Subject: Howso?
Author:
Posted on: 2011-05-11 22:59:00 UTC
She mentioned that it's not casual, and I addressed that by saying that 'het' is a perfectly fine casual rendition.
And casualness has nothing to do with a word's neutrality.
...but I finished it. Very quickly, too.
It's kind of a shame I had to fill it out a few days after life-changing eye surgery, but hey, what can a man do?
I feel sort of guilty for not filling in the LO section xD. (Although if I did there would probably be a scroll bar...my tastes are many and varied.)
My second PPC annual survey. Well, you certainly know how to make a guy feel old July....
I now feel even worse. I just noticed I was the oldest person on last years survey...... Oy vey.
Sorry.
Well, that's not quite so bad then. Although IndeMaat didn't put an actual age on the results for me to double check.
Miah is older than you, too.
I got the "old enough to not be a specific age", i.e. my age wasn't even listed.
It was listed this year. So you can double check when this year's results are published.
To be fair, just knowing I'm not the oldest makes me feel better.
Did I volunteer for some sort of Force Everyone To Participate duty that I don't remember?
You're too nice to use as a viable threat.
...Then again, the same applies to Makari.
Hm.
...I'm not very good at choosing suitably threatening people.
I think there are probably people who disagree but I can't for the life of me tell you who.
Maybe employ... uh... hmmm. Who is threatening enough? I'm not sure anyone I know here is suitably threatening. Perhaps I just haven't had to be threatened.
Definitely the most threatening boarder we have. Or at least the most psychopathic.
...But I feel obliged to disagree. To me, Caddy isn't all that threatening. See, the thing about psychopaths is that they're not really all that threatening until they flip out and go ax-crazy on you, and once your head has been bashed in threats become basically irrelevant.
So, not Caddy. Um...Well, speaking frankly, I would have to say July. No offense, but intentionally or not you have refined scaring people to a high art. Well, me anyway.
But, on the other hand, since it's July needs someone else to scare people, this doesn't really help anybody at all...
And now, having sucessfully wasted everybody's time for, oh, the third time this week, I'm leaving to go somewhere important. I don't actually know where this place is, but apparently it's extremely important. Oh well...
I may not be the scariest boarder, but I might be the most argumentative one.
Except for maybe July.
But that brings us back to the original point! :U
All purpose isn't there.
Despite my strong desire to claim starfishdom, I feel it would be wrong for me to lie and make people think there are more starfish inhabiting the board than previously suspected.
But it was oh so tempting...
Lurker/newbie who did do this is also hoping that it's okay to do so. (It was pretty fun to answer though. ;])
...Of course it's okay! If you hang around the 'Board, you're a PPCer. No other qualifications to give. ^^
That could be debated. In my book, if you hang around the Board, you're a Boarder. When you get Permission, you're a PPCer. We do other things on the Board besides PPC-related stuff, so I don't think the two need to be mutually inclusive per se.
That's just my opinion, of course. Since it's a Boarder survey as well as a PPC survey, Ms. Muse here is fine either way. Really, it's just a question of semantics, but I feel the need to give my two cents...
... that a lot of the big names from the old days of the Board never had Permission? BeautyID (y'know, the one who wrote the poem at the top of the Constitution) never wrote anything at all PPC-related, to the best of my knowledge, but she was a PPCer, no doubt.
hS
If you hang around the PPC 'Board, you're a PPCer. When you get Permission, you're... still a PPCer. When you write a spin-off, you're... still a PPCer.
You know, I'm kinda laconic. No I've got the proof.
Although I wish there was an exclamation point after the "Hurrah" in the "I am single" answer. Not the one with the "successfully reproduced," just the normal one. I am proud of my singleness. *lets the world know*
And done! Frankly, anything to avoid sporking another chapter of StarKis Prophecy. Yes, really.
That was very nice. Graphs instantly add some cool to any data.
Finished.
I have Excel and could work up some demographic charts. Would that be cool?
I use "Danielle" on the Net sometimes. But this would be Calista offering to do the spreadsheet-wrangling.
I finished mine. Beware moderate amounts of snark.
Even if I felt like an idiot, most answers were exaclty the same of the previous year XD
I bet some of my answers have changed from last year. I'm awesome like that. >.>
~Neshomeh
I'm still in my month of Lurking. Can I still do the survey?
Though some of the answers might be kinda vauge...
Hopefully it'll help you folks get to know me a bit better...
Submitted though!
(Also the results from last year are amusing.)
I don't want to use "straight" as the slang term for heterosexual. It's like saying heterosexuals are more "right" about their sexual orientation than others.
The UK is in Europe too. British people sometimes forget that, or they actively try to misremember.
And yay for having my own named button.
I have come to the conclusion that my previous comments were asinine, and pointless. I apologize for inflicting them on the members of the board.
I would, however, like to say what I truly meant in regards to your first comment. With all due respect, I must disagree with your fundamental assumption. This is why: http://lds.org/family/proclamation?lang=eng
I admire that you are willing to stand up in defense of what you believe is right, but on this subject our respective views of 'right' are fundamentally opposed. And just as you must stand up for what you believe, so too must I.
While I can't say it's the same for everyone, since it is certainly not, I spent roughly a year in the LGBT activist group on campus before I left school entirely, and at no point did we ever use heterosexual or homosexual strictly; we used gay, straight, etc.
There's nothing I consider derogatory about the word 'straight', and suggesting it is is rather confusing, when the vast majority of LGBTQIetc people will use more casual and friendly words, including gay, to refer to themselves.
I'll admit that as far as my way of experience goes, I don't have very much, but the thought that I should have 'heterosexual' and 'homosexual' up there instead, on what is supposed to be a casual survey, and on a question that isn't even required to be answered, no less, sends a slight chill up my spin because those terms are, for the most part, reserved and used in medical/psychological contexts, or by American conservatives for homophobic purposes.
The homosexual menace, can't let homosexuals near the children, etc.
The differentiation between Europe and the UK is purely one due to the fact that the UK is generally entirely English speaking, as compared to most of Europe, where, as I understand, if people know English and they're native Europeans, it's usually as a second- or third- language.
This constructs a language barrier, and historically, the PPC Board has had a large contingent of people from the British Isles.
Artell however did point out to me that the use of UK as compared to 'British Isles' does produce a quandary for the suddenly extinct Irish people, so I've changed it in case we have any Irish people or elsewise lurking up in Ireland.
Through numerous posts on how to write people with a different sexual orientation than heterosexual respectfully I've become more aware of how certain words can be interpreted. I did not at all mean to suggest you used straight in a derogatory way, or would support that position.
It just stuck out to me that for other orientations more 'posh sounding' words were used, so why not for heterosexual and homosexual? I see nothing wrong with these words. I don't even particularly associate them with medical contexts. I find them perfectly everyday.
On the other hand, it appears pansexual needs a casual nickname.
The less common ones don't really have easily recognizable nicknames. I don't think too many people would understand what I'm saying if I call myself "ace"--they'd assume I was talking about flying in WWII. But if I said I was bi or gay, they'd know exactly what I meant (I'm actually platonic biromantic asexual feminine-genderqueer, but that's a frigging mouthful and I never use it except when I talk about how ridiculous these terms can get). So I have to say "asexual", however much it sounds like an amoeba. It's an annoyance, but I'm not going to get ranty about it. I'll save the rants for the "You Just Need The Right Guy" and "Lose Weight And I'm Sure The Boys Will Love You" people.
We can make it a play on Jack Harkness.
So the only real problems are that one is technically unnecessary and the other fails to meet some arbitrary standard of Political Correctness?
Normally I wouldn't bother commenting; If there was only the comment about the UK being in Europe I'd have ignored this. Unfortunately, you opened your post with a call for Political Correctness.
I hate Political Correctness. I hate trying to tiptoe around every single minority, special interest group, and ethical dissonance in an attempt to keep people from being offended. I especially hate the extra effort involved, because seventy percent of the time the Politically Correct term is syllables longer than the one it replaces. Or involves a backslash.
Can we please stick with the simple, accepted, monosyllabic terms that we already have, for the sake of simplicity if nothing else?
[This has been an Adamantine Rant in a Nutshell. I will now step down fro my soapbox.]
Did I mention Political Correctness? No, I did not.
I didn't mention equality or respect either, but that was what I was after. That all sexual orientations should be treated with equal respect, and thus that there should not be a word that suggests that one orientation is better than any other.
If you don't want to make the effort of being respectful, that's your problem. Don't try to bully me into giving up on respect for the sake of simplicity. Political Correctness, or basic good manners, became unfashionable around where I live quite some years ago, and it hasn't really become a nicer place to live. That's why I'm sticking up for respect.
Once again It seems that I have put my foot forward only to find out that it was the wrong foot. It was not my intention to come across as denigrating toward people on the basis of their sexual orientation. I would like to clarify my thinking, and hopefully convince you that I am not the total jerk that I seem to have come across as.
The definition of Political Correctness that I was working from is this: 'replacing a given word with a more socially acceptable term.' This is not, in and of itself a bad thing.
For example, in the 1960s during the Civil Rights movement, the common appellations for people of color - Black, Negro, etc - were pejorative, which is to say, they were intrinsically linked with negative stereotypes. There was no effective way to redeem the old appellations and so a new appellation was needed. Thus we end up with African American.
[I am now entering anecdote mode. The following is an entirely subjective account. If you don’t feel like reading my long-winded, biased perceptions, you may skip ahead to the next set of brackets. Otherwise, please keep your hands and feet inside the ride at all times, and enjoy the ride.]
On the other hand, when I was in high school, someone put forth the idea that the typical masculine default of essay writing was demeaning to women. That someone made a loud enough demand that for a while my teacher would make it a point that we should not use 'mankind' to refer to humanity, or 'he' to refer to generic individuals. The first is rather simple to work around, but how do you replace a pronoun if the gender neutral, 'it', carries the connotations of object status? The solution: instead of using a single pronoun you had to use both; instead of "when a man looks inside himself, this is what he sees," you had to write "when a person looks inside him or her self, this is what he/she sees." We had to write like that every. single. sentence. The replacement was not only longer, but didn't flow as well; There was no elegance in that solution.
Now here I was, and the default that I had been trained in, the format I was comfortable with, had just been thrown out the window because someone assumed that just because I was using the masculine form that I was automatically insulting women. This irritated me. It felt like some total stranger had walked up to me out of the blue and said "you think you're better than me, don't you? well you know what? I'm going to penalize you for it: from now on you have to...." Someone somewhere decided that the masculine default was so oppressive that it should be removed entirely, and worse, instead of simply switching to a feminine default they made us write in a ridiculous dual format, And they did this because masculinity itself was, apparently, an insult to women.
I would like to take a moment to make it clear that I have a great deal of respect for women; some of them are smarter than me, most of them multitask better than I'll ever be able to, and every single one of them is a darn sight prettier than I am. On the other hand, I am male, and I am perfectly comfortable being one, so when I project my thoughts out into the world they carry a masculine bias. I don't intend any insult to any party with that bias, it's just there. Then someone comes along and tells me "you can't think from a male perspective because men aren't better than women."
Wait, What? Why don’t you just introduce a feminine default? If you don’t want everyone making the assumption that readers are male then give the writer latitude to assume they’re all female. Why do you restrict my choices in the name of equality instead of simply giving others more freedom to act?
[Now leaving anecdote mode. We hope that you had fun, and that we’ll see you again in the future.]
Now, since rant mode has dragged me rather farther afield, I’d like to summarize My perception of the topic.
Political Correctness = I want a new word
In the current context there are two reasons for a new word
a) Your word for me is offensive
b) Your word makes you sound better than me
If you are offended by the appellation I use to refer to you or your group, and ask me to use a different term in the future, I will make an effort to do so. In fact, if you do so politely, I will respect you as an individual for your levelheadedness in regards to my ignorance. If, however, you come to me and tell me that some group over there should be called a different name because the one they have makes them sound better than your group , I will make two comments: a) that the connotative definition of a word is the product of society, and b) I will ask why you aren’t confident enough in your own group to prove that your group is just as good as the other group without my help.
Society has its own perceptions, and you can’t change them by demanding that they change. If you replace a positive appellation from something that society considers truly positive, then whatever replacement you chose will eventually take on the same positive connotations. If society thinks something is better or more useful or more ‘normal’ or more common, then that same thought will carry over, no matter what you call it. Words sometimes can change perception, but perception more often changes words.
Finally, and this is the real point of my whole discussion, I don’t believe in top-down equality. Tearing down a skyscraper doesn’t add any extra stories to your house, and cutting off a taller man’s head doesn’t make the short man any less short. Progress is what you get when you pull yourself to a higher level; pulling someone down to yours only gives you the illusion of progress.
Thank you for your time. If you have any comments or criticism I welcome them, and will try to give them the same consideration that you have given me.
On the other hand, when I was in high school, someone put forth the idea that the typical masculine default of essay writing was demeaning to women.
Not demeaning, necessarily-- marginalising is more accurate.
Also, there is a movement now for gender-neutral pronouns of xie, zir, xieself, etc. I am not as familiar with it as I would like, but it's the accepted standard for referring to someone whose gender is unspecified or unknown on the Slacktiverse. On the other hand, this xkcd strip puts forward the idea of 'them' instead of any singular pronoun in the case of gender-neutrality.
Wait, What? Why don’t you just introduce a feminine default?
People have done this. It generally does not go well, and is met with a huge outcry of "But what about the MEN?!"
Society has its own perceptions, and you can’t change them by demanding that they change.Ye gods, for the first time in a long time I feel restricted by the 'Board and our PG-13 code.
Horse excrement. You can ONLY change society's perceptions by working to change them. You can ONLY show people the hurt inherent in their language by pointing it out to them, and you can ONLY end that hurt by demanding it be changed.
I have gotten to the point where I truly dislike the term "Political Correctness," because it has come to mean "whining about non-specific language regardless of context," and I don't like that. I am all for changing society's perception, I am all for standing up for minority rights, and I am very much against the privileged majority deciding that their convenience is more important than the harm it may be causing.
This may seem like a vitriolic post, and I apologize if I have dragged the tone farther towards the angry end of the spectrum. This topic is something I feel rather passionately about, as a writer and an activist.
Because 'politically correct' is a pejorative term used by people who are uncomfortable when they face social consequences for their offensive language. The actual philosophy could probably be better described as the 'don't be a jerk movement'.
Adamantine, it's great that you don't believe in top-down equality, or cutting off people's heads (well done there). But what you don't see, as a privileged person, is the fact that some terms and some modes of speech are actively digging holes under people's feet. When a man writes something in the masculine generic, it completely ignores and invalidates the existence of women, who are already pushing against centuries of being regarded as less than human. You won't see the harm, since you're not a woman, but the harm exists. I'm sure you don't think that you see women as 'less than', but neither did all of the men who stopped them voting, divorcing, owning property . . . of course the masculine generic is a lesser evil. But anything which implies that the only significant portions of humanity are male is the same evil, just a bit paler.
Words do shape thoughts. We're writers here, we know they have power. And asking people not to use harmful words isn't being 'politically correct'; it's just not being a jerk.
for at least giving me the chance to get off of the toes that I've stepped on. I tend to be blunt on subjects that I feel strongly about, so I appreciate your equally blunt criticism.
a) "...marginalizing is more accurate."
I don't really have a counterargument for this. It seemed a lot clearer back then when all I could see was me, as a man, being punished for writing in the masculine rather than the obvious (to me) solution of giving women the option of writing in the feminine. I have never had a problem with following a neutral (someone, person) with a feminine pronoun. It feels a bit odd to read at first, but I understand that it was written with the whole of humanity in mind.
"...a movement for gender-neutral pronouns..."
And if they ever make it into formal writing I will give a solemn cheer. Followed by silent cursing for using awkward-to-reach letters. I actually think that 'they' and 'them will formally make the transition to singular before the new pronouns are in, thought. And there will be much rejoicing.
b) "...introduce a feminine default?"
Yes, this has been done, probably with varying levels of success. The example that comes to mind is White Wolf publishing, which has used a feminine default in several of their WoD source books. The fan game Genius is also in the feminine.
c) "... change them by demanding that they change"
"...working to change them"
I didn't mean that society's perceptions couldn't change, although I think my point would have been clearer had I included a 'simply' in my statement. There is a difference between demanding something and working for something, although in certain contexts demanding may be a portion of working. but you cannot simply demand something and reasonably expect it to happen.
It falls back to the concept of "show, don't tell." To change society you have to make them want to change, you have to give them something that resonates in their soul so much that they have no choice but to help the change occur. Saying the same thing in the same way with different words isn't the way to go about it.
In the end, it is every person's moral obligation to do everything they can to fix what they perceive as wrong in their society. The problem is that everyone these days seems to draw the line between right and wrong in a different place. The issue you see as the greatest detriment to progress is the same issue that another person is convinced will lead to the destruction of society. There are argumentative lines drawn with Ethos, lines with Logos, and lines with Pathos, and every line is absolutely convinced that it is the only one that matters. You only have to convince people to redraw their lines so that they're standing on your side of the field.
...but you cannot simply demand something and reasonably expect it to happen.
The 'working' part of causing change is getting enough people to also demand that society changes. When enough of society agrees with the change, society changes.
Demand does equal change.
I can sympathize with your his/her plight, but that's more of an argument for bad change. It's heart was in the right place, but it didn't execute it well. It's certainly not an argument for trying to remove generations old prejudiced artifacts of our culture.
I went through a phase of 'hating political correctness' - then I got over it.
We are too privileged a group to get all self righteous about people trying to retake language that was used for long periods of time to oppress them.
The point of political correctness isn't tiptoeing around people, it's the effort of trying to respect other people was being people.
Don't try and pull the white middle class male 'oh woe I'm being oppressed because of political correctness' card.
It's an attempt to remove privilege and oppression, not further oppression.
Thanks for letting us all know your opinion, though.
Coincidentally I was just talking with some people on IRC about this topic last night, and I agree that 'straight' is most definitely a not-neutral word.
What would be a neutral word? I don't think that's achievable here. Just so we're not using non-neutral as a pejorative. Being aware of bias and acting against it is much more important than sanitizing vocabulary (which is certainly important too).
You can use 'het' in casual conversation. Some people do.
July already laid out how 'heterosexual' isn't really neutral either.
She mentioned that it's not casual, and I addressed that by saying that 'het' is a perfectly fine casual rendition.
And casualness has nothing to do with a word's neutrality.
And if you don't want to get too formal with "heterosexual" typed out in full, I do agree that "het" is a decent informal way to go.
There. I answered.
I AM ALSO A STARFISH GUYS