I'm just wondering why it is either not something for which moderators generally give infractions, much less correct. The community has decided that using something like "gay" (homosexual) or "retarded" (mentally challenged) in a negative or derogatory manner is something for which users should be warned/given an infraction.
Why is it not the same whenever someone says something akin to "calm down ladies." Or, in the example post: "I think you ladies take this game much too seriously." Here it is clearly used in a negative context as if it is a negative thing to have been born with a ****** or act out of your "proper" gender role.
Now given that the explicit post of which I am thinking WAS given an infraction, the infraction was for trolling and I even reported the post for having sexist language. I realize that this particular post may have been reported several times and that's why mine may not have particularly been the one that was read/the one to which the moderator responded, but I still think that if we are going to prevent homophobic language et al then sexist language should be under the category of "not-okay language."
Asking people to remove quotes in their signatures is tyranny! If I can't say something just because someone's feelings are hurt then no one would ever be able to say anything! Political correctness is stupid.
Can we also use this thread to petition for the removal of the term cissexual from the generally accepted language on the boards? While we're on the subject of terms that offend women, I feel very offended at being compared to a cyst when I can just be considered a heterosexual, as that's the more clinically accepted term for my sexuality anyway.
I agree that sexual language should be looked out for, but I'm not sure that it's as clear-cut in the cases pointed out in the OP that the word ladies is being used in an entirely derogatory way as it often is in cases of people misusing 'gay' or 'retarded' as insults - although it's certainly borderline. The mods here do a pretty good job, so I think unless the problem gets worse it's best to leave it to their discretion and just report a post if you believe it's crossed the line.
Can we also use this thread to petition for the removal of the term cissexual from the generally accepted language on the boards? While we're on the subject of terms that offend women, I feel very offended at being compared to a cyst when I can just be considered a heterosexual, as that's the more clinically accepted term for my sexuality anyway.
1) The term cissexual does not in any way relate to cysts. It doesn't even contain "cyst" so I have no idea where you're getting that from. It's formed from the prefix "cis-", meaning, roughly, "on the same side", which derives from Latin. To claim that referring to someone as cissexual is referring them to a cyst makes as much sense as saying we should find a new word for badgers because the current name is calling them bad.
2) Hetrosexual and cissexual are different terms with different meanings. Hetrosexual is the opposite of homosexual, and cissexual is the opposite of transsexual. To say that cissexual and hertrosexual mean the same thing is to say that homosexual and transexual mean the same thing. They don't, and while it might or might not have been your intend, the suggestion of such could offend some people.
If language is being used in a derogatory manner, whether it's sexist or not, that should fall under the category of flaming or trolling anyway, shouldn't it? It ought to be warned/infracted just for that.
Ive been barking up that tree for months, apprently mods can pick/choose what is considred offensive and whats not.
This is and always has been the case. I reported a topic yesterday that i found to be "not cool" (first post reported - lightly talking about jews and mind control is something I don't find appropriate) and when I checked back a few hours later the second post was infracted for spam. So, obviously my idea of what is okay and what is not doesn't line up with the Red Texts but that's cool. They work on a spectrum just like the rest of us slogs.
And I agree that referring to someone as a girl because of a weak action or characteristic is rude and offensive... but again, I am not in charge and my vision of right and wrong is not universal.
I agree that sexual language should be looked out for, but I'm not sure that it's as clear-cut in the cases pointed out in the OP that the word ladies is being used in an entirely derogatory way as it often is in cases of people misusing 'gay' or 'retarded' as insults - although it's certainly borderline. The mods here do a pretty good job, so I think unless the problem gets worse it's best to leave it to their discretion and just report a post if you believe it's crossed the line.
1) The term cissexual does not in any way relate to cysts. It doesn't even contain "cyst" so I have no idea where you're getting that from. It's formed from the prefix "cis-", meaning, roughly, "on the same side", which derives from Latin. To claim that referring to someone as cissexual is referring them to a cyst makes as much sense as saying we should find a new word for badgers because the current name is calling them bad.
2) Hetrosexual and cissexual are different terms with different meanings. Hetrosexual is the opposite of homosexual, and cissexual is the opposite of transsexual. To say that cissexual and hetrosexual mean the same thing is to say that homosexual and transexual mean the same thing. They don't, and while it might or might not have been your intend, the suggestion of such could offend some people.
Thank You. I am glad to see I am not the only one who knows words mean things. Seriously banning legitimate descriptions of actual social topics used in a constructive manner is not appropriate.
Also, yes. Using sexist language should be an infraction. Magic is not a boys club, and it is not richer for the degree to which it has been hostile to women in the past. We all know it is mostly filled with young males, but that doesn't mean the rest of us should tolerate their bad behavior.
I strongly disagree with infracting OP's example, though we don't have context. Without context, it looked like someone was responding to being called a Nerd and a Scrub sarcastically. At best, it's a flame warning, with possible infraction if the Double Post+borderline trolling was too much. Really though, the use of "Ladies," was completely irrelevant to WHY that post was semi-trolling.
Really though, this is a topic of "Inappropriate language isn't punished harshly enough, or often enough!" My warn record will tell you that "Retard," is closely watched- so that's not relevant. I don't know which board you're going on that the use of "Gay," in a derogatory manner isn't warned or infracted.
This thread wouldn't really bother me- but it strikes me as an overzealous feminist. People are not sexist for recognizing your gender. Or should I get offended everytime someone calls me "dude," "bro," "man," "son," "dick," "prick," or any other such? Sexist language is the deepest grey area possible. Sexist sentiment is more than warnable.
I strongly disagree with infracting OP's example, though we don't have context. Without context, it looked like someone was responding to being called a Nerd and a Scrub sarcastically. At best, it's a flame warning, with possible infraction if the Double Post+borderline trolling was too much. Really though, the use of "Ladies," was completely irrelevant to WHY that post was semi-trolling.
He was the person who introduced using the term "Nerd" negatively, but that is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. I don't care if that guy was given an infraction for acting the way he did, my concern is with his usage of "ladies" as a negative term. There is NOTHING wrong with having a ******, and I don't get why it's okay to imply that there is.
Really though, this is a topic of "Inappropriate language isn't punished harshly enough, or often enough!" My warn record will tell you that "Retard," is closely watched- so that's not relevant. I don't know which board you're going on that the use of "Gay," in a derogatory manner isn't warned or infracted.
Reading is tech, this topic was "obviously the community is concerned with making derogatory statements about entire categories of people as shown by the warnings given for usage of terms like "retarded" and "gay", why do we also not police sexist language"? I don't think there's ANYTHING different from the statement: "Wow, didn't mean to offend you ladies, didn't think you'd get your panties in a bunch" as opposed to the statement "Wow, didn't think you guys would be so gay and get all offended."
Quote from my original post »
The community has decided that using something like "gay" (homosexual) or "retarded" (mentally challenged) in a negative or derogatory manner is something for which users should be warned/given an infraction.
I said using gay and retarded is wrong, and currently something for which mods give an infraction.
This thread wouldn't really bother me- but it strikes me as an overzealous feminist. People are not sexist for recognizing your gender. Or should I get offended everytime someone calls me "dude," "bro," "man," "son," "dick," "prick," or any other such? Sexist language is the deepest grey area possible. Sexist sentiment is more than warnable.
You a) apparently have a problem reading and b) obviously have a bad interpretation of what feminism is. Never have I said it's inappropriate to make comments about genders. I didn't think that using the overarching term "guys" to refer to a group of females is something wrong/should be warned and/or given an infraction for doing. As a matter of fact my example is a clear showing of sexist sentiment as opposed to sexist language. My problem was not that this person assumed all of us were/are females, my problem was that this post used the idea of being a female as an insult, or at the very least made it appear that being a female was a negative thing.
Just so we clear, my problem is not with "sexist language" as you define of "identifying people by sex" (Which is EXTREMELY different from gender, by the way) my problem is with language that actively denigrates an entire sex. That's messed up.
Chill out, ladies.
Seriously? What are you, retarded? (To mods/people who realize. Yes this is evident hypocrisy, my purpose was to satirize in response to a [poor] attempt at satire on Zelderex's part. I do not think the statement "Chill out, ladies" is anymore appropriate than usage of "retard" negatively.)
My warn record will tell you that "Retard," is closely watched- so that's not relevant.
Maybe then you are not in a place to discuss using blanket terms as insults that induce negative connotations towards entire groups of people. That or you should just learn not to be offensive.
Asking people to remove quotes in their signatures is tyranny! If I can't say something just because someone's feelings are hurt then no one would ever be able to say anything! Political correctness is stupid.
I see no reason to tolerate sexually, religiously, or intellectually-based vulgarity. Admonishing those who aren't clever enough to allow their battery of insults to grow beyond the middle-school cafeteria is an admirable endeavor.
Really. If you're going to take the time to get worked up over something with which you disagree, do it with class.
I understand where the OP is coming from, but I don't think using the term "ladies" in that sense is meant to be derogatory towards women, at least in the same sense as using the term "gay" or "retarded", it really depends on the context of course.
Here's an example, a drill sergeant is giving orders to the troops and says something like "Pick up the pace, ladies" or "Move it, ladies" the sergeant is not trying to say "Being a woman is bad" he or she is just trying to make the troops pick up slack or quit complaining. I can see how this can be offensive, since it seems like all women complain or are slow compared to the guys or what-have-you but everyone with common sense knows that this isn't true.
So, yeah, my drill sergeant example was a bad one, I obviously didn't think that one through all the way. >_< I was trying to get at the positive side of the matter, but it really is demotivational and sexist.
I'm not trying to start an argument here, but when using the term "ladies" it's not clearly negative, another example is this, there's a group of women walking down the street a man greets them by saying "ladies", is that offensive? No. However if a group of homosexual people were walking down the street and the same guy greeted them by saying "gays" or "f**s" is that offensive? Damn right it is.
The term "ladies" is like a "semi-offensive" term, where about 50% or the time its not offensive, though it can be. Where as something like "gay" or "retarded" is used in such negative context on a regular basis that about 85% of the time it is offensive.
I understand where the OP is coming from, but I don't think using the term "ladies" in that sense is meant to be derogatory towards women, at least in the same sense as using the term "gay" or "retarded", it really depends on the context of course.
Yes and calling Zelderex retarded isn't meant to be an insult towards people with mental retardation, but it is because it implies there is something inherently negative about being retarded, something over which people have no control.
In the post to which I linked the term "ladies" was clearly meant as an insult. It implied that people with vaginas are irrational because only irrational people would have gotten 'as' upset to the poster as we did, and we are ladies for doing so.
Here's an example, a drill sergeant is giving orders to the troops and says something like "Pick up the pace, ladies" or "Move it, ladies" the sergeant is not trying to say "Being a woman is bad" he or she is just trying to make the troops pick up slack or quit complaining. I can see how this can be offensive, since it seems like all women complain or are slow compared to the guys or what-have-you but everyone with common sense knows that this isn't true.
Yeah, and that's sexist. Just like it's common sense to know that Zelderex is not someone afflicted with mental retardation given his capacity for somewhat rational thought and ability to relay those thoughts via the medium of the computer and respective messaging board. That doesn't make it inoffensive to use the term. Using a term like "ladies" as motivation to not slack off nearly explicitly implies (heh) that it's a negative thing. Hence why it's a motivation. "Pick it up, macho men." Is that motivational? Depends, if "macho men" is sarcastic, then yes, because the sergeant is mocking the troops for not acting like macho men. If it's not sarcastic, I'd think it was a compliment.
I'm not trying to start an argument here, but when using the term "ladies" it's not clearly negative, another example is this, there's a group of women walking down the street a man greets them by saying "ladies", is that offensive? No. However if a group of homosexual people were walking down the street and the same guy greeted them by saying "gays" or "f**s" is that offensive? Damn right it is.
Quote from me »
Never have I said it's inappropriate to make comments about genders. I didn't think that using the overarching term "guys" to refer to a group of females is something wrong/should be warned and/or given an infraction for doing. As a matter of fact my example is a clear showing of sexist sentiment as opposed to sexist language. My problem was not that this person assumed all of us were/are females, my problem was that this post used the idea of being a female as an insult, or at the very least made it appear that being a female was a negative thing.
Just so we clear, my problem is not with "sexist language" as you define of "identifying people by sex" (Which is EXTREMELY different from gender, by the way) my problem is with language that actively denigrates an entire sex. That's messed up.
And you've never said "my gay friend _____"? I sure have, and it sure as hell isn't offensive. I also think f*** is an inappropriate comparison to "ladies." I'd liken it to "b*****s" because both f and b are always negative. Ladies and gays can be descriptors.
I do not have a problem with people saying "ladies", I have a problem with people saying "ladies" in an attempt to denigrate the persons to whom they are speaking by equating them with people who have vaginas as an inherently negative or undesirable characteristic.
The term "ladies" is like a "semi-offensive" term, where about 50% or the time its not offensive, though it can be. Where as something like "gay" or "retarded" is used in such negative context on a regular basis that about 85% of the time it is offensive.
Not disagreeing, see my bolded statement. My problem is not when I refer to my brother with an IQ below 50 as "my retarded brother". Nor is it when I refer to my mother as a "lady." My problem is when those terms are deployed rhetorically in a fashion that characterizes those characteristics as undesirable.
If language is being used in a derogatory manner, whether it's sexist or not, that should fall under the category of flaming or trolling anyway, shouldn't it? It ought to be warned/infracted just for that.
Probably. But I do find it a hypocritical that in posts where "retarded" is used as a derogatory term the post gets MOD TEXT (Yes, I know it's not bolded) stating that using the term "retarded" negatively is not okay. However this is not the case with sexist language. Obviously people shouldn't flame, etc. and no double infraction is needed. I just think it would be better if we gave sexist language the same treatment we did other language that is derogatory towards entire groups of persons.
Asking people to remove quotes in their signatures is tyranny! If I can't say something just because someone's feelings are hurt then no one would ever be able to say anything! Political correctness is stupid.
I understand where the OP is coming from, but I don't think using the term "ladies" in that sense is meant to be derogatory towards women, at least in the same sense as using the term "gay" or "retarded", it really depends on the context of course.
Here's an example, a drill sergeant is giving orders to the troops and says something like "Pick up the pace, ladies" or "Move it, ladies" the sergeant is not trying to say "Being a woman is bad" he or she is just trying to make the troops pick up slack or quit complaining. I can see how this can be offensive, since it seems like all women complain or are slow compared to the guys or what-have-you but everyone with common sense knows that this isn't true.
I'm not trying to start an argument here, but when using the term "ladies" it's not clearly negative, another example is this, there's a group of women walking down the street a man greets them by saying "ladies", is that offensive? No. However if a group of homosexual people were walking down the street and the same guy greeted them by saying "gays" or "f**s" is that offensive? Damn right it is.
The term "ladies" is like a "semi-offensive" term, where about 50% or the time its not offensive, though it can be. Where as something like "gay" or "retarded" is used in such negative context on a regular basis that about 85% of the time it is offensive.
The example you give is still using the term "ladies" in a negative manner, as a way to ridicule someone's performance. Comparing someone to a female in order to disparage their performance absolutely perpetuates a negative connotation with being female. I don't see how it can be argued otherwise. "We all know it's not really true" doesn't excuse the use of that sort of comment, no more than it would be okay for said drill sergeant to refer to his or her troops using a racial slur.
This forum doesn't have any policy against using words like gay and retarded when they're being used legitimately and not as a form of insult. This forum doesn't (or isn't supposed to) tolerate any form of personal insult, whether it is racist or sexist or ableist or anything else. The post linked to in the OP of this thread was absolutely made with an insulting tone, regardless of specific language used. No one's claimed that the word "ladies" should be forbidden across the board, the issue being raised is the use of the word (and similar language) when it's being used as an insult, and therefore implying a negative connotation towards the female gender.
Luminum, I edited in my response to yours after you posted, just a heads up.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Asking people to remove quotes in their signatures is tyranny! If I can't say something just because someone's feelings are hurt then no one would ever be able to say anything! Political correctness is stupid.
Here's an example, a drill sergeant is giving orders to the troops and says something like "Pick up the pace, ladies" or "Move it, ladies" the sergeant is not trying to say "Being a woman is bad" he or she is just trying to make the troops pick up slack or quit complaining. I can see how this can be offensive, since it seems like all women complain or are slow compared to the guys or what-have-you but everyone with common sense knows that this isn't true.
REEEEEEAAAAAALLY bad example here; drill sergeants refer to their recruits as "women" or "ladies" as a demotivational tool. So yes, it IS offensive, it's SUPPOSED to be offensive.
I'm not trying to start an argument here, but when using the term "ladies" it's not clearly negative, another example is this, there's a group of women walking down the street a man greets them by saying "ladies", is that offensive? No. However if a group of homosexual people were walking down the street and the same guy greeted them by saying "gays" or "f**s" is that offensive? Damn right it is.
Here's the thing: saying "ladies" to people who are actually women isn't offensive; calling people who aren't women "ladies" IS. In my opinion, calling a man "lady" isn't sexist, it's more homophobic than anything. It's not saying that being a woman is bad (though I'm not doubting that there are people who think that), its implying the particular male isn't really a man, which can be for all sorts of reasons too broad to really peg as any specific brand of offensiveness. But that's a separate issue, really.
In regards to the forums, it's REALLY difficult to tell when using the terms "ladies", etc. is actually supposed to be offensive. Statistically, I'm sure most of the forum members are male; but there are certainly females on here, and there's no definitive way to know how many. There are only certain subforums here that a member's gender or real-life details even come up. So if someone in the Rumor Mill uses the term "calm down, ladies" and gets infracted, that person could very easily argue that they thought that everyone in the thread was in fact a lady, and it would be very tedious for a mod to prove otherwise.
I'm not normally a "can of worms" or "slippery slope" kind of guy, but I think cracking down on this specific example would be a bad idea. On a forum where mods are already constantly being accused of being overly-harsh and ban-happy, this seems like a grey area it's best for them to err on the side of caution, and save moderation action for the very overtly offensive cases.
That post Harkius informs us that "retarded, gay and rape used negatively are not acceptable." We have community norms AGAINST using those terms explicitly. I'm just asking that we add 'sexist language' to that list. In every instance of which I can think I'm sure the post will get an infraction for flaming/trolling. But I KNOW that posts that use "retarded" have that word specifically reprimanded in the mod text. I think we should add sexist language to that standard as well.
And I hate this, whenever people admit their argument is a "slippery slope" they're admitting it's a logical fallacy. Please do not preface anything with "this is a slippery slope"
Asking people to remove quotes in their signatures is tyranny! If I can't say something just because someone's feelings are hurt then no one would ever be able to say anything! Political correctness is stupid.
Probably. But I do find it a hypocritical that in posts where "retarded" is used as a derogatory term the post gets MOD TEXT (Yes, I know it's not bolded) stating that using the term "retarded" negatively is not okay. However this is not the case with sexist language. Obviously people shouldn't flame, etc. and no double infraction is needed. I just think it would be better if we gave sexist language the same treatment we did other language that is derogatory towards entire groups of persons.
The only instances when I'd call out the use of "retarded" or "gay" is when they are not being used as personal insults (which would receive a flame or troll warning instead) but being used as negative descriptors ("Chimney Imp is retarded"). I can't remember having seen sexist language like what's being discussed used in a way that is derogatory but not a personal insult, so I haven't had to call it out specifically. I'll keep watch for such cases, though, and deal with them on a case-by-case basis.
Seriously? What are you, retarded? (To mods/people who realize. Yes this is evident hypocrisy, my purpose was to satirize in response to a [poor] attempt at satire on Zelderex's part. I do not think the statement "Chill out, ladies" is anymore appropriate than usage of "retard" negatively.)
Maybe then you are not in a place to discuss using blanket terms as insults that induce negative connotations towards entire groups of people. That or you should just learn not to be offensive.
1.) Mature. Very. Is it wise to consider "ladies," an insult? I mean, really? We're inventing an insulting connotation for the term "Lady." But I'm sorry. Retard is a term acceptable to joke about now, but "Ladies," is an insult. Care to introduce me to the new version of the English language?
2.) Sentence 1: Yes. My opinion is completely invalidated because I once said something that was considered offensive. Of course. Sentence 2: That, or you should learn to not be offended by somebody randomly using the term Ladies.
Is it a community issue if it's already been addressed by the moderators on dozens of occasions?
Keep in mind, the person I'm arguing with directly stated that the use of any term that can be loosely interpreted as "Sexist," regardless of the actual context in which it occurred should be policed alongside offences like theft, vandalism, breaking and entering, and forgery.
Obviously this is someone who isn't too emotionally charged to be thinking clearly.
1.) Mature. Very. Is it wise to consider "ladies," an insult? I mean, really? We're inventing an insulting connotation for the term "Lady." But I'm sorry. Retard is a term acceptable to joke about now, but "Ladies," is an insult. Care to introduce me to the new version of the English language?
Keep in mind, the person I'm arguing with directly stated that the use of any term that can be loosely interpreted as "Sexist," regardless of the actual context in which it occurred should be policed alongside offences like theft, vandalism, breaking and entering, and forgery.
Except it's been established that "retard" isn't acceptable as an expression of derision. I believe you're the one disregarding context, because it's not hard to differentiate between when a word is and isn't being used as an insult.
If someone is not a lady, calling them one for the purpose of emphasis or dismissal is sexist and intolerable to anyone who isn't still locked in the throes of puberty.
Except it's been established that "retard" isn't acceptable as an expression of derision. I believe you're the one disregarding context, because it's not hard to differentiate between when a word is and isn't being used as an insult.
If someone is not a lady, calling them one for the purpose of emphasis or dismissal is sexist and intolerable to anyone who isn't still locked in the throes of puberty.
1.) Really? It has? I hadn't noticed!
2.) No **** Sherlock? Could somebody kindly explain the context of this thread? The OP is mad that a linked post had....er....action taken when they felt that...action should have been taken. And obviously, it's so much worse to call someone a Woman, than it is to call someone a dick. Double standards? Wait, what are those? Nope; never heard of 'em.
This thread is hard to take seriously for me. The problem is that someone was infracted for Trolling and Double posting, but not for inappropriate language- which wasn't used if you take the post strictly out of context.
This isn't really going anywhere constructive. As with any other situation, if you feel offended by a post, please use the Report button. There's no way we're going to autocensor "ladies" or anything like that, so it's really incumbent upon the offended party to bring things like this to our attention if we don't catch it on our own. Thread closed.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"...because without beer, things do not seem to go as well."
Why is it not the same whenever someone says something akin to "calm down ladies." Or, in the example post: "I think you ladies take this game much too seriously." Here it is clearly used in a negative context as if it is a negative thing to have been born with a ****** or act out of your "proper" gender role.
Now given that the explicit post of which I am thinking WAS given an infraction, the infraction was for trolling and I even reported the post for having sexist language. I realize that this particular post may have been reported several times and that's why mine may not have particularly been the one that was read/the one to which the moderator responded, but I still think that if we are going to prevent homophobic language et al then sexist language should be under the category of "not-okay language."
link to the post:
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=7093475&postcount=35
-A homosexual who lacks the intellectual shortcomings such as Obama fandom that lead people to become politically correct.
in b4 infraction and/or post deletion. Can't handle the heat, get out of the kitchen (unless you're a woman.)
Here you go: Flame/Troll Infraction issued.
1) The term cissexual does not in any way relate to cysts. It doesn't even contain "cyst" so I have no idea where you're getting that from. It's formed from the prefix "cis-", meaning, roughly, "on the same side", which derives from Latin. To claim that referring to someone as cissexual is referring them to a cyst makes as much sense as saying we should find a new word for badgers because the current name is calling them bad.
2) Hetrosexual and cissexual are different terms with different meanings. Hetrosexual is the opposite of homosexual, and cissexual is the opposite of transsexual. To say that cissexual and hertrosexual mean the same thing is to say that homosexual and transexual mean the same thing. They don't, and while it might or might not have been your intend, the suggestion of such could offend some people.
I feel offended because I'm a Pastafarian. And I am sure other people feel the same.
Thanks to DNC at Heroes of the plane studios for this awesome sig and SGT_Chubbz for the awesome avy.
Check out the Shop Thread
Let's not open that whole can of worms again. If we're going to do this, let's keep it ON TOPIC, please.
R Citizen Cane (Feldon of the Third Path)
Ive been barking up that tree for months, apprently mods can pick/choose what is considred offensive and whats not.
on topic:
IF i was a woman, i would find it offensive when used in that context. Not that it matters though right?
I specifically asked people to drop that line of conversation. Infraction issued.
This is and always has been the case. I reported a topic yesterday that i found to be "not cool" (first post reported - lightly talking about jews and mind control is something I don't find appropriate) and when I checked back a few hours later the second post was infracted for spam. So, obviously my idea of what is okay and what is not doesn't line up with the Red Texts but that's cool. They work on a spectrum just like the rest of us slogs.
And I agree that referring to someone as a girl because of a weak action or characteristic is rude and offensive... but again, I am not in charge and my vision of right and wrong is not universal.
WUBRGPauper Battle BoxWUBRG ... and why I am not a fan of Wayne Reynolds' Illustrations.
Thank You. I am glad to see I am not the only one who knows words mean things. Seriously banning legitimate descriptions of actual social topics used in a constructive manner is not appropriate.
Also, yes. Using sexist language should be an infraction. Magic is not a boys club, and it is not richer for the degree to which it has been hostile to women in the past. We all know it is mostly filled with young males, but that doesn't mean the rest of us should tolerate their bad behavior.
Really though, this is a topic of "Inappropriate language isn't punished harshly enough, or often enough!" My warn record will tell you that "Retard," is closely watched- so that's not relevant. I don't know which board you're going on that the use of "Gay," in a derogatory manner isn't warned or infracted.
This thread wouldn't really bother me- but it strikes me as an overzealous feminist. People are not sexist for recognizing your gender. Or should I get offended everytime someone calls me "dude," "bro," "man," "son," "dick," "prick," or any other such? Sexist language is the deepest grey area possible. Sexist sentiment is more than warnable.
Chill out, ladies.
Join the Poetry Running Contest!
He was the person who introduced using the term "Nerd" negatively, but that is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. I don't care if that guy was given an infraction for acting the way he did, my concern is with his usage of "ladies" as a negative term. There is NOTHING wrong with having a ******, and I don't get why it's okay to imply that there is.
Reading is tech, this topic was "obviously the community is concerned with making derogatory statements about entire categories of people as shown by the warnings given for usage of terms like "retarded" and "gay", why do we also not police sexist language"? I don't think there's ANYTHING different from the statement: "Wow, didn't mean to offend you ladies, didn't think you'd get your panties in a bunch" as opposed to the statement "Wow, didn't think you guys would be so gay and get all offended."
I said using gay and retarded is wrong, and currently something for which mods give an infraction.
You a) apparently have a problem reading and b) obviously have a bad interpretation of what feminism is. Never have I said it's inappropriate to make comments about genders. I didn't think that using the overarching term "guys" to refer to a group of females is something wrong/should be warned and/or given an infraction for doing. As a matter of fact my example is a clear showing of sexist sentiment as opposed to sexist language. My problem was not that this person assumed all of us were/are females, my problem was that this post used the idea of being a female as an insult, or at the very least made it appear that being a female was a negative thing.
Just so we clear, my problem is not with "sexist language" as you define of "identifying people by sex" (Which is EXTREMELY different from gender, by the way) my problem is with language that actively denigrates an entire sex. That's messed up.
Seriously? What are you, retarded? (To mods/people who realize. Yes this is evident hypocrisy, my purpose was to satirize in response to a [poor] attempt at satire on Zelderex's part. I do not think the statement "Chill out, ladies" is anymore appropriate than usage of "retard" negatively.)
Maybe then you are not in a place to discuss using blanket terms as insults that induce negative connotations towards entire groups of people. That or you should just learn not to be offensive.
Really. If you're going to take the time to get worked up over something with which you disagree, do it with class.
Here's an example, a drill sergeant is giving orders to the troops and says something like "Pick up the pace, ladies" or "Move it, ladies" the sergeant is not trying to say "Being a woman is bad" he or she is just trying to make the troops pick up slack or quit complaining. I can see how this can be offensive, since it seems like all women complain or are slow compared to the guys or what-have-you but everyone with common sense knows that this isn't true.So, yeah, my drill sergeant example was a bad one, I obviously didn't think that one through all the way. >_< I was trying to get at the positive side of the matter, but it really is demotivational and sexist.
I'm not trying to start an argument here, but when using the term "ladies" it's not clearly negative, another example is this, there's a group of women walking down the street a man greets them by saying "ladies", is that offensive? No. However if a group of homosexual people were walking down the street and the same guy greeted them by saying "gays" or "f**s" is that offensive? Damn right it is.
The term "ladies" is like a "semi-offensive" term, where about 50% or the time its not offensive, though it can be. Where as something like "gay" or "retarded" is used in such negative context on a regular basis that about 85% of the time it is offensive.
Yes and calling Zelderex retarded isn't meant to be an insult towards people with mental retardation, but it is because it implies there is something inherently negative about being retarded, something over which people have no control.
In the post to which I linked the term "ladies" was clearly meant as an insult. It implied that people with vaginas are irrational because only irrational people would have gotten 'as' upset to the poster as we did, and we are ladies for doing so.
Yeah, and that's sexist. Just like it's common sense to know that Zelderex is not someone afflicted with mental retardation given his capacity for somewhat rational thought and ability to relay those thoughts via the medium of the computer and respective messaging board. That doesn't make it inoffensive to use the term. Using a term like "ladies" as motivation to not slack off nearly explicitly implies (heh) that it's a negative thing. Hence why it's a motivation. "Pick it up, macho men." Is that motivational? Depends, if "macho men" is sarcastic, then yes, because the sergeant is mocking the troops for not acting like macho men. If it's not sarcastic, I'd think it was a compliment.
And you've never said "my gay friend _____"? I sure have, and it sure as hell isn't offensive. I also think f*** is an inappropriate comparison to "ladies." I'd liken it to "b*****s" because both f and b are always negative. Ladies and gays can be descriptors.
I do not have a problem with people saying "ladies", I have a problem with people saying "ladies" in an attempt to denigrate the persons to whom they are speaking by equating them with people who have vaginas as an inherently negative or undesirable characteristic.
Not disagreeing, see my bolded statement. My problem is not when I refer to my brother with an IQ below 50 as "my retarded brother". Nor is it when I refer to my mother as a "lady." My problem is when those terms are deployed rhetorically in a fashion that characterizes those characteristics as undesirable.
Probably. But I do find it a hypocritical that in posts where "retarded" is used as a derogatory term the post gets MOD TEXT (Yes, I know it's not bolded) stating that using the term "retarded" negatively is not okay. However this is not the case with sexist language. Obviously people shouldn't flame, etc. and no double infraction is needed. I just think it would be better if we gave sexist language the same treatment we did other language that is derogatory towards entire groups of persons.
The example you give is still using the term "ladies" in a negative manner, as a way to ridicule someone's performance. Comparing someone to a female in order to disparage their performance absolutely perpetuates a negative connotation with being female. I don't see how it can be argued otherwise. "We all know it's not really true" doesn't excuse the use of that sort of comment, no more than it would be okay for said drill sergeant to refer to his or her troops using a racial slur.
This forum doesn't have any policy against using words like gay and retarded when they're being used legitimately and not as a form of insult. This forum doesn't (or isn't supposed to) tolerate any form of personal insult, whether it is racist or sexist or ableist or anything else. The post linked to in the OP of this thread was absolutely made with an insulting tone, regardless of specific language used. No one's claimed that the word "ladies" should be forbidden across the board, the issue being raised is the use of the word (and similar language) when it's being used as an insult, and therefore implying a negative connotation towards the female gender.
Sarnath'd.
R Citizen Cane (Feldon of the Third Path)
Here's the thing: saying "ladies" to people who are actually women isn't offensive; calling people who aren't women "ladies" IS. In my opinion, calling a man "lady" isn't sexist, it's more homophobic than anything. It's not saying that being a woman is bad (though I'm not doubting that there are people who think that), its implying the particular male isn't really a man, which can be for all sorts of reasons too broad to really peg as any specific brand of offensiveness. But that's a separate issue, really.
In regards to the forums, it's REALLY difficult to tell when using the terms "ladies", etc. is actually supposed to be offensive. Statistically, I'm sure most of the forum members are male; but there are certainly females on here, and there's no definitive way to know how many. There are only certain subforums here that a member's gender or real-life details even come up. So if someone in the Rumor Mill uses the term "calm down, ladies" and gets infracted, that person could very easily argue that they thought that everyone in the thread was in fact a lady, and it would be very tedious for a mod to prove otherwise.
I'm not normally a "can of worms" or "slippery slope" kind of guy, but I think cracking down on this specific example would be a bad idea. On a forum where mods are already constantly being accused of being overly-harsh and ban-happy, this seems like a grey area it's best for them to err on the side of caution, and save moderation action for the very overtly offensive cases.
That post Harkius informs us that "retarded, gay and rape used negatively are not acceptable." We have community norms AGAINST using those terms explicitly. I'm just asking that we add 'sexist language' to that list. In every instance of which I can think I'm sure the post will get an infraction for flaming/trolling. But I KNOW that posts that use "retarded" have that word specifically reprimanded in the mod text. I think we should add sexist language to that standard as well.
And I hate this, whenever people admit their argument is a "slippery slope" they're admitting it's a logical fallacy. Please do not preface anything with "this is a slippery slope"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope#The_slippery_slope_as_fallacy
The only instances when I'd call out the use of "retarded" or "gay" is when they are not being used as personal insults (which would receive a flame or troll warning instead) but being used as negative descriptors ("Chimney Imp is retarded"). I can't remember having seen sexist language like what's being discussed used in a way that is derogatory but not a personal insult, so I haven't had to call it out specifically. I'll keep watch for such cases, though, and deal with them on a case-by-case basis.
R Citizen Cane (Feldon of the Third Path)
1.) Mature. Very. Is it wise to consider "ladies," an insult? I mean, really? We're inventing an insulting connotation for the term "Lady." But I'm sorry. Retard is a term acceptable to joke about now, but "Ladies," is an insult. Care to introduce me to the new version of the English language?
2.) Sentence 1: Yes. My opinion is completely invalidated because I once said something that was considered offensive. Of course. Sentence 2: That, or you should learn to not be offended by somebody randomly using the term Ladies.
Is it a community issue if it's already been addressed by the moderators on dozens of occasions?
Keep in mind, the person I'm arguing with directly stated that the use of any term that can be loosely interpreted as "Sexist," regardless of the actual context in which it occurred should be policed alongside offences like theft, vandalism, breaking and entering, and forgery.
Obviously this is someone who isn't too emotionally charged to be thinking clearly.
Join the Poetry Running Contest!
Except it's been established that "retard" isn't acceptable as an expression of derision. I believe you're the one disregarding context, because it's not hard to differentiate between when a word is and isn't being used as an insult.
If someone is not a lady, calling them one for the purpose of emphasis or dismissal is sexist and intolerable to anyone who isn't still locked in the throes of puberty.
1.) Really? It has? I hadn't noticed!
2.) No **** Sherlock? Could somebody kindly explain the context of this thread? The OP is mad that a linked post had....er....action taken when they felt that...action should have been taken. And obviously, it's so much worse to call someone a Woman, than it is to call someone a dick. Double standards? Wait, what are those? Nope; never heard of 'em.
This thread is hard to take seriously for me. The problem is that someone was infracted for Trolling and Double posting, but not for inappropriate language- which wasn't used if you take the post strictly out of context.
Join the Poetry Running Contest!