do something. People laugh at the Tea Party, but they're trying to get a coalition moving and have succeeded. The issue really is with the OWS movement and affiliated groups have no common standing, and the better aspects of the political movement and social theory that came out of now conservative areas are running dry because feminism has displaced aspects of Progressive ideology like the Social Gospel that drove some of the better parts of the New Left.
However, we must also consider that during the Civil Rights Movement there was a lot of black masculinism and militarism in the form of groups like the Black Panthers. But, I agree, that their bluster was met with action. Which is why when I talk to young people that are interested in justice that justice needs institutions and organizations. Hayek and others overvalue that people "always start things," they don't which is why we have government over voluntaryism in praxis.
My issue as a conservative with conservatism is the attempts to alienate people from their government through fear mongering and attempting to appeal to the red scare by replacing red scare with "gay agenda" or "neo-colonialist mentality." Us conservatives are in part to blame, because we only focus on an economic message that has alienated the youth, forsaken people of gender identities, and encourage an antiquated vision of how the US "should be back in the day." The old large versus small government system worked under Reagan, but the problems are that much more complex. Democrats have been talking directly to these people about building a real city on a hill, which while I hate that concept, it doesn't hide the truth that with the beasts within the society handing over both an identity and safety and community. We drive people out of the big tent politics into these smaller, more welcoming like minded groups.
And many conservatives such as Jeb Bush have really gotten into this message about not being the "Party of No" to both Neo-Conservatives and the rising Libertarians. You need to pass laws that affect people, you need to reform government to working for the people, and ultimately increasing freedom. We, on the right, especially start the old Reagan conservative coalition from social conservatives about gay rights and abortion. For the most part, social conservatives are using theology as a buttress and are against the inherent spirit of the Founder philosophy on religion and personal liberty, even if some writers themselves were hypocrites and owned slaves. We take the base ideas that are good, acknowledge the bad and move on. If we lose someone along the way? Oh well, hope they enjoy their new clique.
Social conservatives need to learn that the Bible needs to be looked at in the context of the modern society, and that there are new Christian religions now such as Mormonism that will rise to challenge the old versions of Christianity and the interpretations in older denominations. Those of us that are social conservatives have been using government to our own ends as a social engineering tool through programs such as zero tolerance, DADT, and several others like deregulation. And the fanatical aspects of those groups and the real pain that some of those policies have caused in peoples lives and all the anger and anguish for people not finding a job at the right time, or getting a good job in the military but getting into trouble because they have a boyfriend, and on and on.
Because, we in the conservative community, failed to address the needs of our country during it's time of need and failed to address the limitations of our own policies and the real pain and anger we've caused this society through bad policy. And it's about time conservatism began to look at the younger generation and people who are successful in life that are different than the old Reagan Coalition and say "What do you want from us?"
And it's actually pretty simple, "don't tell me who I can marry," and "I want a job where I'm valued," and on and on. It's not hard, it's about getting the right culture going. The issue with both libertarians and SJW, is that they both think if they get policy right things "magically happen" out of fear of "some big bad thing." Well, what worked for the Old Left, New Left, and the Reagan Coalition was it basically built stuff and created institutions to meet the needs of the time. And yes, government is a part of that and yes a large part of that requires individualism.
I see SJW and Libertarians as equally dogmatic and lazy to implement. I prefer young evangelicals who go out on missionary trips and start businesses, I prefer young liberals who go beyond protesting and actually go out and help the homeless by themselves and also start 401c3's. And many do start businesses, some fail some succeed. I like that, and I applaud it. This doesn't mean that SJW and Libertarians don't do these things themselves, it's just that I find them to be either well off and riding the coattails of their parents, who were yuppies, or otherwise dogmatic and given into little implementation and following the ideology because it's "cool." It's the armchair political theorist that's in vogue that should annoy people without theorizing and testing their theories out in public first.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life is a beautiful engineer, yet a brutal scientist.
By the way, I am following the person I posted last day on Tumblr, and here's another example of what I mean with his topic: no matter how a person tries to express or the arguments it uses, it always seems to be offensive for the LGBT community, at least the younger, internet one.
Can we agree that we're leaving the world on the hands of a bunch of intolerant, self-righteous idiots who will grow up to further spread the "Special Butterflies are Unique and must eat other little bugsies" message?
It doesn't matters if you're part of the LGBT community or not, religious or atheist, black or white... we all deserve a degree of respect and should be threated as equals, being "diferent" per popular opinion doesn't means you're not a human being, have special qualities, or that you must be threated different. What I see here is that younger members of the LGBT community at least expect to be seen as special unique martyrs that must be treated as such, and have the right to call everyone who disagrees with whatever insignificant point of view (such as fictional characters) to be called a homophobe and be attacked, thus, making this an endless chain of events: you want respect but don't give it back.
You know what no one would ever do? Pick a random angry straight kid's tumblr out and ask if the "younger straight community" is full of over-sensitive jerks.
You know what no one would ever do? Pick a random angry straight kid's tumblr out and ask if the "younger straight community" is full of over-sensitive jerks.
Maybe because surprisingly I've seen the complete opposite reaction happening on Tumblr and other social websites and that's why I decided to open a debate?
One would expect the minority to be the victims, not the aggressors.
Maybe because surprisingly I've seen the complete opposite reaction happening on Tumblr and other social websites and that's why I decided to open a debate?
One would expect the minority to be the victims, not the aggressors.
You shouldn't generalize an entire sexual orientation based on the social media comments of some angry teenagers. It's just kids on Tumblr. Not some grand gay conspiracy to persecute straight people.
It doesn't matters if you're part of the LGBT community or not, religious or atheist, black or white... we all deserve a degree of respect and should be threated as equals
That's only starting to happen for LGBT now, though. Marriage equality is a patchwork thing in the US (although the upcoming Supreme Court decision might change that). Someone with full legal rights telling a second-class citizen that, while they may be upset about being a second-class citizen, they shouldn't be rude about it...
What I see here is that younger members of the LGBT community at least expect to be seen as special unique martyrs that must be treated as such, and have the right to call everyone who disagrees with whatever insignificant point of view (such as fictional characters) to be called a homophobe and be attacked, thus, making this an endless chain of events: you want respect but don't give it back.
The person you're following was responding to a post including "when I say 'gaysualize' I mean, everything's becoming so sexualized and creepy"; I can see how a gay person might be upset by that - they might be reading too much into it, but again, angry teenager.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
Someone with full legal rights telling a second-class citizen that, while they may be upset about being a second-class citizen, they shouldn't be rude about it...
...is more or less correct, but must be aware that the optics of his statement may have more impact than its correctness. Diplomacy is the art of framing one's point so that it will be believed. In a few cases, the only diplomatic move is to be silent, and wait for the same point to be made by someone else.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
{мы, тьма}
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
While 'the blacks' would raise eyebrows at it's weirdness in common conversation, 'blacks' is actually a pretty common term. Especially when discussing statistical studies and talking about races in general you would say 'whites', 'blacks' or 'hispanics' if you're pluralizing. It's not a problem unless you're really trying to get at something else. If I said, 'Blacks in the city disproportionately suffer from diabetes', no one would bat an eye.
I assume we're not talking about the term black vs african american here, but just the term 'blacks'.
'Abomination' should always be used when describing the English language.
Of course, I'm learning Hindi, and that's just as bad. The grammar is yoda-speak, and unlike Latin-based languages, they don't do our simplified tens digits. Every number up until 100 is unique. But I'm digressing.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
No, I think we should strive instead to not be stupid, and accept the word with the neutral meaning as a word with a neutral meaning, instead of imagining ways for it to be offensive.
Moreover, "African-American" should be considered offensive for a very simple reason: the word "black" encompasses people who are neither African nor American! What if a dude's Jamaican? He's black, but he's not African and he's not American. So is he a non-person now? Note the irony.
If by "abomination" you mean, "Best language ever," then...
Well, then I would point you to a Thesaurus because clearly you mixed up the synonyms with the antonyms. But yeah, English is awesome.
Non-base 10 counting system? That's horrifying.
Right, but what would you call someone that does that? A Catholiphobe? Is there even a established word for that?
BUWGRChilds PlayGRWUB
BUWGR Highlander GRWUB
UBSquee's Shapeshifting PetBU
BW Multiplayer Control WB
RG Changeling GR
UR Mana FlareRU
UMerfolkU
B MBMC B
The "I am a Special Butterfly" effect that social media has.
Sasky for the Sig.
I am in your [PACK]. Watching you... do... something.
When schools/organizations hand out trophies just for participating, it's not just the social media that's infected with "I am a Special Butterfly".
Somewhere down the line, people forgot that losing means "There is room for me to improve", and not "I suck at whatever it is I'm doing".
Yeah, exactly this. I've always hated the phrase African American, because it even makes very little sense in the context of most black people in the US. One of my best friends growing up was half-dutch, half-bahamian. None of his ancestors had been to Africa in over 400 years. He's Bahamian American or Dutch American at best.
Non-base 10 counting system? That's horrifying.[/quote]It's still base ten, and they use Roman Numerals, the issue is it's not easily simplified. In English (and pretty much all latin-based languages), you can learn to count until ten, and then learn the tens until 100 and with the exception of eleven and twelve you can form the words for each number. Twenty-two, Thirty-one, etc. In Hindi it's a lot less clear. For instance: 6 is chah, 50 is pacas, but 56 is chappan. And that one makes more sense than some others.
Generally, they wouldn't even be worth classifying. The thing is, while some people have strong feelings about Catholicism, it's actually a pretty easy religion to understand because it has a strong central authority. Part of the thing that makes Islam (in all it's denominations) so challenging is that it doesn't have a strong central authority, it's more akin to various protestant Christian faiths like Baptists - who have a central tenant they share in the faith but otherwise a diverse range of views.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
You are being informed that, in this context, it does. Don't be one of those "Redskins" defender guys.
Some of my best friends are abominations.
Actually...
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Let me expand on this point a bit. There was once a time when 'colored' was an appropriate term to use to describe minorities. It makes logical sense, and there really much of a difference between black/white or colored/white when looking at the words clinically. The same used to be true of the word redskin (as B_S mentions).
The social difference is a big one, though. Look, no one is saying don't use homosexual ever, it's just that in everyday conversation or public speaking, 'homosexual' tends to come from people who believe in the 'homosexual agenda', while everyone else just says gay. It's not at the level of 'colored' and likely won't ever be, but it's one of those things where they'd really just prefer it if you said gay.
This link doesn't work, and now I'm curious. What were you trying to link to?
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Fixed.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Which demonstrates what I'm trying to say: if someone views being gay as marking someone as inherently inferior or wrong, there's no word you can create that will switch that. This is evident in how moron, idiot, retarded, mentally-challenged, mentally-disabled, and "special" (referring to special education) all became insults, despite many of them specifically being created to be euphemisms. When the quality itself (being gay, being mentally-disabled, being a particular ethnicity) is derided, there's no word you can just switch to make it better. It's not that simple.
By the same logic: should we decide we won't call ourselves Americans because a bunch of fanatical Islamists are using it derisively?
No, the response is to not be stupid and take an otherwise useful word that has a neutral connotation and decide it should now be a slur.
Not to mention homosexual people have already earned my respect for doing the exact opposite with an actual slur. The word queer was at one point neutral, then considered offensive, and it is now neutral again. This demonstrates what I am saying.
On what grounds?
I don't see the analogy, because I do not see how "homosexual" is a pejorative, as opposed to a neutral indicator of such a person.
In a sense, it still is an appropriate term to describe black people (see: "person of color").
To which I disagree. I find homosexual is used quite frequently, and "homosexuality" even more so. Moreover, as stated, gay is by its nature ambiguous. "Gay" can mean all homosexuals or just homosexual men. (Further, notice how I used homosexual twice there, because I had to, because it's the only common word that means what I want.)
Furthermore, to say that "homosexual" is used by people who mean "homosexual agenda" and therefore its usage should be avoided is nonsensical for multiple reasons:
1. The same people say gay agenda
2. That's not a valid reason to stop using a word
3. The word "queer" was once a slur and now is a neutral word, and was so because of a concerted effort by queer people to decide not to accept it being a slur.
Again, I wouldn't have a problem if there were any non-stupid reason presented to me why "Homosexual" would be considered offensive.
I mean, there's the great example of black people taking offense at the term "black hole" (as referring to the phenomenon in space) to demonstrate that just because someone takes offense does not mean we should take them seriously. Now, I'm not saying this is analogous, nor am I denying there's an intelligent reason. I'm asking what the intelligent reason is.
Right now "homosexual" is dispreferred and borderline offensive, whereas "gay" is fine. Maybe in 5 or 10 years it won't be that way anymore. Who knows. There's no specific reasoning behind it. It's based on the word's complex pedigree of largely arbitrary cultural and linguistic evolution.
I might have overstated things a bit here. I don't think Homosexual is going to be a true slur anytime soon like many of those other examples. The point is, if a group has a preferred name for themselves, I don't really see the problem with using that preferred term. American Indian over Native American. Mentally Challenged over Retarded. It doesn't matter that they're all accurate, what matters is that in a cultural sense there is a difference.
Not unless Americans want to in general.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
acting like dumbassesreacting in a disproportionate and illogical manner?I seem to recall that was what this thread was.
But now I ask why we should regard the following statement:
as having any merit, and all of a sudden it's beyond reproach? Highroller, there is no logic behind it, you must simply accept it without scrutinizing its merits?
How do you reconcile these two?
Again, I'm fine with saying "homosexual" is offensive if you give me a valid reason why it's offensive. If it's just, "people take offense to it," then how is that any better from the Tumblr crowd whose very lack of logic, reason, and merit were why this thread was made in the first place?
Ok, so now you're making a blanket statement for all or at least the majority of homosexual people that they view "homosexual" as offensive. I'm asking what makes you confident you can make this statement. I don't consider this an illogical question.
Ok, so now you're making a blanket statement for all or at least the majority of homosexual people that they view "homosexual" as offensive. I'm asking what makes you confident you can make this statement. I don't consider this an illogical question.[/quote]I would say if the single largest advocacy organization for that group says it, it's got some legitimacy.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Oh dear god the sanctimonious prescriptivism. "Don't use these words, don't even quote people who use them unless it's specifically to prove how evil they are"? Writers need to be informed of the meanings of the words they use. They don't need to be told what to write.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Is this the only post in the thread you've read?
{мы, тьма}
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
It's "their clubhouse" and that's perfectly normal as a means for them to socialize, it's like some of us who go to an LGS and post here on occasion, it's "how our kind communicates." "Normal society" is pretty segmented outside of casual places. We congregate most people below 25 into schools of some sort and low end wage work, while most people 25-retirement are in the workforce or raising children or living in some sort of disability or prison or some such. Even then, we've been self-segregated through the 70's, 80's and 90's from television and reintegrating ourselves since the rise of the internet and the cell phone revolution of the last few years. With that said, Jezebell, 4 Chan, and tumblr are all ready made little localized groupthink places to "hang out." This is really no different than a socially conservative Christian going to church and hearing an anti-abortion message.
The question we need to be asking, is not whether segregating people it's where we can bring people together at of different groups and interests that still hold their group together. Remember that the abolitionists and the feminists early on were allies, but came apart because of their own groups had different allocations and mentalities. It didn't make the rights groups any different, but their trajectory and evolution became quite different and at specific times in history came together to support each other in the Civil Rights Movement.
I think people aren't just whining anymore, since the fall of the old political order we've seen young people, conservative and liberal, step up and try to do something. People laugh at the Tea Party, but they're trying to get a coalition moving and have succeeded. The issue really is with the OWS movement and affiliated groups have no common standing, and the better aspects of the political movement and social theory that came out of now conservative areas are running dry because feminism has displaced aspects of Progressive ideology like the Social Gospel that drove some of the better parts of the New Left.
However, we must also consider that during the Civil Rights Movement there was a lot of black masculinism and militarism in the form of groups like the Black Panthers. But, I agree, that their bluster was met with action. Which is why when I talk to young people that are interested in justice that justice needs institutions and organizations. Hayek and others overvalue that people "always start things," they don't which is why we have government over voluntaryism in praxis.
My issue as a conservative with conservatism is the attempts to alienate people from their government through fear mongering and attempting to appeal to the red scare by replacing red scare with "gay agenda" or "neo-colonialist mentality." Us conservatives are in part to blame, because we only focus on an economic message that has alienated the youth, forsaken people of gender identities, and encourage an antiquated vision of how the US "should be back in the day." The old large versus small government system worked under Reagan, but the problems are that much more complex. Democrats have been talking directly to these people about building a real city on a hill, which while I hate that concept, it doesn't hide the truth that with the beasts within the society handing over both an identity and safety and community. We drive people out of the big tent politics into these smaller, more welcoming like minded groups.
And many conservatives such as Jeb Bush have really gotten into this message about not being the "Party of No" to both Neo-Conservatives and the rising Libertarians. You need to pass laws that affect people, you need to reform government to working for the people, and ultimately increasing freedom. We, on the right, especially start the old Reagan conservative coalition from social conservatives about gay rights and abortion. For the most part, social conservatives are using theology as a buttress and are against the inherent spirit of the Founder philosophy on religion and personal liberty, even if some writers themselves were hypocrites and owned slaves. We take the base ideas that are good, acknowledge the bad and move on. If we lose someone along the way? Oh well, hope they enjoy their new clique.
Social conservatives need to learn that the Bible needs to be looked at in the context of the modern society, and that there are new Christian religions now such as Mormonism that will rise to challenge the old versions of Christianity and the interpretations in older denominations. Those of us that are social conservatives have been using government to our own ends as a social engineering tool through programs such as zero tolerance, DADT, and several others like deregulation. And the fanatical aspects of those groups and the real pain that some of those policies have caused in peoples lives and all the anger and anguish for people not finding a job at the right time, or getting a good job in the military but getting into trouble because they have a boyfriend, and on and on.
Because, we in the conservative community, failed to address the needs of our country during it's time of need and failed to address the limitations of our own policies and the real pain and anger we've caused this society through bad policy. And it's about time conservatism began to look at the younger generation and people who are successful in life that are different than the old Reagan Coalition and say "What do you want from us?"
And it's actually pretty simple, "don't tell me who I can marry," and "I want a job where I'm valued," and on and on. It's not hard, it's about getting the right culture going. The issue with both libertarians and SJW, is that they both think if they get policy right things "magically happen" out of fear of "some big bad thing." Well, what worked for the Old Left, New Left, and the Reagan Coalition was it basically built stuff and created institutions to meet the needs of the time. And yes, government is a part of that and yes a large part of that requires individualism.
I see SJW and Libertarians as equally dogmatic and lazy to implement. I prefer young evangelicals who go out on missionary trips and start businesses, I prefer young liberals who go beyond protesting and actually go out and help the homeless by themselves and also start 401c3's. And many do start businesses, some fail some succeed. I like that, and I applaud it. This doesn't mean that SJW and Libertarians don't do these things themselves, it's just that I find them to be either well off and riding the coattails of their parents, who were yuppies, or otherwise dogmatic and given into little implementation and following the ideology because it's "cool." It's the armchair political theorist that's in vogue that should annoy people without theorizing and testing their theories out in public first.
Modern
Commander
Cube
<a href="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-lists/588020-unpowered-themed-enchantment-an-enchanted-evening">An Enchanted Evening Cube </a>
http://biggity-*****.tumblr.com/post/119719117891/also-i-understand-where-youre-coming-from-that
Can we agree that we're leaving the world on the hands of a bunch of intolerant, self-righteous idiots who will grow up to further spread the "Special Butterflies are Unique and must eat other little bugsies" message?
It doesn't matters if you're part of the LGBT community or not, religious or atheist, black or white... we all deserve a degree of respect and should be threated as equals, being "diferent" per popular opinion doesn't means you're not a human being, have special qualities, or that you must be threated different. What I see here is that younger members of the LGBT community at least expect to be seen as special unique martyrs that must be treated as such, and have the right to call everyone who disagrees with whatever insignificant point of view (such as fictional characters) to be called a homophobe and be attacked, thus, making this an endless chain of events: you want respect but don't give it back.
Maybe because surprisingly I've seen the complete opposite reaction happening on Tumblr and other social websites and that's why I decided to open a debate?
One would expect the minority to be the victims, not the aggressors.
You shouldn't generalize an entire sexual orientation based on the social media comments of some angry teenagers. It's just kids on Tumblr. Not some grand gay conspiracy to persecute straight people.
The person you're following was responding to a post including "when I say 'gaysualize' I mean, everything's becoming so sexualized and creepy"; I can see how a gay person might be upset by that - they might be reading too much into it, but again, angry teenager.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.