Jump to content
Yzarro

cultural things we'll be ashamed of in 50 years

Recommended Posts

Ah, I just realized how long this post is. Bear (no, not "bare") with me...I like to voice my opinion strongly, with the aid of long sentences.

 

In 50 years, I can only pray that all the teens nowadays (who will then be older and therefore- hopefully- more sensible and mature) will be ashamed of the way they dress, talk, and act now.

 

1. Okay, so let me get this straight- talking like you're a gangster, like you've never heard of this wonderful thing called "English" before, like you've got a Mexican accent when you don't, like you're intoxicated...that's cool? I'll take note of that. Because, you young popular teens, while you strut around cursing and using slang that makes others shudder, we more intelligent people are shaking our heads at you. What godforsaken human being decided that speaking like that was "cool?"

 

2. Clothing- feel free to ready your guns while I begin to address this. The end of this post will most likely end with a "/shot." This mainly concerns girls, because I am one, so I understand the behavior of girls more than guys. Though I can say this, males, your pants hanging out below your butt is so much less than attractive. Anyway, girls, when you are 60 I hope you will be embarrasses by the amount of skin showing around your midsection, the cleavage you expose, the way your jeans make me think that you need to be amputated just to get them off, and the way you wear jeans and sweaters in the middle of July- in Florida.

 

3. When you sass your teacher, do people fall in love with you? When you roll your eyes at your parents, to people admire you? When you laugh at kids with disabilities, gossip behind your so-called friend's back, skip class to text your boyfriend...are you worthy of being worshiped? I don't know about anything else, but to me, that is a big fat no.

 

All right, you may all shoot me now. Have fun and please...pull up your pants.

Edited by glamoursea2

Share this post


Link to post
Women shaving their legs. Why did they do something so ridiculous?

 

:| A girl can hope, a'right? XP

Yes please. I have kind of given up on this (hi-five for invisi-hair) but it'd be nice if I didn't have to feel awkward about it whenever anybody looks too closely at my legs. It's just hair! There's supposed to be hair there!

Share this post


Link to post
Women shaving their legs. Why did they do something so ridiculous?

 

:| A girl can hope, a'right? XP

This, my goodness, I'm so happy it's been cooler for the past few days so I can wear jeans and not worry about shaving my legs. My leg hair is unfortunately far from invisible, but whenever I shave it gets really irritated as the hairs start to grow back in a good eight hours later. T___T

Share this post


Link to post

I think having unshaved legs in the winter actually keeps your legs slightly warmer. Maybe it's only a one degree difference. But it's one degree warmer.

 

 

 

I think in 50 years we're going to think walking was shameful. That's when we'll evolve past using legs and we'll all be just floating around places. Or grow roots like a tree.

(this is a joke)

Share this post


Link to post

Kamak, I am a 36 year old American, born and raised in Southern California.  Growing up, I have seen many, many people imitate those with cerebral palsy and equate the action with stupidity or mental deficiency.  I have heard them imitate the voices of people with severe movement disorders to the same effect.  They called it 'spazzing'.  Nowadays, when I see people say they are 'spazzing out', they sometimes act up and flap their arms as if they can't control their body movements.  Please do not tell me that in America, such things are non-existent.  I know you were operating under mistaken information regarding my location, but that does not change the fact that you cannot speak for all of America when you say such things are non-existent.  They are existent, in America.

 

Bad word choice on my part, I usually avoid words like "non-existent" but I'm on the tail end of a sinus infection, so please bear with me. tongue.gif

 

Anyways, the point still remains that this activity isn't the norm of what happens in America. I work with many groups for helping raise money for charities to go to special causes (mostly autism, but also to charities that deal with a myriad of disorders, many of which usually involve body control disorders). I've yet to hear any horror stories from all of the people I've dealt with about the word spaz, and it's even weirder that people, even the ones running the charities for causes like cerebral palsy don't even know that spaz is a slur for the disorder (or the ones that can be mistaken for it). It really seems to NOT EXIST in many places. Of course this doesn't mean it can't appear in certain regions (it doesn't just magically start happening in Mexico because of the border), but that doesn't mean those regions that it occurs in is the norm, or the people who do this to others is the norm.

 

So 'spazzing' is associated with clumsiness?  That could not possibly be because people with movement disorders are sometimes clumsy, could it?  It's associated with 'over-excitedness'?  That couldn't be because someone suffering from an episode of uncontrollable, painful body contortions appears to be moving quite a lot and is, quite literally, over-excited, could it?

 

Except for the fact that it evolved from the nerd definition into those meanings, not from the original meaning into them. It's analogous not homologous. The nerd version of "spaz" focused more on the fact that back then, a nerd was considered anyone that didn't have any interest in something manly or physically active (like sports, fixing up cars, etc.), and the idea was that nerds didn't enjoy this stuff because they sucked at it, they were uncoordinated, and they were more excited by "weird stuff" like science or math. The uncoordinated part became the basis for the clumsy definition, and the overexcitedness (the idea that a nerd "gets off" on weird stuff and is bubbly about it (think Doc Brown from Back to the Future)) became the basis for "spazzing out".

 

You, and many others, believe such attitudes are benign, for they do not know the word "spaz" (which has no medical usage at all) has unsavory roots, and perhaps they do not know what the movements they make mean.  I believe in 50 years, society will be ashamed of these attitudes that allow such usages to be accepted, the way that society is ashamed of blackface now.  Back then, wearing makeup to imitate other races was not seen nor intended to be in any way negative.  And yet now, as a society, we are horrified by it and horrified we ever thought it was acceptable.

 

First, spaz is derived from spastic, so at the root of everything, spaz wasn't the bottom part of the root, and spastic was (and to my knowledge, still is, to some degree) a medical term. It has innocent roots in that regard. If you're going to argue about the word "spaz" itself, once again, it started life as shorthand for spastic, only later becoming a slur specifically used to put down people.

 

Second, blackface is a much more complicated issue than you make it out to be. It was both used as a way to make fun of blacks in a demonstrably horrible fashion, and it was a means to allow characters to look the part of what they're playing (since blacks at the time often didn't have skills in the theatre). Blackface was merely a tool that was used badly and gets flak for the bad use that it had. I'm not advocating for blackface to make a comeback or anything (since the biggest thing it had going for itself was accuracy and we now have people of all races to fill those positions, or to fill positions that weren't dictated by race before), but the entire reason it's seen as terrible was because people used it as a way to trivialize black people and hurt them. Blackface, like words, can be misused, so you're right to compare the two, but ultimately, I find your evaluation to be wrong.

 

And if society is ashamed to have used such words in an appropriate manner, I'm really going to be worried about what society looks like in 50 years.

 

I have no intention of shaming anyone.  I wish to give people something to think about.  If those thoughts provoke feelings, perhaps it's worth listening to why those feelings were provoked.  You'll not see me attack every instance of someone saying they 'spazzed out', nor even being personally offended by them.  That would be a pointless crusade and an exercise in futility.  Which is why I want the attitudes to evolve, knowing the words will follow.  Your way, diluting the words without addressing the attitudes, affects ultimately only the sounds being made and strikes me as the same reason that such a long string of descriptors for other races are no longer acceptable--the attitudes behind the words never changed.

 

Just one bugbear for me, you have no intention of shaming people, but you hope they're ashamed of what they're doing/did in 50 years? I'm chalking this up to bad word choice.

 

And you keep saying the attitudes need to evolve, but the issue with that is this:

 

If people take the word seriously, in the sense that they're conscious of the fact that it is also a slur (or to some people/some cases, primarily a slur), how is the word going to evolve? If people are aware of the slur and aware that using the word can cause some people to take the slur meaning along with the harmless meaning, wouldn't that just promote people NOT using the word at all? Thus making it taboo and killing the word from use? If the attitude changes in the way you indicate, how exactly will the word evolve? All I'm seeing from this chain of thoughts is the word becoming "naughty" and being left to die because it can also be used as a slur, which means that the word will forever be known to be little more than a slur (otherwise it wouldn't be taboo) and thus killing any chances for that word to mean anything but the slur definition.

 

This is NOT what I want. I don't want to kill a word and make it to where it can't exist as more than a forbidden word that people have to fear using. That's giving a word power that it does not deserve, and it does nothing to help the problem, it just sweeps it under the carpet in the hopes that no one notices it, all the while the carpet is slowly smoldering away.

 

So please, inform me. How would changing the attitude behind the word help make the word evolve into something that isn't a slur? How can you be sure that that will happen rather than the idea I outlined above?

 

You say a word can only gain it's damaging affect by the intent of the user.  You are partially right--the attitude of the user also has an effect on the word.  If the user of a word holds such a casual disregard for the disabled and mentally ill that they are not even aware they hold it, it colors the words they use.  That's why words like lame and crazy and spaz can get negative connotations about able-bodied and non-ill people in the first place.  It happened because society gave not even one <censored> about what those things mean to the people who suffer from them.  After all, to people who don't suffer with a movement disorder, 'spaz' is just another word, it's not a reality that puts them in wheelchairs and causes them pain.  'Lame' is just a word, it's not a reality.  'Crazy' is just a word, it's not a reality.  So therefore it's OK for those who don't suffer from the reality behind those words, it's just sounds, they don't mean anything by them.  Right?

 

I hold intent to include attitude (If someone feels superior to another person, the way they speak to them their intent will usually carry hints of the condescension), so that point is a bit moot.

 

Other than that, I disagree. I'm really trying to form a proper response to this (I've written and deleted about 3 paragraph-length responses, but my brain isn't wanting to go through and dissect it properly, so I'm leaving it at that.

 

Same thing with "that's retarded". It's just slang to lots of people, but knowing people with disabilities and friends and family of mentally retarded people, and watching over quite a few mentally challenged people for my job for the community centers, it is offensive.

 

Not to everyone that's effected though. There are many people who would prefer the evolution of the word to have the slang version be the only one that society pays attention to. This then becomes the sticky issue of who is right. Certainly, the first people to be voted out of having a say in this matter are the advocates that do not have to deal with the effects of the slur firsthand (and are generally the people I deal with when they get upset over the use of the r word), but then, which side is right? Do you pick the side with the majority? Doing so means that the minority have to suffer... and a minority group within a minority group suffering is just... wrong. Personally, I don't use words that have slur meanings all that often (the only word that I really use is the r word, and even then I say it maybe... once a year, if that), however, I'm of the mind that the slang versions of the slurs don't hurt everyone in the group, and after previous experience and discussing the matter with many people affected by the issue, it believe it's disingenuous to make a broad statement that it is indubitably offensive.

 

However, that doesn't mean there's an easy way to fix this mess. Both sides have legitimate points (even if I don't personally agree with the other side), and both sides need to be considered in the issue, but most people only see the side that says it's offensive. I'd say that I'm a devil's advocate for this issue, but that generally implies that I'm doing it for the sake of arguing a controversy, rather than stating my feelings on the matter in the hopes that people can consider them when thinking about the issue.

 

'Spaz' is short for 'spastic.' 'Spastic' is a term for a mental disability. So calling someone a 'spaz' is saying they are mentally disabled.

 

Once you know what 'spaz' is short for, you are not only being offensive but also ignorant, and you have no excuse for it. Argue all you want, outside of America it is outright offensive and once you've been told once, you shouldn't keep on using it in mixed company. *That* is evolution of language, manners and ettiquette.

 

So, now you know 'spaz' is about as offensive a term you can ever get, I suggest you are more aware of it next-time.

 

It's the same as when someone calls me a 'Kraut.' That is fairly racist as remarks go, hence why I politely yet firmly inform people as such and thus ask them not to use it again. If they use it again in my presence or to describe me, then at that point they are out-and-out offensive and racist.

 

And as I have said before (both in this topic AND in our other discussion), you cannot force people in another culture to comply to your culture's standards. If they're visiting your country, they're at the mercy of your culture and should respect that like any good guest should. If you're visiting them and are offended, you can ask them to respect your wishes, but they are not obligated to do so (beyond how much they like you and don't want to hurt you). Cultural dissonance exists for a reason, and just because something is offensive in your culture doesn't mean it is in another, or SHOULD be treated as such.

 

Beyond that, when you're on the internet, no one needs to feel forced to comply with anyone else's culture. You have no more right to try to force me to stop saying spaz as I have a right to force you to say it. This is a neutral ground where no culture is dominant. You can get upset that people continue to use the word all you want, but ultimately, you cannot impose your culture on them as "right".

 

I need to go lie down.

 

-K-

Edited by Kamak

Share this post


Link to post

The "pants on the floor" guys and people who wear jammies and bed hair in public.

Skinny jeans.

A good chunk of today's accepted scientific theories(That's what science does, right?)

Tattoos, possibly. If you ever wonder about this one, ask a WWII veteran to show off the tattoos he got while he was in the War... if he even lets you see how faded and distorted they are now.

Breed bans. Everyone will be ashamed of how many good dog breeds got destroyed once all that's left is a bunch of feeble, rabbit-sized dogs that have virtually no use outside companion and therapy dogs.

Screamo and hardcore music, possibly. Only recently have people enjoyed music where people scream words you can't understand for most of the song. (Note that I am a fan of this genre...)

Junk food as a primary source of nourishment.

Share this post


Link to post

Not to everyone that's effected though.

 

I think this is true of everything, thing, though. Every offensive gesture, every offensive word, every everything. Dx

 

Yes, you're right. The trouble is definitely balance. Learning what's okay with just your friends and what isn't okay in public. I think we all need to be just a bit more aware and sensitive of others. It's a worldwide social experiment, though. owo

 

Women shaving their legs. Why did they do something so ridiculous?

 

:| A girl can hope, a'right? XP

 

But then me not shaving wouldn't be weird! Le gasp!

Share this post


Link to post
The "pants on the floor" guys and people who wear jammies and bed hair in public.

Skinny jeans.

A good chunk of today's accepted scientific theories(That's what science does, right?)

Tattoos, possibly. If you ever wonder about this one, ask a WWII veteran to show off the tattoos he got while he was in the War... if he even lets you see how faded and distorted they are now.

Breed bans. Everyone will be ashamed of how many good dog breeds got destroyed once all that's left is a bunch of feeble, rabbit-sized dogs that have virtually no use outside companion and therapy dogs.

Screamo and hardcore music, possibly. Only recently have people enjoyed music where people scream words you can't understand for most of the song. (Note that I am a fan of this genre...)

Junk food as a primary source of nourishment.

What if your hair is naturally unmanageable? :< I like my spiky crazy hair.

 

Too true about the science thing though, ha. It'll be interesting, that's for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Anyways, the point still remains that this activity isn't the norm of what happens in America. I work with many groups for helping raise money for charities to go to special causes (mostly autism, but also to charities that deal with a myriad of disorders, many of which usually involve body control disorders). I've yet to hear any horror stories from all of the people I've dealt with about the word spaz, and it's even weirder that people, even the ones running the charities for causes like cerebral palsy don't even know that spaz is a slur for the disorder (or the ones that can be mistaken for it). It really seems to NOT EXIST in many places. Of course this doesn't mean it can't appear in certain regions (it doesn't just magically start happening in Mexico because of the border), but that doesn't mean those regions that it occurs in is the norm, or the people who do this to others is the norm.

America is big. If you haven't experienced it where you live doesn't mean it's not the norm in other places, or at least was at one time. There are many reasons why you might not have heard any stories about it. However, I have told you my experience, so you have at least one person you have now heard from, one data point to add to your collection. Do you accept it as having occurred?

 

Except for the fact that it evolved from the nerd definition into those meanings, not from the original meaning into them. It's analogous not homologous.

 

No, Kamak. It jumped straight from from 'spastic' into a derogatory way of referring to a clumsy person or an over-exited person and, apparently, by parallel development, into the 'nerd' meanings. It never, ever, ceased to refer to the spastic medical condition. The word isn't old enough to have gone from its original derogatory meaning to another meaning, then back to its original meaning.

 

First, spaz is derived from spastic, so at the root of everything, spaz wasn't the bottom part of the root, and spastic was (and to my knowledge, still is, to some degree) a medical term. It has innocent roots in that regard. If you're going to argue about the word "spaz" itself, once again, it started life as shorthand for spastic, only later becoming a slur specifically used to put down people.

 

Spastic is indeed still a medical term and it is still used. There are many words with innocent roots that are not innocent themselves. There are a lot of words that no one will touch with a ten-foot pole that you could make this exact statement about. Does that make them words that are acceptable?

 

I know how blackface was used (although maybe, if people had actually looked, they could have found people skilled for the parts?). It was a much more obvious thing, but I think it is very similar. Calling people 'spazzes' has roots just as horrible and they are not old in the slightest, not in the slightest bit addressed, still happening today, except, well, no, it doesn't even have any slightly-legitimate uses like blackface did. There are a myriad of richer, better ways of saying clumsy or over-excited without trampling all over the experiences of disabled people.

 

And if society is ashamed to have used such words in an appropriate manner, I'm really going to be worried about what society looks like in 50 years.

 

Trying very hard to figure out how there is an appropriate way to call an able-bodied person spastic or any 'nickname' thereof.

 

Just one bugbear for me, you have no intention of shaming people, but you hope they're ashamed of what they're doing/did in 50 years? I'm chalking this up to bad word choice.

 

Pay very careful attention: I never said that I wished people to feel ashamed of using these words in 50 years, did I? I hope their attitudes change and they therefore realize why there is a problem with these sorts of words and cease using them and also do not make new ones to replace them. I never once said I wished them to feel shame for it. I did say this: "Perhaps in 50 years society will be ashamed at how the mentally ill and developmentally disabled are an acceptable target for all manner of horrifying practices" but it referred to far worse things than using words. I don't particularly want people to feel ashamed of their past, even if it is shameful. I want people to learn from it and not repeat the shameful parts. If they do that by feeling shame, well...OK. If they don't need to feel shame to do it, better. If I want any feeling, it would be regret.

 

And you keep saying the attitudes need to evolve, but the issue with that is this:

 

If people take the word seriously, in the sense that they're conscious of the fact that it is also a slur (or to some people/some cases, primarily a slur), how is the word going to evolve? If people are aware of the slur and aware that using the word can cause some people to take the slur meaning along with the harmless meaning, wouldn't that just promote people NOT using the word at all? Thus making it taboo and killing the word from use? If the attitude changes in the way you indicate, how exactly will the word evolve? All I'm seeing from this chain of thoughts is the word becoming "naughty" and being left to die because it can also be used as a slur, which means that the word will forever be known to be little more than a slur (otherwise it wouldn't be taboo) and thus killing any chances for that word to mean anything but the slur definition.

 

This is NOT what I want. I don't want to kill a word and make it to where it can't exist as more than a forbidden word that people have to fear using. That's giving a word power that it does not deserve, and it does nothing to help the problem, it just sweeps it under the carpet in the hopes that no one notices it, all the while the carpet is slowly smoldering away.

 

So please, inform me. How would changing the attitude behind the word help make the word evolve into something that isn't a slur? How can you be sure that that will happen rather than the idea I outlined above?

 

I think I see what the issue is. You are placing some value on the existence of the word itself, as if it needs to continue to exist. I want the carpet to stop smoldering, as it were, as well. I know what you mean by that, and what you're getting at. I hate that phenomenon. It keeps happening to perfectly innocent words like colored and negro (well, in Spanish it's innocent), it's happening to black now. I want the attitudes to change so it stops corrupting perfectly usable words, and no, I don't think banishing the words will fix the attitude. That's why I don't want to banish the words. I want people to think about the attitude behind the words that are corrupted, and change that in themselves. In the case of 'spaz'...that is the attitude right on display: it exists because of the attitude that needs to change. When the attitude changes, the word will vanish on its own. It won't be swept under the carpet to smolder, because if the attitude behind its existence changes, the word will no longer be needed nor used, and will fall away. 'Spastic' will not vanish, but 'spaz' will, or at least, it will as used in a derogatory way to describe clumsy, stupid people.

 

So, no need for the word to evolve. Why does it need to evolve? There are such things as evolutionary dead ends in language. It will be like a leaf on a branch, once the attitude is gone, it will have outlived any use it ever had, and fall off the language.

 

Other than that, I disagree. I'm really trying to form a proper response to this (I've written and deleted about 3 paragraph-length responses, but my brain isn't wanting to go through and dissect it properly, so I'm leaving it at that.

 

Keep thinking about it. It's worth thinking about. There's a good reason why words that define reality for one person are misused at best when others who do not know that reality at all fling them around like cheap toys.

 

Not to everyone that's effected though. There are many people who would prefer the evolution of the word to have the slang version be the only one that society pays attention to. This then becomes the sticky issue of who is right. Certainly, the first people to be voted out of having a say in this matter are the advocates that do not have to deal with the effects of the slur firsthand (and are generally the people I deal with when they get upset over the use of the r word), but then, which side is right?

 

I guess I don't see this as an issue of right or wrong. If people are saying, "Stop, that hurts", and it does me no harm at all to stop, then...why am I not stopping?

 

Still, it's very good to to think about things like this, and I really do enjoy locking horns with you : )

Share this post


Link to post

The Iraq War

The Afghanistan War

Underestimating 3rd world countries

Ignoring genocides in Africa

Hannah Montana

My Little Pony

Internet Memes

 

EDIT: Oh yes, and Pokemon

Edited by Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Internet Memes

50 years from now (on the internet):

 

"Blablabla, I'm asking the internet a question."

"Good question. Check here for some useful tips!"

"Go take your medicine, gramps. Your Alzheimer's must be acting up; it's 2061."

Share this post


Link to post

If it means anything, I didn't know spaz was a derogatory word in that way. I know about the disorder, but I didn't know about the word.

However, now that I know, I won't use it.

 

 

I think in some cases you have to educate people, that's the only way to get them to stop.

 

 

As an example, a lot of people think that seizures and epilepsy or any other kind of convulsion disorder is funny. People make flashing images or flash lights or joke about it. But most people don't know how serious a seizure is. People don't know that you can get seriously injured or die from them. Or even without that, it's still very scary for the people around them and the person experiencing it.

 

There have been times where I've had to just inform people about it, and then once they learn about it they stop what they were doing.

 

 

 

It's kind of sad that we live in a society and age with instant access to information and you think stuff like that wouldn't happen, but it does.

 

People can be in the point where they just don't actually know. Sometimes the best thing you can do is let them know.

 

 

If we all work together on it, than maybe in 50 years (or considerably less) people won't use it at all.

 

I'm hoping in 50 years no one will think any kind of physical or mental disorder is something to laugh about, make fun of, ect.

Share this post


Link to post
I'm hoping in 50 years no one will think any kind of physical or mental disorder is something to laugh about, make fun of, ect.

I'm horrified that this is happening now. A lot of things make me mad in life, and a lot of things make me sad. But this...this makes me want to hurt someone.

/sometimes has violent tendencies

My god. How dense can some people be? Making fun of someone who is disabled, mentally or physically, is just plain awful. There really are no words for this. I hope that those who do this- who think that down syndrome and cerebral palsy and so much more are worth laughing at- will be ashamed of this now. I can't wait 50 years for people to wake up and stop being so heartless.

If I sound overly dramatic, I don't care. It's so wrong and so upsetting. Of all the people to make fun of...

Share this post


Link to post

 

EDIT: Oh yes, and Pokemon

DON'T. YOU. DARE.

 

I am going to be a Pokemon fan even in the afterlife. . _.

 

 

Also, the word thing: I always grew up with the word spaz as an innocent term similar to "dork" or "silly". My mom called me a spaz if I had done something funny/weird, particularly of high energy. However, I also have a five year old sister, and when she does funny/silly things, we call her a spaz too.

My sister has cerebral palsy, and it does no harm to her at all.

 

People put as much emotional weight on a word as they were taught or learned to. It differs between people. Obviously, if someone said "spaz" was offensive to them, I wouldn't use it in their presence- but I don't find it offensive at all, thus I would probably continue to use it outside my interaction with that person. That doesn't make me a bad person, though.

 

It's kind of how the two-fingered peace sign in America is an equivalent to the middle finger in other countries. Us Americans have no issue and don't see it as offensive at all- and in fact it's quite the opposite. Even then, we would get in trouble with those who took offensive. I have friends from Australia and England who have told me about the issue, and yet they're able to take it in stride as a joke and aren't offended at all when we silly Americans continue to do it.

 

I really believe a word is as offensive as you allow it to be. I'm a lesbian and my moms are lesbians- I don't get offended if someone says "that's gay". I mean, I understand how the word might have evolved to that point, but when a friend of mine snorts, "that's gay" at something she thinks is ridiculous, I know she isn't trying to put me or my family down in the same turn. Just like when my mom calls me and my sister spazs- there's no malicious intent behind it at all, and we don't derive any from it. There is no issue there. Someone who is looking in on the situation and is aware of its potentially negative properties might find this appalling- but that's only because they're fixated on a negative connotation, when there really was none to begin with.

 

Share this post


Link to post

Amongst family, things like that are different.

 

There are things that can be said amongst family and friends that can't be said amongst strangers. My dad can make jokes about my movement disorder to me. Strangers CANNOT. I would certainly hope that people realize they can't behave to the world at large as if the world at large is their family, and the world at large is not allowed to behave with the familiarity of a family member to just anyone.

Edited by Princess Artemis

Share this post


Link to post
I really believe a word is as offensive as you allow it to be.

This. I think that there is nothing wrong with being homosexual, and a person's gender preference doesn't affect me so why should it bother me? You like guys, that's great. You like girls, good for you. You like both, doesn't bother me. Someone who is homosexual could either take serious offense to someone who thinks being gay is bad, or they could just roll their eyes because seriously?

"You're so gay!"

"Yeah...I know...and what is your point?"

"..."

I allow people to think whatever they want to think. So lesbians creep you out...whatever. So you think gay people rock...whatever floats your boat.

 

But I hope that in 50 years, being bisexual or homosexual won't be as big a deal as people make it. I wish homosexuals were not so discriminated against. Why does it bother people? Does standing next to a gay person give you a disease? No. Does looking at a gay couple give you a disease? No.

Share this post


Link to post
I really believe a word is as offensive as you allow it to be.

I agree with this - that doesn't mean I'll just throw around whatever words I want to, though; if I know that others are likely to be offended by something I say then I won't say it in the first place.

 

Some words used as insults do bother me/rub me the wrong way, and I respect others for having similar reactions to different expressions. I try to see the world through a lot of different perspectives, however difficult it is for me to see it through another individual's eyes.

 

In fifty years our vocabulary will have changed, I'm sure. But I'll say that I hope we regret adding "LOL" to the dictionary...

Share this post


Link to post

DON'T. YOU. DARE.

 

I am going to be a Pokemon fan even in the afterlife. . _.

I still play Pokemon religiously too. I'm also willing to admit people will be poking fun at it in 50 years. So I do dare =O

Edited by Walker

Share this post


Link to post
I'm going to assume that Daydreamer wasn't aware of the health benifits to botox, Sola wink.gif

 

Either way, definetly concur with how people feel about sexuality of strangers and gay marriage here. People should be ashamed of themselves.

How many times do I have to say this? I was referring to cosmetic botox! sleep.gif#

Sheesh... I'm sorry for not being specific enough.

Share this post


Link to post

Amongst family, things like that are different.

 

There are things that can be said amongst family and friends that can't be said amongst strangers.  My dad can make jokes about my movement disorder to me.  Strangers CANNOT.  I would certainly hope that people realize they can't behave to the world at large as if the world at large is their family, and the world at large is not allowed to behave with the familiarity of a family member to just anyone.

I would rather be treated like someone's family than someone inferior to another because we had no previous relationship. I've joked around with gay things with people I don't know that well in conversations, but that doesn't mean what they say is offensive to me. Obviously, if they say something with ill intent to my face like, "Gays are nasty" or "Atheists are going to hell!" and meant it, then yeah, I'm going to get upset. But if I met someone who was pretty cool to talk to and they found out I was an atheist, and jokingly said, "Awh, you dirty heathen!" then I'm going to laugh because I know they weren't actually trying to insult me.

 

Amongst people you know, yes, some circumstances are going to be different simply because you don't know the other person well enough to understand what their view might be on the statement they make. I understand that. Even still, if I exchange a couple words with someone on the train and they comment "That's so gay!", do I take offense? No. Not unless they specifically make a point that their statement was directed towards the demonetization of homosexuals.

 

Someone calling another person a spaz because they were being silly is not the same as someone calling someone a r*censorkip.gif* and holding their arm up to their chest to slap themselves with the side of their hand. The first one was not meant to be rude or malicious at all; "You're such a spaz!" is almost always going to be a friendly teasing, and in no way would mean something negative. The latter, however, is clearly meaning to suggest something about mental retardation in a negative context. It's all what the receiver takes from what is being said- In fact, I don't find the "sender" or whatever has much to do with it. Someone can call me gay, homo, dyke, as much as they want, and even if they really mean it to hurt me, you know what? SO what. Yes, I am. And?

 

I know a lot of this has to do with personal examination of communication, and that's probably something we'll have to agree to disagree on.

I am curious, though; you mentioned you had a disability of your own. If someone you didn't know that well was joking around with you with obviously no intent to offend, but commented on it, would you still be offended after you discovered that person had the same disability even if you still didn't know them much?

 

 

Edit:

I still play Pokemon religiously too. I'm also willing to admit people will be poking fun at it in 50 years. So I do dare =O

 

Ehehehe, I know xd.png My own mom is already exasperated with it. She rolls her eyes every time I mention it.

It's already happening D:

Edited by Shiny Hazard Sign

Share this post


Link to post
Someone calling another person a spaz because they were being silly is not the same as someone calling someone a r*censorkip.gif* and holding their arm up to their chest to slap themselves with the side of their hand. The first one was not meant to be rude or malicious at all; "You're such a spaz!" is almost always going to be a friendly teasing, and in no way would mean something negative.

I'm gathering you didn't read what I said about how I grew up and my association of the word 'spaz' and that exact hand movement. 'Spaz' and that hand movement are intertwined in my mind because that's how they were used together when I was growing up. When I hear people saying they are 'spazzing', I see them flap their hands sometimes, and a long while ago, I saw them sometimes making that hand movement. And now, my hand does something very like it involuntarily. You're not going to convince me there is anything friendly about the word no matter how people say it.

 

What friends and family do, is as I said, a different matter.

 

I am curious, though; you mentioned you had a disability of your own. If someone you didn't know that well was joking around with you with obviously no intent to offend, but commented on it, would you still be offended after you discovered that person had the same disability even if you still didn't know them much?

 

I can't answer this because I can't figure out what I'm being asked. Who would I not know that well but still know well enough to read their intent beyond a shadow of a doubt?

Share this post


Link to post

I really believe a word is as offensive as you allow it to be.

Pretty much this. I think what matters is the intent. I don't see a problem with saying "holy ----", I see a problem with calling someone a piece of ---- and aiming to hurt. I don't see a problem with calling something gay, I see a problem with insulting gay people (although I personally wouldn't use it in the context of "that's gay" ever).

 

If someone says a word is offensive to them, though, you should stop using it around them out of respect. Even though I don't really get why they take offense to it, I would respect that.

 

Regarding the actual topic, probably all of our fashion and some of our slang.

Edited by SockPuppet Strangler

Share this post


Link to post

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.