Let's Evaluate Ourselves [Archive]

Ace High

5th September 2013, 00:37

Hey, did you miss me? My absence has been for personal reasons, but it has also given me time to reflect, and I have realized that our views are a complete mess. So here are a list of complaints I have. I am not posting just to complain, but to perhaps offer some criticism for us to reflect on. Here we go.

1. Over sensitivity and absurd political correctness. People on this site are over sensitive about everything. Does racism and sexism exist? Yes, and we must take it down. But I have seen people on this site accuse people of being reactionaries and racists for making lighthearted joking comments. We aren't even allowed to say the word "pussy" because it somehow makes us misogynists. I am insulted that someone would call me a misogynist for using that word after all my efforts to end structural sexism against women. Also, some "curse words" are even blocked on this site, which I find ridiculous. If you are offended by curse words, I feel so sorry for you. If you live your entire life searching for offensive meanings in every little detail, you will have quite an annoying life.

2. We look for things to "liberate" in ridiculous places. I have seen people on this site claim that children are oppressed because they must obey their parents! That is absurd. Our goals should focus on ending institutionalized racism and sexism, not search for things to call oppression just for the sake of searching.

3. We have the most sectarian infighting of any ideology. Take a look at the Right. Unfortunately, they are generally much more united than the Left because they recognize that sectarianism exists, yet every sect works for generally the same goal. On the Left, different sects may be working for completely different goals. Now I admit, I have a hard time figuring out how to unite the Left, but something must be done. The fact that Stalinists and Trotskyists still argue with each other is laughable, because it's almost as if they simply are historical fetishists, wanting to reenact a scene in communist history on the internet.

4. The totalitarian policies of the site. Don't get me wrong, I actually legitimately like most of the mods here. But they are WAY too quick to label someone as "reactionary" and then ban them. Banning them for actually being reactionary is fine, but why do we not simply confine them to the opposing views forum? What is the point of having an opposing views forum if we don't allow opposing views to post there? It is wiser to take an opportunity to learn about the enemy.

5. Many of you aren't even leftists, you're third positionists. Now that is not always a bad thing to admit as long as those views do not have fascist or right wing tendencies. But at least admit it! For instance, many people here support anti imperialist nations only because they are anti imperialist or even worse....they support nations because it is the non mainstream thing to do. For instance, I was baffled at some showing support for Robert Mugabe, a man who is both a capitalist, and the wealthiest ruler in Africa. Simply because it is the "bad ass" thing to do. Now, there is a difference between supporting the regime and preferring them over another. For instance, I am on Assad's side in the Syria conflict, but not because I think he is a good leader. In fact, he is a bastard. I only have support because the alternative is worse, and I openly recognize his many flaws.

6. Hipster-ism. Okay, this sort of goes back to number 5, but hear me out. It seems that any culture that is not Western culture is automatically the good guy. I'll go back to Mugabe. Now while white racism (racism held by whites) is much more prevalent than racism held by other races, it does still exist. If I were to point out that Mugabe sent henchmen out to slaughter and remove whites from land, and redistribute that land to blacks, you all would call me a racist. Even if I tried to explain that I am not racist and that I love all races and that I want blacks to be liberated from the structural racism in the West, many of you would STILL say I was racist for even mentioning Mugabe's policies.

Again, I hope none of you get the wrong idea or anything. And I hope I do not get banned for this or become rejected by the site community. But I must be harsh because the flaws I posted above are serious, and they are holding us back. Let's learn from ourselves and improve. I'm still with you, I simply cannot hold my tongue on some of these things anymore. Especially, my first point, the over-sensitivity thing.

Best of wishes people, please don't ban me. If you have the courage to question yourselves, this means you are still sane. I have questioned myself, and it has only strengthened my anarcho-syndicalist beliefs into a more defined ideology.

#FF0000

5th September 2013, 00:48

1. Over sensitivity and absurd political correctness. People on this site are over sensitive about everything. Does racism and sexism exist? Yes, and we must take it down. But I have seen people on this site accuse people of being reactionaries and racists for making lighthearted joking comments. We aren't even allowed to say the word "pussy" because it somehow makes us misogynists. I am insulted that someone would call me a misogynist for using that word after all my efforts to end structural sexism against women. Also, some "curse words" are even blocked on this site, which I find ridiculous. If you are offended by curse words, I feel so sorry for you. If you live your entire life searching for offensive meanings in every little detail, you will have quite an annoying life.

You're kinda fucking up if you're gonna do so much work "fighting structural sexism" and then use words to promote a culture that's hostile to women and dudes who might not be hella masculine, or something. Sexist and racist language has no place in a community that's supposed to be for people who want liberation for everyone.

fwiw i think we're far too easy on rudeness in general around here.

2. We look for things to "liberate" in ridiculous places. I have seen people on this site claim that children are oppressed because they must obey their parents! That is absurd. Our goals should focus on ending institutionalized racism and sexism, not search for things to call oppression just for the sake of searching.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here and have a feeling you might be misrepresenting some arguments.

3. We have the most sectarian infighting of any ideology. Take a look at the Right. Unfortunately, they are generally much more united than the Left because they recognize that sectarianism exists, yet every sect works for generally the same goal. On the Left, different sects may be working for completely different goals. Now I admit, I have a hard time figuring out how to unite the Left, but something must be done. The fact that Stalinists and Trotskyists still argue with each other is laughable, because it's almost as if they simply are historical fetishists, wanting to reenact a scene in communist history on the internet.

On the internet it might be a problem of dorks doing historical role play but IRL there are significant disagreements in theory and practice that can't really be reconciled.

4. The totalitarian policies of the site. Don't get me wrong, I actually legitimately like most of the mods here. But they are WAY too quick to label someone as "reactionary" and then ban them. Banning them for actually being reactionary is fine, but why do we not simply confine them to the opposing views forum? What is the point of having an opposing views forum if we don't allow opposing views to post there? It is wiser to take an opportunity to learn about the enemy.

I'm not sure what you're talking about, here? The only people who are banned outright, generally, are racists and fascists, because we take a strict "No platform" stance on fascism. They (unfortunately) have tons of venues on the internet to preach their nonsense. There's no reason to give them one more in our community.

6. Hipster-ism.

Stopped reading there.

Anyway, yeah, no one's gonna ban you. We're gonna call you a big ol' dummy though.

Ace High

5th September 2013, 00:54

You're kinda fucking up if you're gonna do so much work "fighting structural sexism" and then use words to promote a culture that's hostile to women and dudes who might not be hella masculine, or something. Sexist and racist language has no place in a community that's supposed to be for people who want liberation for everyone.

fwiw i think we're far too easy on rudeness in general around here.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here and have a feeling you might be misrepresenting some arguments.

On the internet it might be a problem of dorks doing historical role play but IRL there are significant disagreements in theory and practice that can't really be reconciled.

I'm not sure what you're talking about, here? The only people who are banned outright, generally, are racists and fascists, because we take a strict "No platform" stance on fascism. They (unfortunately) have tons of venues on the internet to preach their nonsense. There's no reason to give them one more in our community.

Stopped reading there.

Anyway, yeah, no one's gonna ban you. We're gonna call you a big ol' dummy though.

I expected this, but I do appreciate your post. I would break your quote up too and answer individually piece by piece, but I have no idea how, lol.

But let me start with number one. You are proving my point. How is that hostile to women? I know so many women who call people pussies as well. It isn't hostile. Hell, I know a fucking feminist who would agree with me! That's the thing, I am friends with many women who would consider themselves involved in womens' struggles, and they are not offended by words such as pussy. You are making a humongous leap to say that is sexist. That is a ridiculous claim, and I'd like to see a logical coherent argument for how a word hurts someone. Then I'll reconsider. But for now, I am not going to go around censoring myself because of people being butthurt and looking for malicious meanings where there are none.

And okay, I could not think of another word besides hipster-ism. I find my made up word ridiculous too, but you could have at least read it, you know?

#FF0000

5th September 2013, 01:09

But let me start with number one. You are proving my point. How is that hostile to women? I know so many women who call people pussies as well. It isn't hostile.

Yo, it's an insult -- it's definitely hostile, and like I said, not only to women.

Hell, I know a fucking feminist who would agree with me! That's the thing, I am friends with many women who would consider themselves involved in womens' struggles, and they are not offended by words such as pussy. You are making a humongous leap to say that is sexist. That is a ridiculous claim, and I'd like to see a logical coherent argument for how a word hurts someone. Then I'll reconsider.Knowing women who aren't offended by a thing doesn't mean anything. Having a black friend who's cool with white people saying "nigger" doesn't mean it's still not a racist epithet. "Pussy" is a word used to insult people, so it already doesn't have a place here before you look at the gendered aspect of it.

But for now, I am not going to go around censoring myself because of people being butthurt and looking for malicious meanings where there are noneThis is a really immature way of looking at things. Your words and actions reflect on you, dude, and so don't expect someone to take you seriously when you use gendered insults while you go on about the work you do against sexism. Calling oneself a feminist doesn't make one immune to making mistakes and doesn't absolve one of poor conduct.

If you knew someone who talked about their anti-racist activism, but then used racial insults or made racial comments, would you take them seriously as an anti-racist? Or would you call them as a hypocrite?

And okay, I could not think of another word besides hipster-ism. I find my made up word ridiculous too, but you could have at least read it, you know?Ah, that was kind of a joke actually. I did read it, and don't have much to say about it other than there's more going on with Mugabe than "anti-white racism". For all of his other problems (and oh boy are there many), I think it's incorrect to say that his actions against white land-owners is based on racism. Before him, the people with the land, and the power, were white colonists. Now they're being attacked and denied their property -- not because they're white but because they were the only ones with property to take.

Ace High

5th September 2013, 01:42

Yo, it's an insult -- it's definitely hostile, and like I said, not only to women.

Knowing women who aren't offended by a thing doesn't mean anything. Having a black friend who's cool with white people saying "nigger" doesn't mean it's still not a racist epithet. "Pussy" is a word used to insult people, so it already doesn't have a place here before you look at the gendered aspect of it.

This is a really immature way of looking at things. Your words and actions reflect on you, dude, and so don't expect someone to take you seriously when you use gendered insults while you go on about the work you do against sexism. Calling oneself a feminist doesn't make one immune to making mistakes and doesn't absolve one of poor conduct.

If you knew someone who talked about their anti-racist activism, but then used racial insults or made racial comments, would you take them seriously as an anti-racist? Or would you call them as a hypocrite?

Ah, that was kind of a joke actually. I did read it, and don't have much to say about it other than there's more going on with Mugabe than "anti-white racism". For all of his other problems (and oh boy are there many), I think it's incorrect to say that his actions against white land-owners is based on racism. Before him, the people with the land, and the power, were white colonists. Now they're being attacked and denied their property -- not because they're white but because they were the only ones with property to take.

Sure, my example might have been bad, and the example of the black person being okay with the N word is a good example. But nevertheless, your argument doesn't work, really. If you are saying that the word is bad because it is used to insult people, should we ban the word "idiot"? It is discriminatory towards people with lower IQs, therefore, it is bad and should be banned. Why do people have to take things so seriously? THIS is one of the reasons why racism and sexism exists, because people get so incredibly offended. Do I hate racism? Yes. Can racist jokes be funny? Yes. Does that make you a racist? No. So if I hang out with my black friends and we make fun of each others' races light heartedly, does that make us racists? I'm sorry but your argument makes no sense. I do not have much respect for people who get offended so easily. Why can't we just relax and recognize that we can make jokes and such without it having to be racist or sexist?

And see, the fact that you are trying to justify his killing of the white landowners also proves my point. Why are you trying to justify it instead of admitting that it was based on race? I'm sure you'll admit that non whites are heavily targeted and profiled by police in the West right? So why can you not admit that Mugabe did racially profile whites, regardless of the reasons? That is what I am talking about.

Art Vandelay

5th September 2013, 01:44

Ace High

5th September 2013, 01:47

Seriously if one can't be bothered to overcome prejudicial sentiments/language within themselves, then I don't see how they expect to make any positive contribution to fighting systemic forms of oppression.

Well I actually can fight those forms of oppression because I do not cry and scream "discrimination" to get political correctness points. Nobody who uses the word "pussy" is trying to disrespect women UNLESS they are saying something like "I tore up that pussy last night." THAT would be discriminatory. You people get so offended, it must be hard to search for discrimination where there is none. But you;ve managed to do it, so.

slum

5th September 2013, 01:56

i'm curious why you keep calling "us people" so easily offended when you are weirdly mad defensive about this

projection?

not that it matters, there's an endless supply of people who willfully refuse to get the point. your near-exact parroting of their standard arguments is what makes many posters here roll their eyes instead of engaging with you.

Art Vandelay

5th September 2013, 02:00

Well I actually can fight those forms of oppression because I do not cry and scream "discrimination" to get political correctness points. Nobody who uses the word "pussy" is trying to disrespect women UNLESS they are saying something like "I tore up that pussy last night." THAT would be discriminatory. You people get so offended, it must be hard to search for discrimination where there is none. But you;ve managed to do it, so.

Listen it's quite clear here that you don't know what your talking about here or haven't ever really listened to the concerns of oppressed minorities. First off this isn't about whether or not I find the word 'pussy' offensive (or what I think about any other prejudicial language). Your views here wreak of the arrogant savior bullshit. Who are you to tell oppressed minorities how to organize for their own liberation or what they should or should not find offensive. I certainly wasn't immune to it, I was just like any other shit head teenager. I even always justified the use of the word 'gay' being used due to te fact it was originally an acronym which arose during the gay rights movement which stood for 'good as you.' but that's precisely why we need to be willing to listen to oppressed minorities and always be willing to engage in self criticism. Your job in fighting these systemic forms of oppression isn't to lead or direct the struggle, but turn yourself into a valuable ally for oppressed minorities. May I suggest your time coul be better spent perhaps having a conversation with someone as to why they find certain words offensive, rather then rationalizing reactionary drivvel.

#FF0000

5th September 2013, 02:08

But nevertheless, your argument doesn't work, really. If you are saying that the word is bad because it is used to insult people, should we ban the word "idiot"?

Well yeah, I already said these words don't have any place in a community where we're supposed to be discussing things and exchanging ideas.

It is discriminatory towards people with lower IQs, therefore, it is bad and should be banned.

I wouldn't say it's true so much with the word "idiot". It's absolutely the case, however, with words like "retarded", which we definitely don't accept around here.

THIS is one of the reasons why racism and sexism exists, because people get so incredibly offended.

No, not at all, dude. The social mechanisms that repress women or people of color and benefit white people and dudes do not still exist because people are upset that they still exist.

Do I hate racism? Yes.

Okay.

Can racist jokes be funny? Yes.

I guess if you're a racist, yeah. I mean, let's not mix up jokes about race with "racist jokes". There's hella comedians who talk about race but whose jokes aren't "racist", like Dave Chapelle. Then there's shitty comedians who are actual racists and whose jokes are unfunny, like Carlos Mencia and a lot of shitty radio personalities.

Does that make you a racist? No

I have bad news for you, dogg.

I think your views on these things are lacking hella nuance, because I don't think every joke about race or gender or sex is racist and sexist. It's about who is being made fun of -- the people or the racist.

But that's a fine line and it's tough to walk. Professional comedians have trouble with it, and sometimes it lands them in trouble or leads them to an audience that doesn't get what they're saying and likes them for the "wrong reasons" (Oh sup Dave Chappelle again).

So if I hang out with my black friends and we make fun of each others' races light heartedly, does that make us racists?

Those are jokes between people who know each other, who are "in on the joke". You're equating that to dealing with people with whom you don't have that same relationship. I know me and my friends say some things that would cause some serious eyebrows (to say the least) to be raised if they were said around people who don't "get it" because they aren't a part of what's going on and don't understand the context.

But I recognize that because I understand that communication isn't a one way street and I'm not the one who decides how what I say is taken.

Why can't we just relax and recognize that we can make jokes and such without it having to be racist or sexist?

Why can't you relax and just hold off on gendered insults and racist jokes around strangers and acquaintances?

And see, the fact that you are trying to justify his killing of the white landowners also proves my point. Why are you trying to justify it instead of admitting that it was based on race? I'm sure you'll admit that non whites are heavily targeted and profiled by police in the West right? So why can you not admit that Mugabe did racially profile whites, regardless of the reasons? That is what I am talking about.

Everywhere on the planet, the people who own the vast majority of everything are white males. If "THE REVOLUTION" come about and we go about dispossessing the bourgeoisie, are you going to call that "racial profiling" because the bulk of the propertied classes are white and male? There is more going on there than race, is what I'm saying. These were property owners -- that is why they were being targeted. We aren't talking about a group of people who are stuffed in ghettoes and then scapegoated for all the problems in the world. These are people who have/had actual power.

slum

5th September 2013, 02:13

THIS is one of the reasons why racism and sexism exists, because people get so incredibly offended.

this is my personal favorite.

Ace High

5th September 2013, 02:13

Listen it's quite clear here that you don't know what your talking about here or haven't ever really listened to the concerns of oppressed minorities. First off this isn't about whether or not I find the word 'pussy' offensive (or what I think about any other prejudicial language). Your views here wreak of the arrogant savior bullshit. Who are you to tell oppressed minorities how to organize for their own liberation or what they should or should not find offensive. I certainly wasn't immune to it, I was just like any other shit head teenager. I even always justified the use of the word 'gay' being used due to te fact it was originally an acronym which arose during the gay rights movement which stood for 'good as you.' but that's precisely why we need to be willing to listen to oppressed minorities and always be willing to engage in self criticism. Your job in fighting these systemic forms of oppression isn't to lead or direct the struggle, but turn yourself into a valuable ally for oppressed minorities. May I suggest your time coul be better spent perhaps having a conversation with someone as to why they find certain words offensive, rather then rationalizing reactionary drivvel.

Calling someone gay is offensive because it applies that being gay is a bad thing. Calling someone a pussy is offensive, but to that individual, not to women. I have yet to speak to ONE woman who finds that word offensive. In fact, if you went up to even a feminist (in real life, not the internet) and started saying "oh I'm so sorry people use the word pussy it's so offensive to you, wah wah", she would laugh at you till she was in tears. So if I call someone a dick, is that somehow offensive to men? Oh right, men aren't oppressed, so the word dick is okay, I forgot.

Honestly, I find it kind of funny that it offends people. I am sick of people being spineless and having such insecurity that they find and actually seek out how certain words offend people. I enjoy living my life without having to feel politically correct, yet still defending oppressed people. But your argument is immature and laughable. Perhaps you should go back to middle school where you get in trouble for saying curse words. That environment might fit you a little better, then everyone can pat you on the back and have sympathy for you since you are so noble not to use any type of common slang or profanity.

slum

5th September 2013, 02:19

I have yet to speak to ONE woman who finds that word offensive.

how's this:

stop using a slang term for my genitalia, which is often used to reduce me to my genitalia, to refer to people you find cowardly, effeminate, or who deviate in some other way from your ideal of masculine conduct which is unavoidably inherited from a sexist bourgeois cultural tradition.

there. now someone has told you.

Art Vandelay

5th September 2013, 02:20

Okay ace high, whatever you say. I always like seeing western males telling those who are affected by sexism/homophobia/racism how they should feel about it. Your a waste of my time, it's not my job to end your ignorance. And I certainly won't try and be helpful, when you act in the manner displayed in this thread.

Ace High

5th September 2013, 02:20

Well yeah, I already said these words don't have any place in a community where we're supposed to be discussing things and exchanging ideas.

I wouldn't say it's true so much with the word "idiot". It's absolutely the case, however, with words like "retarded", which we definitely don't accept around here.

No, not at all, dude. The social mechanisms that repress women or people of color and benefit white people and dudes do not still exist because people are upset that they still exist.

Okay.

I guess if you're a racist, yeah. I mean, let's not mix up jokes about race with "racist jokes". There's hella comedians who talk about race but whose jokes aren't "racist", like Dave Chapelle. Then there's shitty comedians who are actual racists and whose jokes are unfunny, like Carlos Mencia and a lot of shitty radio personalities.

I have bad news for you, dogg.

I think your views on these things are lacking hella nuance, because I don't think every joke about race or gender or sex is racist and sexist. It's about who is being made fun of -- the people or the racist.

But that's a fine line and it's tough to walk. Professional comedians have trouble with it, and sometimes it lands them in trouble or leads them to an audience that doesn't get what they're saying and likes them for the "wrong reasons" (Oh sup Dave Chappelle again).

Those are jokes between people who know each other, who are "in on the joke". You're equating that to dealing with people with whom you don't have that same relationship. I know me and my friends say some things that would cause some serious eyebrows (to say the least) to be raised if they were said around people who don't "get it" because they aren't a part of what's going on and don't understand the context.

But I recognize that because I understand that communication isn't a one way street and I'm not the one who decides how what I say is taken.

Why can't you relax and just hold off on gendered insults and racist jokes around strangers and acquaintances?

Everywhere on the planet, the people who own the vast majority of everything are white males. If "THE REVOLUTION" come about and we go about dispossessing the bourgeoisie, are you going to call that "racial profiling" because the bulk of the propertied classes are white and male? There is more going on there than race, is what I'm saying. These were property owners -- that is why they were being targeted. We aren't talking about a group of people who are stuffed in ghettoes and then scapegoated for all the problems in the world. These are people who have/had actual power.

Okay, well your example about the comedians at least lets me know that you have a sense of humor, which is really all that this is about. That is what I mean, jokes about race.

And if strangers are offended at jokes or slang terms, I honestly have no sympathy. Call me a bad person, but I refuse to ass-pat someone because they are over sensitive and easily offended. Calling someone gay and retarded is terrible. This is because you are insinuating that being gay or retarded is cause for ridicule. But calling someone a pussy? No, I don't see it.

And no, I would not call it racial profiling to dispossess land of the bourgeoisie if most of them happen to be white. That is not racial profiling just because most of them happen to be white. And so you are justifying Mugabe's actions? You're saying he dispossessed their land because he was some kind of revolutionary? No, he dispossessed their land because he was pissed that the white man controls everything, and he engaged in counter racism. Your claim is unfounded, since Mugabe is a staunch capitalist. Or if he isn't a capitalist, he sure is profiting off of capitalism!

Ace High

5th September 2013, 02:22

how's this:

stop using a slang term for my genitalia, which is often used to reduce me to my genitalia, to refer to people you find cowardly, effeminate, or who deviate in some other way from your ideal of masculine conduct which is unavoidably inherited from a sexist bourgeois cultural tradition.

there. now someone has told you.

See YOU are the one saying it refers to your genitalia. When I call someone a pussy, I do not equate it with saying "you are a vagina." This is absurd, especially because vaginas are the ones that are tougher than male genitalia! So you are victimizing yourself by trying to make it seem like I gave it that meaning. I didn't. You did.

#FF0000

5th September 2013, 02:24

Calling someone gay is offensive because it applies that being gay is a bad thing. Calling someone a pussy is offensive, but to that individual, not to women.

Talk about some flimsy logic. "Pussy" is a word for a part of the female anatomy and is used to call someone weak or coward. The connotations are kinda clear here, right?

I have yet to speak to ONE woman who finds that word offensive.I don't care.

In fact, if you went up to even a feminist (in real life, not the internet) and started saying "oh I'm so sorry people use the word pussy it's so offensive to you, wah wah", she would laugh at you till she was in tears.She would, but that's because that's some try-hard male feminist shit, tho.

So if I call someone a dick, is that somehow offensive to men? Oh right, men aren't oppressed, so the word dick is okay, I forgot. That's almost correct. There's also the part where "dick" is used for someone who is a jerk. Someone who is being more aggressive gets called a "dick". Someone who's perceived as timid or submissive is a "pussy".

do you see the picture being painted here

do you see it

Honestly, I find it kind of funny that it offends people. I am sick of people being spineless and having such insecurity that they find and actually seek out how certain words offend people.Hahha, we aren't shying back like the word is kryptonite, homie. We're calling you a hypocrite for using gendered insults while claiming to be against sexism, against patriarchy, etc.

We're saying that if you want to be taken seriously, then your words ought to be in line with your actions. What's spineless about that? What's spineless about integrity, and calling people out on their lack of it?

slum

5th September 2013, 02:25

yes, victimizing myself is my favorite pastime. i don't get enough of it from a sexist society at large, so i have to make sure i get all my lady-oppression in every week.

you might be more at home with liberals who would properly appreciate your intellectual courage in this matter.

slum

5th September 2013, 02:27

I don't care.

he just did tho
apparently it didnt count

somehow i suspect i am not the first person with lady bits who said it and yet, miraculously, did not count

Art Vandelay

5th September 2013, 02:28

See YOU are the one saying it refers to your genitalia. When I call someone a pussy, I do not equate it with saying "you are a vagina." This is absurd, especially because vaginas are the ones that are tougher than male genitalia! So you are victimizing yourself by trying to make it seem like I gave it that meaning. I didn't. You did.

What a fucking cop out. Words convey specific meaning. I can go around calling people 'faggot' while claiming I assign a positive meaning to an it's the fault of those who upset that they assigned a negative meaning to it, but all I'll achieve is making myself look like a reactionary asshole, as your doing right now.

#FF0000

5th September 2013, 02:29

See YOU are the one saying it refers to your genitalia. When I call someone a pussy, I do not equate it with saying "you are a vagina." This is absurd, especially because vaginas are the ones that are tougher than male genitalia! So you are victimizing yourself by trying to make it seem like I gave it that meaning. I didn't. You did.

You're just being purposefully obtuse. You know what "pussy" means. It's slang for a vagina, and also to describe someone who is considered timid, cowardly, effeminate. That is not a coincidence.

And if strangers are offended at jokes or slang terms, I honestly have no sympathy.

That's an interesting way of looking at things. You don't care if strangers get offended when you use gendered or racial slurs, but you get massively offended if someone thinks less of you for using them.

bcbm

5th September 2013, 02:29

6. Hipster-ism. Okay, this sort of goes back to number 5, but hear me out. It seems that any culture that is not Western culture is automatically the good guy. I'll go back to Mugabe. Now while white racism (racism held by whites) is much more prevalent than racism held by other races, it does still exist. If I were to point out that Mugabe sent henchmen out to slaughter and remove whites from land, and redistribute that land to blacks, you all would call me a racist. Even if I tried to explain that I am not racist and that I love all races and that I want blacks to be liberated from the structural racism in the West, many of you would STILL say I was racist for even mentioning Mugabe's policies.

how does 'hipster-ism' describe any of the rest of that paragraph?

See YOU are the one saying it refers to your genitalia. When I call someone a pussy, I do not equate it with saying "you are a vagina."

yes, it is a complete coincidence the slang for women's genitals and cowards are the same. i noticed you used the example of 'gay' earlier as being somehow different. your mind must be an olympic level gymnast.

Ace High

5th September 2013, 02:32

Talk about some flimsy logic. "Pussy" is a word for a part of the female anatomy and is used to call someone weak or coward. The connotations are kinda clear here, right?

I don't care.
She would, but that's because that's some try-hard male feminist shit, tho.

That's almost correct. There's also the part where "dick" is used for someone who is a jerk. Someone who is being more aggressive gets called a "dick". Someone who's perceived as timid or submissive is a "pussy".

do you see the picture being painted here

do you see it
Hahha, we aren't shying back like the word is kryptonite, homie. We're calling you a hypocrite for using gendered insults while claiming to be against sexism, against patriarchy, etc.

We're saying that if you want to be taken seriously, then your words ought to be in line with your actions. What's spineless about that? What's spineless about integrity, and calling people out on their lack of it?

I'm not saying you're wrong if you take some hardcore analytically approach to every single slang term. Sure, if you look at it at its core, then that is the correct origin of where the terms dick and pussy come from. But my point is, nobody is analyzing it like that and to do so, you must go out of your way. To claim offense truly is making yourself out to be a victim. I am all for defending actual victims, but not when someone starts analyzing simple fucking insults that are used in passing and carry no real meaning.

yes, victimizing myself is my favorite pastime. i don't get enough of it from a sexist society at large, so i have to make sure i get all my lady-oppression in every week.

you might be more at home with liberals who would properly appreciate your intellectual courage in this matter.

No, liberals would agree with you, not me. And okay, well, next time someone opens the door for you simply because you're a woman, make sure you yell at them for being a sexist pig.

Ace High

5th September 2013, 02:34

What a fucking cop out. Words convey specific meaning. I can go around calling people 'faggot' while claiming I assign a positive meaning to an it's the fault of those who upset that they assigned a negative meaning to it, but all I'll achieve is making myself look like a reactionary asshole, as your doing right now.

I'm gay. My best friend calls me a faggot sometimes in a joking way, yet he would kick anyone's ass if they ever called me one to be offensive. The amount of butthurt you are giving off is suffocating.

Ace High

5th September 2013, 02:35

You're just being purposefully obtuse. You know what "pussy" means. It's slang for a vagina, and also to describe someone who is considered timid, cowardly, effeminate. That is not a coincidence.

That's an interesting way of looking at things. You don't care if strangers get offended when you use gendered or racial slurs, but you get massively offended if someone thinks less of you for using them.

Offended, no. Annoyed as hell, yes.

slum

5th September 2013, 02:42

No, liberals would agree with you, not me. And okay, well, next time someone opens the door for you simply because you're a woman, make sure you yell at them for being a sexist pig.

do you see how you're ignoring the particular content of my posts in favor of painting me into the caricature of feminism you most prefer?

interestingly that caricature seems to hinge on my perceived '*****iness' and over-sensitivity. i wonder what you would call someone who acted like that. (hint: you might call them a 'pussy')

i also didn't say i was a woman, but that's a discussion for another day.

#FF0000

5th September 2013, 02:43

adipocere

5th September 2013, 02:45

Ace, I pretty much agree with the sentiment of your original post. I might not have chosen the same analogies, but I feel you. Sometimes this place is like falling into a pit of jerking knees. When the conversation becomes maddening, I just ignore it. The funny thing is, I suspect most of us would be great friends in real life.

I have yet to speak to ONE woman who finds that word offensive. In fact, if you went up to even a feminist (in real life, not the internet) and started saying "oh I'm so sorry people use the word pussy it's so offensive to you, wah wah", she would laugh at you till she was in tears.

Well I might be on the internet, but I am female and I do find it offensive. In fact, where I live - it's just extremely vulgar. Down here, in the deep dirty south, we don't use language like that....it's I dunno...really trashy. I get that in other places around the US, it might be more acceptable, but here, the word "pussy" is like a verbal smack in the face. It's one of those words that immediately makes the person using it seem very, very unattractive.

On a side note, when in the UK, I'm always struck by the frequent and casual use of the word "cock". It makes my skin crawl.

Flying Purple People Eater

5th September 2013, 02:45

Makes thread about self-criticism.

Refuses to criticise self about sexist language.

#FF0000

5th September 2013, 02:45

Offended, no. Annoyed as hell, yes.

And you don't see the hypocrisy?

Do your words and actions not reflect on you? Is it unfair to be critical of someone whose words and actions don't follow one another?

Like I said, before, what do you think of the anti-racist activist who still uses racial slurs and makes racist comments? Does that not reflect poorly on them?

Consistent.Surprise

5th September 2013, 02:46

how's this:

stop using a slang term for my genitalia, which is often used to reduce me to my genitalia, to refer to people you find cowardly, effeminate, or who deviate in some other way from your ideal of masculine conduct which is unavoidably inherited from a sexist bourgeois cultural tradition.

there. now someone has told you.

May I add, as a woman, anyone calling a man a "pussy" is also saying that said man is like a woman, thus slamming females? That's why men call each other "pussy", to liken the lesser "man" to a woman.

slum

5th September 2013, 02:53

May I add, as a woman, anyone calling a man a "pussy" is also saying that said man is like a woman, thus slamming females? That's why men call each other "pussy", to liken the lesser "man" to a woman.

hey let's not overwhelm him with arcane feminist logic
gotta take it slow

Flying Purple People Eater

5th September 2013, 03:19

Offended, no. Annoyed as hell, yes.

What a dumb non-sequitor.

If someone's annoyed as hell, it's probably because you offended them.

And okay, well, next time someone opens the door for you simply because you're a woman, make sure you yell at them for being a sexist pig.

So first you accuse someone of being a liberal, then you go and throw the usual liberal-based sexist caricature of a "*****y feminist" at that same person - all because they called you out on your sexist language in a thread you made about self-criticism.

:laugh: Are you the biggest hypocrite on earth or what?

BIXX

5th September 2013, 14:51

I'm gay. My best friend calls me a faggot sometimes in a joking way, yet he would kick anyone's ass if they ever called me one to be offensive. The amount of butthurt you are giving off is suffocating.

IT'S CAUSE HE'S YOUR FUCKING FRIEND YOU PIECE OF FLAMING SHIT

You don't give a SHIT about women's rights or minority rights.

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

5th September 2013, 15:24

On one hand this dude might be trolling but on the other hand he sounds like me when I was 16 /selfcringe

Decolonize The Left

5th September 2013, 16:27

Hey, did you miss me? My absence has been for personal reasons, but it has also given me time to reflect, and I have realized that our views are a complete mess. So here are a list of complaints I have. I am not posting just to complain, but to perhaps offer some criticism for us to reflect on. Here we go.

1. Over sensitivity and absurd political correctness. People on this site are over sensitive about everything. Does racism and sexism exist? Yes, and we must take it down. But I have seen people on this site accuse people of being reactionaries and racists for making lighthearted joking comments. We aren't even allowed to say the word "pussy" because it somehow makes us misogynists. I am insulted that someone would call me a misogynist for using that word after all my efforts to end structural sexism against women. Also, some "curse words" are even blocked on this site, which I find ridiculous. If you are offended by curse words, I feel so sorry for you. If you live your entire life searching for offensive meanings in every little detail, you will have quite an annoying life.

This is an internet forum. People come here to talk; some people come here to learn. The environment needs to be a certain way in order to facilitate respectful discussion else it would end up like 4chan pretty quickly, don't you think?

2. We look for things to "liberate" in ridiculous places. I have seen people on this site claim that children are oppressed because they must obey their parents! That is absurd. Our goals should focus on ending institutionalized racism and sexism, not search for things to call oppression just for the sake of searching.

Actually, our goal as leftists is to act in our class interest and seize the means of production. Our goal as people is to end racism and sexism and not just on an institutional level but on a daily level, on an inter-personal level.

3. We have the most sectarian infighting of any ideology. Take a look at the Right. Unfortunately, they are generally much more united than the Left because they recognize that sectarianism exists, yet every sect works for generally the same goal. On the Left, different sects may be working for completely different goals. Now I admit, I have a hard time figuring out how to unite the Left, but something must be done. The fact that Stalinists and Trotskyists still argue with each other is laughable, because it's almost as if they simply are historical fetishists, wanting to reenact a scene in communist history on the internet.

This is true. But while it is true it is also a cursory portrayal of a complex reality.

4. The totalitarian policies of the site. Don't get me wrong, I actually legitimately like most of the mods here. But they are WAY too quick to label someone as "reactionary" and then ban them. Banning them for actually being reactionary is fine, but why do we not simply confine them to the opposing views forum? What is the point of having an opposing views forum if we don't allow opposing views to post there? It is wiser to take an opportunity to learn about the enemy.

You have not seen a lot of bans or administrative action. As a former admin/global/local I can assure you that right now things are very calm and ban-free. And we ban people because, like in the first point, we have rules (simple ones) which are to be upheld.

5. Many of you aren't even leftists, you're third positionists. Now that is not always a bad thing to admit as long as those views do not have fascist or right wing tendencies. But at least admit it! For instance, many people here support anti imperialist nations only because they are anti imperialist or even worse....they support nations because it is the non mainstream thing to do. For instance, I was baffled at some showing support for Robert Mugabe, a man who is both a capitalist, and the wealthiest ruler in Africa. Simply because it is the "bad ass" thing to do. Now, there is a difference between supporting the regime and preferring them over another. For instance, I am on Assad's side in the Syria conflict, but not because I think he is a good leader. In fact, he is a bastard. I only have support because the alternative is worse, and I openly recognize his many flaws.

A lot of people come here to learn. I came here a long while ago knowing nothing about leftism. What good would your patronizing tone have done me then?

6. Hipster-ism. Okay, this sort of goes back to number 5, but hear me out. It seems that any culture that is not Western culture is automatically the good guy. I'll go back to Mugabe. Now while white racism (racism held by whites) is much more prevalent than racism held by other races, it does still exist. If I were to point out that Mugabe sent henchmen out to slaughter and remove whites from land, and redistribute that land to blacks, you all would call me a racist. Even if I tried to explain that I am not racist and that I love all races and that I want blacks to be liberated from the structural racism in the West, many of you would STILL say I was racist for even mentioning Mugabe's policies.

I don't know what any of this means.

Best of wishes people, please don't ban me. If you have the courage to question yourselves, this means you are still sane. I have questioned myself, and it has only strengthened my anarcho-syndicalist beliefs into a more defined ideology.

I bolded this in light of your recent discussion over sexist terminology. I would suggest you re-read this sentence and then go back and read your discussion about the word pussy and whatnot.

Hit The North

5th September 2013, 18:07

I'm not saying you're wrong if you take some hardcore analytically approach to every single slang term. Sure, if you look at it at its core, then that is the correct origin of where the terms dick and pussy come from. But my point is, nobody is analyzing it like that and to do so, you must go out of your way. To claim offense truly is making yourself out to be a victim. I am all for defending actual victims, but not when someone starts analyzing simple fucking insults that are used in passing and carry no real meaning.

Firstly, a large aspect of oppression is reproduced in a "meaningless" way. That is to say, that certain types of inequality are 'naturalised' within particular cultures in order to obscure the actual exercise of power. So the fact that people will use racial and sexist insults and designations in a casual way is beside the point. You claim to be interested in opposing structural inequality and oppression but seem to forget that a good deal of what is structural is in the discourses surrounding inequality. As revolutionaries we need to be mindful of the sneaky ways in which inequality and oppression manifests itself.

I'm gay. My best friend calls me a faggot sometimes in a joking way, yet he would kick anyone's ass if they ever called me one to be offensive. The amount of butthurt you are giving off is suffocating.

Obviously, the playful and ironic use of language means that we need to contextualise how we respond to various communications in face-to-face contexts. But your example is unsuitable precisely because this is a public forum and not an intimate face-to-face encounter. Different rules should apply. Revleft, as a public forum, needs to enforce a responsible code of public communication that is sensitive to public participation and which also communicates our values as a community to the public.

Ace High

5th September 2013, 23:54

*sigh*

Ehh well, I suppose it is my fault, as I shouldn't have expected any different responses. I mean no disrespect to anyone, truly. I think I will take a vacation from here for a while. I don't think my views on society line up much with yours anymore.

We all agree that we want to end oppression, but we cannot seem to agree on political correctness. I am sick of being politically correct, that's all. I don't want people telling me I can't say certain words and I think it is a bit of an ego trip on my part to be honest. I just cannot stand authority, and I have taken it to the point of getting pissed when people criticize me for using slang words. Perhaps that is pretty immature, but I cannot help it.

By the way, Adipocere, I agree. If we all met in real life, I don't think there would be any hostility. It is hard to translate meaning and emotion over the internet, and things come off as hostile alot.

Anyway, peace out, you guys. I harbor no hard feelings, and I respect all of you. I truly do apologize if I offended any women and I am being serious. This forum simply might not be the place for me anymore, and I need to evaluate my beliefs. I still support the Left though as I am a staunch anarchist.

Best wishes.

bcbm

6th September 2013, 00:16

We all agree that we want to end oppression, but we cannot seem to agree on political correctness. I am sick of being politically correct, that's all

being polite and considerate is not 'political correctness.'

I don't want people telling me I can't say certain words and I think it is a bit of an ego trip on my part to be honest. I just cannot stand authority, and I have taken it to the point of getting pissed when people criticize me for using slang words. Perhaps that is pretty immature, but I cannot help it.

explaining why people are bothered by certain words is not 'authority.'

bye now.

adipocere

6th September 2013, 00:18

RedBen

6th September 2013, 00:23

Great job team.
but he was an oppressor, did you read what he said?:rolleyes:

Quail

6th September 2013, 00:27

Holy fuck, why did I only just see this thread?

he just did tho
apparently it didnt count

somehow i suspect i am not the first person with lady bits who said it and yet, miraculously, did not count
I think either I gave him a verbal warning for the word "pussy" or had to explain to him why it's offensive.

I get that it's not very nice when people jump down your throat for using sexist language... but like it's not very nice when you use sexist language so you know.

bcbm

6th September 2013, 00:33

Great job team.

oh no we offered valid and reasoned constructive conversation to someone making a weak and problematic argument and he threw a tizzy and sulked away. what a horrible day.

synthesis

6th September 2013, 00:38

This is kind of off-topic but seeing as how the discussion seems to have come to an end I'll just go ahead and say that I think I have lost my desire to see "respectful discussion" promoted or enforced here to any extent beyond which it already is. This is a political forum and therefore arguments are naturally going to come from emotionally loaded positions, but that obviously doesn't mean they shouldn't be made. You don't necessarily need to be polite and respectful in order to have a productive discussion. (This thread is a good example of that, even if no one sees it in the short term.)

edit: eh, I'm not sure how much I actually believe that. I just wanted to put it out there.

adipocere

6th September 2013, 00:41

bcbm: oh no we offered valid and reasoned constructive conversation to someone making a weak and problematic argument and he threw a tizzy and sulked away. what a horrible day.
IT'S CAUSE HE'S YOUR FUCKING FRIEND YOU PIECE OF FLAMING SHIT

Ooooh ok.

bcbm

6th September 2013, 00:42

Ooooh ok.

one post off of an entire page and a half, yeah you got me there.

adipocere

6th September 2013, 00:48

one post off of an entire page and a half, yeah you got me there.

You're a moderator. Aren't you supposed to moderate stuff like that, instead of apologizing for it?

RedBen

6th September 2013, 00:50

You're a moderator. Aren't you supposed to moderate stuff like that, instead of apologizing for it?
i was thinking the same thing.

bcbm

6th September 2013, 01:02

IT'S CAUSE HE'S YOUR FUCKING FRIEND YOU PIECE OF FLAMING SHIT

You don't give a SHIT about women's rights or minority rights.

verbal warning to echoshock for flaming.

You're a moderator. Aren't you supposed to moderate stuff like that, instead of apologizing for it?

i didn't notice it until you mentioned it and i was not 'apologizing' but pointing out that its hardly representative. now the problem is solved. moving on...

#FF0000

6th September 2013, 01:10

Great job team.

Not my problem someone doesn't want to take responsibility for their words.

#FF0000

6th September 2013, 01:13

I truly do apologize if I offended any women and I am being serious.

"I am very very sorry but I'm gonna keep doing this thing anyway"

adipocere

6th September 2013, 01:17

"I am very very sorry but I'm gonna keep doing this thing anyway"

Beat that dead horse. Victory is sweet, eh?

#FF0000

6th September 2013, 01:24

Beat that dead horse. Victory is sweet, eh?

wouldn't know cuz victory would be the dude hanging around and looking into the issue rather than scampering off, so

adipocere

6th September 2013, 01:31

wouldn't know cuz victory would be the dude hanging around and looking into the issue rather than scampering off, so

Whatever - these type of verbal lynchings seem fairly frequent around here.

#FF0000

6th September 2013, 01:37

Whatever - these type of verbal lynchings seem fairly frequent around here.

What makes something a "verbal lynching"? He came in with weak shit, and then we challenged it, directly responding to his posts, and then he left because he felt he lost. And that's our fault? What should we have done?

synthesis

6th September 2013, 01:48

These kinds of discussions are always emotionally loaded and result in both sides getting really frustrated. (On this forum it is the ones defending the language who will ragequit, but they almost always come back eventually.) Still important to engage in them, though.

Quail

6th September 2013, 01:52

Whatever - these type of verbal lynchings seem fairly frequent around here.

It's not a "verbal lynching" - people should listen to and take on board criticism when it cones to the way they deal with sexism, racism, etc. Three women in the thread have explained tgat pussy is an offensive insult, yet the OP won't listen. Like ffs just listen to women for a change instead of telling us we're getting offended over nothing.

adipocere

6th September 2013, 02:02

It's not a "verbal lynching" - people should listen to and take on board criticism when it cones to the way they deal with sexism, racism, etc. Three women in the thread have explained tgat pussy is an offensive insult, yet the OP won't listen. Like ffs just listen to women for a change instead of telling us we're getting offended over nothing.

I agree with you, but the tone in several posts became increasingly insulting and condescending, with lots of people saying 'thanks.' It's not helpful, there are better ways to get a point across then being cruel to people.

Quail

6th September 2013, 02:24

I agree with you, but the tone in several posts became increasingly insulting and condescending, with lots of people saying 'thanks.' It's not helpful, there are better ways to get a point across then being cruel to people.

I think the problem is that after a couple of posts politely explaining why something is sexist and you're just not listened to, it just gets so frustrating. I personally hold leftists to a higher standard than most people. I expect that if I bring up an issue of sexism, people will take me seriously. And yet, that doesn't happen. Still, despite fuckingyears of women fighting sgainst patriarchy within the leftist movement and in wider society, there are dudes who call themselves communist and refuse to challenge their behaviour. Don't get mad at women and allies when they get angry at the sexism in the communist movement. Get angry at the people perpetuating that sexism.

#FF0000

6th September 2013, 02:41

but he was an oppressor, did you read what he said?:rolleyes:

Engage directly in discussion instead of making petty snipes if you have any confidence at all in your ideas.

I agree with you, but the tone in several posts became increasingly insulting and condescending, with lots of people saying 'thanks.' It's not helpful, there are better ways to get a point across then being cruel to people. I agree. That is not what this entire thread was, though. And, to be honest, OP was getting personal and taking a condescending tone before anyone else was.

slum

6th September 2013, 03:38

and i here i was congratulating myself for my restraint in approaching this thread

if you want to see undiluted feminist vitriol, i promise i can supply. this was not it. folks here are a bit sarcastic but many users made good-faith efforts to engage with Ace High, probably because, as Ethics Gradient noted, these are not uncommon arguments for young men to make (and later, we hope, discard).

even if Ace High refuses to consider #FF0000 and 9mm's points, maybe someone lurking on this thread, who is uncertain of their stance but not willing to make such an outright declaration of their thoughts, will consider them.

Sam_b

7th September 2013, 00:14

OP's list is ridiculous beyond belief. Especially points 1, 5 and 6.

Edit: Oh I see he's left in a blaze of questionable 'glory', no real loss.

Fourth Internationalist

7th September 2013, 01:21

Le Socialiste

7th September 2013, 01:32

In fact, if you went up to even a feminist (in real life, not the internet) and started saying "oh I'm so sorry people use the word pussy it's so offensive to you, wah wah", she would laugh at you till she was in tears.

You don't know too many feminists then (or, at least genuine ones). Of the women that I organize with, every single one of them would call you out for usage of the word "pussy" (and that's not counting the thousands of women and men actively organizing around the effects and issues that stem from living in a misogynistic society). What do you have to say to them (or are we going to be graced with more stories about the activities of you and your friends)? Methinks you don't know what you're talking about.

(I also think you're trolling.)

Edit - nevermind, he left.

Le Socialiste

7th September 2013, 01:52

but he was an oppressor, did you read what he said?:rolleyes:

So do you think he was in the right? I noticed you 'thanked' several of his posts...

Fakeblock

7th September 2013, 02:51

Umm I have a quick question. In regards to the use of the term 'pussy', I understand that it is ultimately a sexist derived insult (ie 'women are weak'). However, in my experience with my girls my age (highschool age as I am 15), they are some of the biggest users of the word. What should be done? I mean, like, it feels odd explaining to a girl on sexist insults, you know?

Well, I think a lot of people hold Ace High to higher standards, because he supposedly works hard 'to end structural oppression against women'. Like, that's a great cause and all, but challenging your own behaviour, thinking, language etc. is kind of included in the package. On this forum, seeing as it is for revolutionary leftists (with feminism following from this), doing this should be expected.

I don't really have a concrete answer for you as I probably pale in knowledge and experience in comparison to some of the more well-versed feminists here but, in my opinion, you should just take the context into consideration and decide for yourself. No need to pick unproductive fights.

Decolonize The Left

7th September 2013, 04:14

I agree with you, but the tone in several posts became increasingly insulting and condescending, with lots of people saying 'thanks.' It's not helpful, there are better ways to get a point across then being cruel to people.

Normally I'm one of the first ones to advocate respectful discussion but, I have to say, that on the whole this thread was remarkably polite for the OP's post. Before I posted in response to the OP I thought about flying off the hook but I made a conscious effort to be polite and understanding. My post was entirely ignored.

While you have a valid point that some posts were unacceptable and should have been moderated, I do not think that this thread is testimony to any unreasonability on our part here on the forum. I think the OP was not interested in extended the same courtesy which he demanded of us.

Oh well, this happens all the time really. It's always a shame but then again there are members who take the alternate approach; who knows?

RedBen

7th September 2013, 04:40

So do you think he was in the right? I noticed you 'thanked' several of his posts...
he was not "right" in terms of black and white only opinions or fixed positions. in his terminology i disagreed, but he did have a point of people being so sensitive that your average unread yokel would be entirely put off by "political correctness" of the left. the whole masses are not as well read as us on the left on leftist struggles or issues. personally i think "leftist" issues are simply "human" issues that are marginalized and alienated by people who do not recognize the importance of struggles of the oppressed. i think you reach people where they are, not where you think or wish they are. i can speak to someone all day on Marxist-Leninism, but if they are clueless to those particular positions, it does no good. you talk to people on the level they are on. he was right about the left not being more articulate(for some) and not being "tougher"(hyper PC apologizing for perceived offenses). the left comes off as elitist when we assume everyone read marx, engels, and lenin

synthesis

7th September 2013, 05:07

he was not "right" in terms of black and white only opinions or fixed positions. in his terminology i disagreed, but he did have a point of people being so sensitive that your average unread yokel would be entirely put off by "political correctness" of the left. the whole masses are not as well read as us on the left on leftist struggles or issues. personally i think "leftist" issues are simply "human" issues that are marginalized and alienated by people who do not recognize the importance of struggles of the oppressed. i think you reach people where they are, not where you think or wish they are. i can speak to someone all day on Marxist-Leninism, but if they are clueless to those particular positions, it does no good. you talk to people on the level they are on. he was right about the left not being more articulate(for some) and not being "tougher"(hyper PC apologizing for perceived offenses). the left comes off as elitist when we assume everyone read marx, engels, and lenin

I think part of the issue is that to be here, at least, people expect you to be willing to question your assumptions about the world and be ready to accept that some of your beliefs or unconscious attitudes may be incorrect or antithetical to what we're trying to accomplish.

But I also think that this applies to a lot of things beyond just the bigotry related to gender, race and sexuality that is guaranteed to get people here riled up. I've seen people say some really ridiculous things about the working class (as a whole, not just reactionary elements) and then someone else get punished for pouncing on them.

Le Socialiste

8th September 2013, 00:25

in his terminology i disagreed, but he did have a point of people being so sensitive that your average unread yokel would be entirely put off by "political correctness" of the left.

First off, it doesn't matter what your "average unread yokel" - a term I personally take issue with, but that's a discussion for another time - thinks about so-called political correctness. This isn't a site that tolerates usage of sexist, racist, or otherwise prejudiced language (or the defense thereof). Ace High sought to do so within the flimsy context of 'reevaluation', a process he was unable or unwilling to undertake himself when confronted with his own shortcomings.

But let's look at the point behind the above quote: that the average working person would be put off by how the revolutionary left doesn't (or at least shouldn't) tolerate examples of sexist language or discrimination, both within its own ranks and outside it. You reduce this to political correctness; I think you need to bend your perception the other way and elevate the idea of anti-sexism to that of principle. Capitalism is an undeniably gendered system that reduces both the role and initiative of women, often by way of the social reproduction of labor. The social and cultural ramifications of these 'norms' manifest themselves in women's daily lives, and help perpetuate the myth of women as mentally and physically inferior in comparison to their male counterparts. It is 'natural', then, for this conception to find its way into our language ("pussy" being just one of many examples).

Capitalism is an inherently contradictory system that, by extension, feeds into the unevenness of class consciousness. The working-class is a dynamic, ever-shifting force that will naturally hold views which contradict each other (e.g. a white worker might understand the role of the strike weapon as a means to defend the benefits and security a job could provide but also, say, refuse to respect a picket line of Black or Brown workers due to racism). Our role is to actively work to link up the respective struggles around us and ease out the contradictions. An integral aspect of this is the education of others regarding the ways in which structural sexism plays out in everyday life, including language. This isn't "political correctness," and I really hate how some have sought to portray it as such on here.

i think you reach people where they are, not where you think or wish they are.

This is exactly right and I would be inclined to agree with you, but you reach people by making clear how capitalism impacts their daily lives, not by reproducing, perpetuating, or tolerating backward or reactionary views concerning women. We must win people to our perspective by making obvious the clear links between the operations of private capital and how its manifests itself through imperialism, war, environmental racism, unsafe or harmful working conditions, union-busting, poverty, environmental degradation and much more. We won't do that if we're willing to tolerate examples or instances of sexism or racism in those we talk with. It becomes all the more necessary to confront these types of people in order to put forward just how and why these prejudices negatively impact peoples' struggles.

he was right about the left not being more articulate(for some) and not being "tougher"(hyper PC apologizing for perceived offenses).

As I've explained, these are not perceived offenses - they're very much rooted in the systemic characteristics of capitalism and reproduced throughout class society. As leftists, we need to be prepared to make a principled stand against all manifestations of sexism, regardless of whether it crops up in our conversations with people or in the left as a whole.

the debater

9th September 2013, 00:13

#FF0000

9th September 2013, 19:19

I would like to add my $0.02 that this post is matrix-level constructive criticism. I cannot stress enough how excellent these critiques are. Keep it real.

So you have nothing to say other than "I AGREE"? Did you not bother reading the rest of the thread?

the debater

10th September 2013, 02:23

So you have nothing to say other than "I AGREE"? Did you not bother reading the rest of the thread?

I believe I read through most of the replies, and it seems like people got way too easily offended, at least from my vantage point. For Christ's sake, Ace High stated that he was gay, correct? And how many people on here who were heterosexual criticized him for being offensive, or for behaving in some similar manner? And what about the fact that Ace High actually does know some feminists? Do the opinions of those feminists deserve to be overshadowed by the opinions of the feminists who have responded negatively to the OP? As someone who has been pretty effective in debating with white nationalist types, and who has extensively collected some pretty decent links to back up my arguments, I'm not going to be questioning my credibility anytime soon. But perhaps, maybe some of the folks here who criticized Ace High too quickly should question theirs.

And no, in addition to not being a racist, I am also neither sexist or anti-feminism. The demographic that gives me the most headache is 17-24 year old male hooligans who think they're so awesome and hardcore, and old white guys who are incredibly racist/foul-mouthed. (I haven't really run into any racist old black guys or old Asian or Hispanic guys; but if I do, chances are I will want to get as far away as possible from them as well.)

#FF0000

10th September 2013, 04:34

I believe I read through most of the replies, and it seems like people got way too easily offended, at least from my vantage point.

Point it out and quote it. There was discussion here, dogg. People looked at his points and argued against them.

For Christ's sake, Ace High stated that he was gay, correct? And how many people on here who were heterosexual criticized him for being offensive, or for behaving in some similar manner?

What does his being gay have to do with it? And no one criticized him for "being offensive". He posted points, we criticized them. If he was criticized at all, it was by some for being a hypocrite.

And I personally criticized him for ducking out the way he did, because I'm tired of dealing with disingenuous, mealy-mouthed people who can't stand there and defend their points openly and honestly. I get tired real quick of people who go one about how "Oh I know a feminist", or "I know women who..." or "you guys are just offended" and rely on this lazy bullshit instead of engaging directly because their ego won't let them take a chance at maybe being wrong (and Ace High certainly isn't the only one who does this, to be clear)

And what about the fact that Ace High actually does know some feminists? Do the opinions of those feminists deserve to be overshadowed by the opinions of the feminists who have responded negatively to the OP?

That fact doesn't mean anything because saying "well I know feminists" doesn't back up your point (nor does saying I'M A FEMINIST). I know feminists too and, surprise, feminists don't always agree on things (and there's plenty of feminists who don't know a damn thing about what they're talking about either.)

And no, in addition to not being a racist, I am also neither sexist or anti-feminism. The demographic that gives me the most headache is 17-24 year old male hooligans who think they're so awesome and hardcore, and old white guys who are incredibly racist/foul-mouthed. (I haven't really run into any racist old black guys or old Asian or Hispanic guys; but if I do, chances are I will want to get as far away as possible from them as well.)

you don't need to prove yourself, though.

but for the future, trying to do so like that doesn't do you many favors because it screams "try-hard".

DasFapital

10th September 2013, 06:21

Post revolution we will be using Esperanto anyway...

The Garbage Disposal Unit

10th September 2013, 06:36

Umm I have a quick question. In regards to the use of the term 'pussy', I understand that it is ultimately a sexist derived insult (ie 'women are weak'). However, in my experience with my girls my age (highschool age as I am 15), they are some of the biggest users of the word. What should be done? I mean, like, it feels odd explaining to a girl on sexist insults, you know?

For sure. Hella awkward, potentially, because, well, nobody likes mansplainations.

I think it depends a lot on the women in question, and your relationship with them. If somebody is your good friend, you can probably say, "Hey, that makes me uncomfortable because . . . " And, y'know, if they're a good friend, they'll probably take you seriously.

If it's a situation where people are just acquaintances, well, maybe it's best to just lead by example, unless a situation presents itself where the cost of not intervening (ie - somebody seems really hurt) outweighs the risk of coming off as self-righteous.

And, of course, as you know by the way I've approached you about things, I'm not very good at this sort of judgement call myself. ;)

#FF0000

10th September 2013, 06:54

There is literally no way to ever correct a stranger on anything without looking like a dick unless that stranger says something explicitly fucked up

DasFapital

10th September 2013, 07:00

Pushing anything progressive in high school is always going to be an unpleasant experience.

the debater

11th September 2013, 16:46

Point it out and quote it. There was discussion here, dogg. People looked at his points and argued against them.

Yes, and I could tell they were easily offended. To me, it seemed as if Ace High was using more logical points.

What does his being gay have to do with it? And no one criticized him for "being offensive". He posted points, we criticized them. If he was criticized at all, it was by some for being a hypocrite.

And I personally criticized him for ducking out the way he did, because I'm tired of dealing with disingenuous, mealy-mouthed people who can't stand there and defend their points openly and honestly. I get tired real quick of people who go one about how "Oh I know a feminist", or "I know women who..." or "you guys are just offended" and rely on this lazy bullshit instead of engaging directly because their ego won't let them take a chance at maybe being wrong (and Ace High certainly isn't the only one who does this, to be clear)

You would think that a gay person would have a better understanding of discrimination than a straight person, I don't know, that was my line of reasoning. Besides, Ace didn't come across as being arrogant or egotistical. He was calm, logical, and brought up some good points. The thing is, some of the points he brought up may have been uncomfortable to some RevLeft members.

That fact doesn't mean anything because saying "well I know feminists" doesn't back up your point (nor does saying I'M A FEMINIST). I know feminists too and, surprise, feminists don't always agree on things (and there's plenty of feminists who don't know a damn thing about what they're talking about either.)

Exactly, so what makes the opinions of some feminists better than others? To me, it kind of looks as if the feminists who get easily offended think their opinions are more important than the opinions of feminists who don't get easily offended.

you don't need to prove yourself, though.

but for the future, trying to do so like that doesn't do you many favors because it screams "try-hard".

Just trying to be cautious. Verification isn't usually a bad idea. I probably didn't have to include the part about being anti-racist, but nevertheless, I needed to verify my stance.

Sam_b

11th September 2013, 16:57

To me, it seemed as if Ace High was using more logical points.

Oh really? Care to share them? You've not said anything apart from ultra-generalisations and not argued any specific point, whereas most of this thread involved users posting detailed play-by-play analysis of why Ace High is wrong. Why aren't you doing the same if you're apparently taking his side?

You would think that a gay person would have a better understanding of discrimination than a straight person, I don't know, that was my line of reasoning. Besides, Ace didn't come across as being arrogant or egotistical. He was calm, logical, and brought up some good points. The thing is, some of the points he brought up may have been uncomfortable to some RevLeft members.

He was not calm and he was not logical. An LGBTQ person may have a deeper understanding of discrimination than a straight person, sure, but yet how does someone like Ace High have an understanding of the discrimination of women, which comprises the bulk of his examples? This has been his pet subject ever since some users called him out on this sort of shit in the music forum. It's lazy to suggest LGBTQ people and women, and indeed LGBTQ women, face the same sort of discrimination as each other.

I was uncomfortable with a lot of points Ace brought up because I don't feel they belong in our movement at all.

To me, it kind of looks as if the feminists who get easily offended think their opinions are more important than the opinions of feminists who don't get easily offended.

So who the hell are you to take issue with how and why people in discriminated groups take offence, and why do you judge them based on your perception of how they handle discrimination?

I needed to verify my stance

Except you haven't. You're being deliberately vague because you don't want to back up your arguments.

GiantMonkeyMan

11th September 2013, 17:25

I understand in a small part what Ace High was saying: amongst friends and comrades, sometimes you use language and engage in humour that would otherwise be offensive and not 'politically correct' but I would never use this language if a stranger, or someone new to the struggle, was involved in our conversation. There's no reason to stupidly risk alienating someone in a society that already does a good job at alienating people. Similarly, this forum is a public space where people new to the struggle come to learn and develop their understanding. Therefore, there's no reason for us not to create an inclusive atmosphere where everyone feels safe and happy to contribute.

the debater

11th September 2013, 19:49

Oh really? Care to share them? You've not said anything apart from ultra-generalisations and not argued any specific point, whereas most of this thread involved users posting detailed play-by-play analysis of why Ace High is wrong. Why aren't you doing the same if you're apparently taking his side?

Here's my perspective. The same word used in different contexts can have different meanings. There are times when offensive words are used in contexts that cause them to not be as offensive as normal. It is in these circumstances that I choose to ignore those offensive words. Do you see what I'm saying? Believing that offensive words are always offensive regardless of circumstance is not a reasonable viewpoint. In certain circumstances, offensive words or terms become less offensive than usual. Anyways, here are some of the points Ace brought up that I agree with:

I know so many women who call people pussies as well. It isn't hostile. Hell, I know a fucking feminist who would agree with me! That's the thing, I am friends with many women who would consider themselves involved in womens' struggles, and they are not offended by words such as pussy. You are making a humongous leap to say that is sexist.
But nevertheless, your argument doesn't work, really. If you are saying that the word is bad because it is used to insult people, should we ban the word "idiot"? It is discriminatory towards people with lower IQs, therefore, it is bad and should be banned. Why do people have to take things so seriously?
So if I call someone a dick, is that somehow offensive to men?
He was not calm and he was not logical. An LGBTQ person may have a deeper understanding of discrimination than a straight person, sure, but yet how does someone like Ace High have an understanding of the discrimination of women, which comprises the bulk of his examples?

Well, like he said, there are feminists out there who don't believe in getting offended too easily. Their opinions should be taken seriously in addition to the opinions of feminists who do get more easily offended. And yes, Ace High was calm and reasonable in his first post. He was simply trying to be moderately harsh.

I was uncomfortable with a lot of points Ace brought up because I don't feel they belong in our movement at all.

Very well then, can you be more specific about this matter? What exactly did you find offensive about points #2-6?

So who the hell are you to take issue with how and why people in discriminated groups take offence, and why do you judge them based on your perception of how they handle discrimination?

How about this, let's just agree that different types of feminists can have different viewpoints, and that no one denomination of feminism speaks for ALL feminists. I'm pretty sure this is a reasonable request.

Except you haven't. You're being deliberately vague because you don't want to back up your arguments.

Trust me, I've pretty good at backing up my arguments, and even at understanding how my opponents think sometimes. As evidence for this claim, check out all the links I've collected that contradict arguments made by white nationalists/supremacists. And just to clarify, I'm simply pointing this out not because I'm being defensive, but because I'm trying to provide evidence that I'm not a vague person who can't back up his arguments.

Quail

11th September 2013, 20:42

Here's my perspective. The same word used in different contexts can have different meanings. There are times when offensive words are used in contexts that cause them to not be as offensive as normal. It is in these circumstances that I choose to ignore those offensive words. Do you see what I'm saying? Believing that offensive words are always offensive regardless of circumstance is not a reasonable viewpoint. In certain circumstances, offensive words or terms become less offensive than usual.
That's all well and good, but the word Ace High had in mind is basically never really inoffensive. Calling someone you perceive to be weak a "pussy" is pretty much always sexist because it implies that women are weaker and less useful than men.

Well, like he said, there are feminists out there who don't believe in getting offended too easily. Their opinions should be taken seriously in addition to the opinions of feminists who do get more easily offended.

How about this, let's just agree that different types of feminists can have different viewpoints, and that no one denomination of feminism speaks for ALL feminists. I'm pretty sure this is a reasonable request.

I have a few issues with this.

1. Why are these conversations always about "offense"? "Stop getting so offended, feminists! You take everything too seriously... etc." Talking about people getting offended distracts us from the real issue, which is that certain language does reinforce patriarchal gender stereotypes, without any shadow of a doubt, which is harmful to women.

2. Why are the opinions of non male Revleft members routinely ignored because some hypothetical feminist somewhere might disagree with us? The response in this thread from female members of Revleft has unanimously been that certain words reinforce patriarchy (possibly depending on the context, depending on the word), and yet - surprise, surprise - the views of "some feminists someone knows" are used to silence us.

3. Finally, who does it benefit if we take into account the views of these absent feminists? Women and people who struggle against patriarchy? Or the dudes who would rather not bother challenging themselves when it comes to their use of language? Because it seems to me that it is the people who stand to benefit from not listening to the women and feminists here on Revleft that tend to use the "well I know some feminists who would disagree" line. Funny, that.

#FF0000

11th September 2013, 21:59

You would think that a gay person would have a better understanding of discrimination than a straight person, I don't know, that was my line of reasoning.

Nah being part of an "oppressed group" doesn't necessarily give people insight into the struggles of everyone.

Besides, Ace didn't come across as being arrogant or egotistical. He was calm, logical, and brought up some good points.

People who are being calm and logical don't take their ball and go leave an entire site cuz of one thread, tho.

What is going on, I think, is you like his pov better than the others expressed in this thread and so you are kind of putting his posts on some pedestal or something even though OP was far from the only "calm and logical" person in this thread who was not being "arrogant or egostistical".

either way i wish you wouldn't cheerlead and would get involved in the discussion yourself.

The thing is, some of the points he brought up may have been uncomfortable to some RevLeft members.

"i think we should be able to use gendered insults and still b considered anti-sexist" does not strike some uncomfortable chord with me, tbh. no one was uncomfortable here.

slum

11th September 2013, 23:26

we're not talking about whether or not something is objectively "offensive". we're talking about how sexist language is a manifestation of sexism in society and does not belong in revolutionary movements.

the argument "you guys are so easily offended" is not a valid argument, and it does not reflect the response of posters in this thread who disagreed with Ace High. it is a tired-as-hell ad hominem directed at anti-sexists, particularly women, because the sexist stereotype of women being over-emotional, fussy, over-sensitive 'henpeckers' of innocent men 'who really didn't mean any offense'! ALLOWS you to make this argument, anti-intellectual and avoidant as it is, over and fucking over again.

get a new routine.

Sam_b

12th September 2013, 02:17

There are times when offensive words are used in contexts that cause them to not be as offensive as normal. It is in these circumstances that I choose to ignore those offensive words. Do you see what I'm saying?

Please provide examples. I'd be particularly interested in how Ace High's favourite, "pussy", can be not offensive.

Anyways, here are some of the points Ace brought up that I agree with

All of which have been brought up before and you've not rebutted them. Calling someone a "dick" is not sexist because men are not victims of sexism, for instance.

Very well then, can you be more specific about this matter?

Very simply, because Ace High is being an apologist for prejudiced language, something I believe the left should have no tolerance for.

How about this, let's just agree that different types of feminists can have different viewpoints, and that no one denomination of feminism speaks for ALL feminists. I'm pretty sure this is a reasonable request.

How about no, and how about this is a way to wriggle out of the question at hand.

Trust me, I've pretty good at backing up my arguments

Not when it's taken several posts from users to ask you to provide examples and actually flesh out examples. You're not much of a debater at all.

synthesis

12th September 2013, 03:03

To me, it seemed as if Ace High was using more logical points.

This seems to me to be a major source of miscommunication. "Logic," in an abstract and decontextualized sense, isn't going to make you give a shit about other people's perspectives if you don't give a shit already. If you ignore people's feelings about things like your use of language and your societal attitudes, you can't cry foul when they stop giving a shit about how you feel about being confronted.

I don't mean to be preachy here, but a little empathy goes a long way in these kinds of discussions. Of course, that goes both ways; I think it helps to remember that people, especially people here, generally don't just give up their entire worldview without a fight. I'm worried that this will come across as too sympathetic to the OP and the people who are taking his side, but the idea that you've been looking at something wrong your whole life can be very intimidating. "Smart people believe stupid things because they are good at defending beliefs at which they arrived through non-smart ways," to paraphrase Michael Shermer. (I just found out that he's a libertarian, but I think it's still a valid insight.)

the debater

12th September 2013, 03:37

Please provide examples. I'd be particularly interested in how Ace High's favourite, "pussy", can be not offensive.

Well, here goes. The term "redskins" for example. Originally, redskin may have been a derogatory remark towards Native Americans. Nowadays however, it's a respected sports name for the Washington Redskins of the NFL. In some cases, a word's meaning can change over time. Likewise, while I don't consider pussy to be a non-offensive term, I do believe that it isn't always a derogatory word towards women. If someone is being called a pussy in a boxing match or in a soccer game or whatever, the implied meaning of pussy is simply "weak" or "nervous" or something similar. Likewise, while the term retard originally meant someone who was considered mentally retarded, today, it can refer to anybody who is stupid who isn't necessarily mentally retarded in the medical sense. I'm sure Bush and many other politicians have been called retarded by members of this forum. And what about the term moron? According to Wikipedia, it was first coined in 1910, and was used to denote people of low intelligence, along with imbecile (IQ of 26-50), and idiot (IQ of 0-25). How many times have terms like imbecile and idiot been used to denote people like George Bush Jr. or Sarah Palin? Not just on RevLeft but out in the real world? Perhaps RevLeft should ban these words along with pussy. They are offensive towards people with severely low IQs.

How about no, and how about this is a way to wriggle out of the question at hand.

Ok please answer this question; why do feminists on RevLeft have a more valid opinion than feminists out in the non-cyber world? What makes RevLeft feminists so special in their opinions? I don't get that. Are they objectively more correct than feminists who aren't offended most of the time?

Not when it's taken several posts from users to ask you to provide examples and actually flesh out examples. You're not much of a debater at all.

Trust me, I'm pretty good at backing up my arguments. Did you see those links I provided arguing against white supremacy? I addressed common arguments that white nationalists use. The Industrial Revolution, rich American blacks doing poorly on the SAT despite their wealth, mixed-race people supposedly being unhealthy, and of course, the nonsensical notion that Scandinavian and Germanic whites were not considered inferior by the Greeks. I originally tried posting that one Strabo quote where he talks about Irish people being cannibals on SF, although I posted a shortened version that didn't explicitly mention what island Strabo was talking about. And the one mod on SF thought the quote was referring to somewhere in Africa! I also posted the Aristotle quote where he mentions the "races of Europe" lacking brainpower and skill. And this is how the same mod responded a second time:

The European people have historically never gotten along with one another and spoke ill of eachother quite frequently. What are you even trying to say?

If I'm not a good debater, then you need to go over to you-know-where, and debate racial issues with those guys. If you choose to do so, go to that one thread in the opposing views forum that was started by a certain "white usa". If you pose as a white liberal, your arguments probably will have a good chance of getting through, although they probably will still get completely ignored by white usa, as happened with me, and that other intelligent anti-racist who posted there. If you're more successful than I am, then maybe you can consider me to not be a good debater.

#FF0000

12th September 2013, 04:09

Well, here goes. The term "redskins" for example. Originally, redskin may have been a derogatory remark towards Native Americans. Nowadays however, it's a respected sports name for the Washington Redskins of the NFL.

That's not a very good example, because the name of the organization is constantly a source of contention because it is a slur.

In some cases, a word's meaning can change over time. Likewise, while I don't consider pussy to be a non-offensive term, I do believe that it isn't always a derogatory word towards women. If someone is being called a pussy in a boxing match or in a soccer game or whatever, the implied meaning of pussy is simply "weak" or "nervous" or something similar.

And like I said earlier in this thread, it's not a coincidence that the, uh, colloquial term for a part of the female anatomy is used to describe a man who is considered weak, cowardly, unmasculine.

I'm sure Bush and many other politicians have been called retarded by members of this forum.

If they did, they received an infraction.

And what about the term moron? According to Wikipedia, it was first coined in 1910, and was used to denote people of low intelligence, along with imbecile (IQ of 26-50), and idiot (IQ of 0-25). How many times have terms like imbecile and idiot been used to denote people like George Bush Jr. or Sarah Palin? Not just on RevLeft but out in the real world? Perhaps RevLeft should ban these words along with pussy. They are offensive towards people with severely low IQs.

The fact that words had a meaning once, or that words change meanings over time, does not change the fact that words mean certain things right now. "Moron", while still an insult, does not have the same implications today that "retard" does. The origin of the word is totally irrelevant -- what matters is what these words mean to people today that makes them particularly derogatory and demeaning.

There are a lot words with implications that are relatively benign compared with their history ("Moron", "idiot"), and then there are words that were once benign that took on extremely negative implications today (such as your example of "redskin")

Ok please answer this question; why do feminists on RevLeft have a more valid opinion than feminists out in the non-cyber world? What makes RevLeft feminists so special in their opinions? I don't get that. Are they objectively more correct than feminists who aren't offended most of the time?

Here's the thing: it doesn't matter one way or another because saying "ah but I know a feminist and they agree with me" does not make you right or wrong. It has no bearing on the argument and is an appeal to authority if anything. You're also missing the fact that you could just as easily ask the question to the OP when he brought up the feminists he knew. Why are their opinions more important than the opinions of women and feminists involved in this discussion?

But, like I said, it's irrelevant. Someone else agreeing with you does not make you right.

Trust me, I'm pretty good at backing up my arguments

Yo, here is the thing dude. If you have to say it, it isn't true, especially when it comes to people who actually out and say things like "trust me, I'm good at debating" or "trust me, I am SUCH a feminist!"

Being able to shut down internet racists does not mean you are some paragon of reason. A baby with google can do it. To see victory only when it is within the ken of the common herd is not the acme of excellence.

bcbm

12th September 2013, 04:13

Well, here goes. The term "redskins" for example. Originally, redskin may have been a derogatory remark towards Native Americans. Nowadays however, it's a respected sports name for the Washington Redskins of the NFL.

what a terrible example. this has been an ongoing controversy for years and has been flaring up again quite recently (http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000238564/article/washington-redskins-target-of-ad-campaign-by-new-york-tribe)

In some cases, a word's meaning can change over time. Likewise, while I don't consider pussy to be a non-offensive term, I do believe that it isn't always a derogatory word towards women. If someone is being called a pussy in a boxing match or in a soccer game or whatever, the implied meaning of pussy is simply "weak" or "nervous" or something similar. Likewise, while the term retard originally meant someone who was considered mentally retarded, today, it can refer to anybody who is stupid who isn't necessarily mentally retarded in the medical sense.

all of this just sounds to me like the (white, inevitably) people who say 'it is okay to say nigger now because it doesn't mean black people generally, it just means a shitty person' or some variation there of. sorry, i'm not buying it.

I'm sure Bush and many other politicians have been called retarded by members of this forum.

actually that word is not allowed here as it is considered prejudice language as well.

Ok please answer this question; why do feminists on RevLeft have a more valid opinion than feminists out in the non-cyber world? What makes RevLeft feminists so special in their opinions?

they are here to represent and discuss their opinions, versus 'other feminists' who happen to agree with men who don't want to be called on their shit, but are conveniently absent.

'hey i know feminists who are pro-life!'

Trust me, I'm pretty good at backing up my arguments.

thats nice.

synthesis

12th September 2013, 04:55

If I'm not a good debater, then you need to go over to you-know-where, and debate racial issues with those guys. If you choose to do so, go to that one thread in the opposing views forum that was started by a certain "white usa". If you pose as a white liberal, your arguments probably will have a good chance of getting through, although they probably will still get completely ignored by white usa, as happened with me, and that other intelligent anti-racist who posted there. If you're more successful than I am, then maybe you can consider me to not be a good debater.

Those people are not there to debate. They are there for the online equivalent of hearing themselves talk.

The problem here is that this is being framed as a debate, where people are arguing from different, developed positions that are at least valid in theory. What's really going on is that you're being educated on something that you are objectively ignorant about - namely, the ability to be honest and self-critical about the ways in which your language reflects your perception of the world - but I guess it's not coming across in a way that reflects the fact that these kinds of discussions are qualitatively different from a debate about the validity of the Great Purges.

Here's an analogy. People still use "black" to mean "evil," "corrupt" and "rotten." (http://www.pcc.edu/resources/illumination/documents/racism-in-the-english-language.pdf) "His black heart led him into the blackest times of his black life." You can argue about the etymology of this usage until the end of time, but if you refuse to recognize that it can make people really uncomfortable, the "soundness" of your argument isn't relevant - you're just being stubborn and an asshole in a way that is antithetical to what people here are trying to accomplish. The sooner you recognize that just because a perspective is "subjective" (aren't they all?) does not mean it should be discarded, the sooner this discussion can progress.

the debater

12th September 2013, 18:22

That's not a very good example, because the name of the organization is constantly a source of contention because it is a slur.

Well, it's not thought of as a slur by fans of that sports team. They don't view the term "redskin" as being derogatory.

And like I said earlier in this thread, it's not a coincidence that the, uh, colloquial term for a part of the female anatomy is used to describe a man who is considered weak, cowardly, unmasculine.

Technically, men are physically stronger then women on average. The way I see it, if a guy being called non-masculine is offensive towards women, then isn't a woman being called masculine/tough offensive towards men? :confused:

Yo, here is the thing dude. If you have to say it, it isn't true, especially when it comes to people who actually out and say things like "trust me, I'm good at debating" or "trust me, I am SUCH a feminist!"

Being able to shut down internet racists does not mean you are some paragon of reason. A baby with google can do it. To see victory only when it is within the ken of the common herd is not the acme of excellence.

You have a point, but to be more specific, one of my main debating strengths is being able to directly refute specific arguments. This style of debating allows me to get straight to the heart of the matter, and if anything, that's probably what separates me from other debaters to a certain extent.

the debater

12th September 2013, 18:27

Here's an analogy. "His black heart led him into the blackest times of his black life." You can argue about the etymology of this usage until the end of time, but if you refuse to recognize that it can make people really uncomfortable, the "soundness" of your argument isn't relevant - you're just being stubborn and an asshole in a way that is antithetical to what people here are trying to accomplish. The sooner you recognize that just because a perspective is "subjective" (aren't they all?) does not mean it should be discarded, the sooner this discussion can progress.

But surely you can agree that there are vastly more important things to worry about than words? How many black people do you know who get offended by phrases like "black heart"? Although I haven't had a lot of black friends, (unless Ace High counts, assuming he's black), I still find it hard to believe that there are black people out there who actually get offended by something so trivial.

synthesis

12th September 2013, 19:17

But surely you can agree that there are vastly more important things to worry about than words? How many black people do you know who get offended by phrases like "black heart"? Although I haven't had a lot of black friends, (unless Ace High counts, assuming he's black), I still find it hard to believe that there are black people out there who actually get offended by something so trivial.

Have you considered that it might make people uncomfortable, but they perhaps don't want to "cause a scene" or antagonize you because they agree that there are bigger issues at hand? Does the fact that there are worse aspects of institutionalized bigotry make it more acceptable to make people uncomfortable? It seems very presumptuous of you to tell people what they can and cannot be offended by.

#FF0000

12th September 2013, 20:38

Well, it's not thought of as a slur by fans of that sports team. They don't view the term "redskin" as being derogatory.

Yeah but they aren't the ones who get to decide that. There's hella old people in the US who don't think there's anything wrong with calling people "niggers", either because "that's just what we call them!"

Technically, men are physically stronger then women on average. The way I see it, if a guy being called non-masculine is offensive towards women, then isn't a woman being called masculine/tough offensive towards men?That depends on the context. I mean, there are hella things one can say to imply that a woman is masculine in some physical sense as a way to call one "unattractive" or call one's sexuality into question.

You have a point, but to be more specific, one of my main debating strengths is being able to directly refute specific arguments. This style of debating allows me to get straight to the heart of the matter, and if anything, that's probably what separates me from other debaters to a certain extent.yo you have a serious case of special snowflake syndrome dogg, and need to lance that inflamed ego.

But let's get to the heart of the matter: Should someone who considers themselves anti-sexist use gendered slurs and insults?

the debater

13th September 2013, 15:54

Have you considered that it might make people uncomfortable, but they perhaps don't want to "cause a scene" or antagonize you because they agree that there are bigger issues at hand?

Are you aware of any black people who get offended by phrases like "black heart" or something similar? And how many black people do you know who aren't offended by those terms? And which group has more members?

It seems very presumptuous of you to tell people what they can and cannot be offended by.

I'm simply saying it doesn't make sense to be offended by things that are trivial. Likewise, it will greatly help out our movement if more leftists choose to no longer be offended by certain words in certain circumstances. Think of how many more people we could invite into our movement. I don't necessarily believe socialism is perfect, but it's still far better than capitalism, and if RevLeft is going to be more successful in helping to launch a socialist revolution, we're going to need to get more people involved with our efforts.

the debater

13th September 2013, 16:05

Yeah but they aren't the ones who get to decide that. There's hella old people in the US who don't think there's anything wrong with calling people "niggers", either because "that's just what we call them!"

The term "nigger" as least as far as I know, has never had positive connotations. Unless you want to count rap songs that use the term to mean "friend", but I would not view that as being a very intelligent move at all. The term redskin however, does have positive connotations because it is the name of a popular sports franchise. Any negative connotations associated with "redskin" are quickly being forgotten by a large majority of people, and once you reach that point in a word's history, it can safely be considered to no longer be a big deal, at least in my opinion.

That depends on the context.

A-fucking men! You've gotten my point!

yo you have a serious case of special snowflake syndrome dogg, and need to lance that inflamed ego.

I'll keep that in mind.

But let's get to the heart of the matter: Should someone who considers themselves anti-sexist use gendered slurs and insults?

Whether it's due to the passing of time, or due to differing circumstances, certain words can change their meanings. A word that is considered sexist in a particular situation may no longer be sexist when used in a different situation.

The Garbage Disposal Unit

13th September 2013, 16:24

The term "nigger" as least as far as I know, has never had positive connotations. Unless you want to count rap songs that use the term to mean "friend", but I would not view that as being a very intelligent move at all.

So you're generally OK with racist slurs when they've been adopted by white people for sports teams, but not when oppressed people reclaim them as a positive self-identification?

The term redskin however, does have positive connotations because it is the name of a popular sports franchise. Any negative connotations associated with "redskin" are quickly being forgotten by a large majority of people, and once you reach that point in a word's history, it can safely be considered to no longer be a big deal, at least in my opinion.

Nope, I'm pretty sure Redskin-type characters of Indians with feathers in their hair (that don't differentiate between distinct indigenous nations, that portray indigenous nations as mythological, etc.) are still pretty racist. I'm pretty sure most politically conscious/radical indigenous people still feel this way, because, well, duh.

Whether it's due to the passing of time, or due to differing circumstances, certain words can change their meanings. A word that is considered sexist in a particular situation may no longer be sexist when used in a different situation.

Yup, but, unsurprisingly, self-righteous jerks who make grand pronouncements on what is/isn't racist without having participated meaningfully in antiracist or feminist struggle, who haven't taken the time to seriously pursue an antiracist or feminist education for themselves, continue to say dumbass racist/sexist shit. Check yourself.

#FF0000

13th September 2013, 19:38

The term "nigger" as least as far as I know, has never had positive connotations. Unless you want to count rap songs that use the term to mean "friend", but I would not view that as being a very intelligent move at all.

That's something you could certainly do though. But "nigger" was, to some people at one time, at least a neutral term (in the mind of people who used it).

The term redskin however, does have positive connotations because it is the name of a popular sports franchise. Any negative connotations associated with "redskin" are quickly being forgotten by a large majority of people, and once you reach that point in a word's history, it can safely be considered to no longer be a big deal, at least in my opinion.

I don't think using a racial slur to name a sports team makes the word or term any less of a slur. Would this work for all racial slurs, do you think?

A-fucking men! You've gotten my point!

I've understood that point -- but we need to recognize what words mean now.

Whether it's due to the passing of time, or due to differing circumstances, certain words can change their meanings. A word that is considered sexist in a particular situation may no longer be sexist when used in a different situation.

Sure. When "pussy" is used as a gendered insult, it has sexist connotations.

the debater

13th September 2013, 19:59

That's something you could certainly do though. But "nigger" was, to some people at one time, at least a neutral term (in the mind of people who used it).

Maybe, but I'd imagine that "negro" was the more neutral term during that time period.

I don't think using a racial slur to name a sports team makes the word or term any less of a slur. Would this work for all racial slurs, do you think?

The thing is, redskin has lost its negative meaning for a large majority of people. That is what separates it from nigger. The term nigger still has negative connotations, but not redskin, at least for a significant majority of people. I would attribute this to the fact that nigger is a more recent word whereas redskin is much older.

I've understood that point -- but we need to recognize what words mean now.

Yes, and also what they mean in different circumstances.

Sure. When "pussy" is used as a gendered insult, it has sexist connotations.

True, but when it's used as a term for weakling, it is no longer an intentionally sexist term. We should focus on the situations in which pussy is in fact a sexist term, and not on the situations in which it is not sexist.

Just on a side note, are you at least starting to understand my argument better, even if you don't agree with it? Hopefully any frustrations or disappointments due to my viewpoints are dying down, but if that's not the case, then please let me know.

synthesis

13th September 2013, 21:54

Just on a side note, are you at least starting to understand my argument better, even if you don't agree with it? Hopefully any frustrations or disappointments due to my viewpoints are dying down, but if that's not the case, then please let me know.

I would wager that literally everyone in this thread understands your arguments and has dealt with them before. Your reasoning amounts to "issues of offensiveness and the unconscious ideas behind our language are subjective, and therefore my opinion is just as valid as anybody else's."

It's basically another step on the road towards solipsism.

#FF0000

14th September 2013, 00:59

That is what separates it from nigger. The term nigger still has negative connotations, but not redskin, at least for a significant majority of people. I would attribute this to the fact that nigger is a more recent word whereas redskin is much older.

It still has negative connotations for the people the word is used to denigrate, and whose caricature is used to make a couple rich franchise owners a lot of money. And both words were used as slurs around the same time.

True, but when it's used as a term for weakling, it is no longer an intentionally sexist term. We should focus on the situations in which pussy is in fact a sexist term, and not on the situations in which it is not sexist.

You're somehow still missing the point. That is exactly when it's sexist, because it's a gendered insult that associates femininity with weakness and passiveness.

And "intention" does not matter here -- intent is not the end-all and be-all in communication (or in anything, actually. Someone can say or do a racist thing without intending it)

Just on a side note, are you at least starting to understand my argument better, even if you don't agree with it? Hopefully any frustrations or disappointments due to my viewpoints are dying down, but if that's not the case, then please let me know.

I never misunderstood your point of view -- it's not very different from the point of view of the far too many people I've discussed these things with who don't know what's up with issues on race and/or gender.

#FF0000

14th September 2013, 01:20

It's weird that this has gone on for so long, so I want to say I seriously don't think words like this are the biggest problem in the world, or facing women.

I also think that everyone here exists outside of this little leftist bubble we have here on the internet, and hears people use words like "pussy" irl all the time and think nothing of it, because it's how people talk, right or wrong. There's not much one can do about it. Ignorance isn't always an excuse, but no one's doing any educating by calling out a stranger on the bus for their use of "less-than-enlightened language", or whatever (unless, like I said earlier, the person said some seriously odious nonsense)

However, it doesn't surprise me, and I don't think it should surprise anyone else, that casual use of "gendered insults" would be much more unwelcome in "leftists spaces", or that self-described leftists and feminists would be criticized openly and directly for using them, for the simple fact that we should know better. Especially so if one is involved in anti-racist or anti-sexist struggles. We should know and understand at least a little bit of how capitalism exploits and oppresses us not just as workers, but how different people also experience different shades of that oppression based on their gender, sex, race, national origin, regional origin, etc. etc. We should know about how sexist and racist society and culture impacts people.

At the very least, we should know and understand that we're in it together and can't afford to alienate people by using demeaning language (i have a thing about rudeness tbh).

Not one single person involved in this thread would be okay with someone using a racist slur, whether in an "intentionally" racist context or not. This is simple stuff. That's why this thread has gone on so long and why I feel so silly for still arguing so ardently over words, but, god, it's so simple and so basic.

synthesis

14th September 2013, 01:32

Also:

The term "nigger" as least as far as I know, has never had positive connotations. Unless you want to count rap songs that use the term to mean "friend", but I would not view that as being a very intelligent move at all.

The thing is, redskin has lost its negative meaning for a large majority of people. That is what separates it from nigger. The term nigger still has negative connotations, but not redskin, at least for a significant majority of people. I would attribute this to the fact that nigger is a more recent word whereas redskin is much older.

What makes you the final judge of all possible connotations and subtext behind a use of a word?

That's not a rhetorical question. Things described by the term "connotation" are inherently subjective, because they intrinsically depend upon one's interpretation of those things. (Trying to avoid getting into semiotics jargon here.)

Is it really that much to ask of you, as a self-described socialist, that you respect the fact that words do carry connotations beyond that which you personally find objectionable?

The simple fact that you personally think that someone shouldn't feel uncomfortable about the use of a word doesn't mean that they won't feel uncomfortable or that it is not a good reason to feel that way - as if people can control how they initially react to something on an emotional level.

And what is "being offended" besides being made uncomfortable to the point that you feel compelled to say something?

the debater

14th September 2013, 02:56

You're somehow still missing the point. That is exactly when it's sexist, because it's a gendered insult that associates femininity with weakness and passiveness.

Like I said, women technically are physically weaker then men on average. It's a common stereotype that males are expected to be good at sports, whereas women don't necessarily have that expectation. If a male athlete is called girly or a pussy, that is not a derogatory slur towards women, it is simply a derogatory slur directed at the male athlete. Now when it comes to mental toughness, that's where I believe the sexes are equal. And who knows, mental toughness may in fact be more important than physical strength or physical toughness.

And "intention" does not matter here -- intent is not the end-all and be-all in communication (or in anything, actually. Someone can say or do a racist thing without intending it)

But the thing is, non-Native American sports fans who use the term redskin to refer to their favorite sports franchise are not being racist. There are far more important examples of racism to be worrying about, such as what's going on in Greece.

I never misunderstood your point of view -- it's not very different from the point of view of the far too many people I've discussed these things with who don't know what's up with issues on race and/or gender.

Very well, but your opinion is not necessarily better than mine, nor is mine necessarily better than yours. Let's just end this debate and agree that there are more important examples of racism and sexism to be worrying about.

#FF0000

14th September 2013, 03:14

Like I said, women technically are physically weaker then men on average.

Physical weakness isn't all that's implied. It's helplessness, cowardice, passiveness in general. It's associating femininity with negativity. Behind this lies the assumption that it is a bad thing to be feminine, to be a woman.

If a male athlete is called girly or a pussy, that is not a derogatory slur towards women, it is simply a derogatory slur directed at the male athlete.Does this work the same way with racial comments? If someone is compared to a stereotypical portrayal of an ethnic group rather than a stereotypical woman, is that not a racist as fuck comment?

But the thing is, non-Native American sports fans who use the term redskin to refer to their favorite sports franchise are not being racist.No, the thing is the Redskins should probably not be called the Redskins because it is a racial slur. That's the thing.

The Garbage Disposal Unit

14th September 2013, 07:48

No, the thing is the Redskins should probably not be called the Redskins because it is a racial slur. That's the thing.

Plus, it's not just the name! It's also the stereotypical logo, and the mythologizing of indigenous peoples that erases their real existence.

Consider - "Black" is not a racial slur - but if there were a Baseball team called "The Portland Blacks" and their logo were a picture of a dude with grills and a handgun in a basketball jersey, it wouldn't be so hard to see why it's messed up, right?

The reason we can look at a team called the "Redskins" and not see this is because, well, genocide.

Os Cangaceiros

14th September 2013, 07:58

At least the Redskins logo isn't quite as ridiculous as the Cleveland Indians, though...

http://www.abbeyrosekudrin.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Indians-Logo.gif

Quail

14th September 2013, 14:13

Like I said, women technically are physically weaker then men on average. It's a common stereotype that males are expected to be good at sports, whereas women don't necessarily have that expectation. If a male athlete is called girly or a pussy, that is not a derogatory slur towards women, it is simply a derogatory slur directed at the male athlete. Now when it comes to mental toughness, that's where I believe the sexes are equal. And who knows, mental toughness may in fact be more important than physical strength or physical toughness.
The fact that "girly" is an insult is very telling - it implies that it's bad to be female, that women aren't good at sports, etc. How can you not understand why that is sexist?

But the thing is, non-Native American sports fans who use the term redskin to refer to their favorite sports franchise are not being racist. There are far more important examples of racism to be worrying about, such as what's going on in Greece.
They might not have the intention of being racist, but redskin is still a racial slur and I just don't see how it can ever be acceptable to use racial slurs in casual conversation. In the town where I grew up some people would say, "Let's go get some food from the chinky" - do you think that kind of thing is acceptable? I don't, and I call people out on stuff like that.

Very well, but your opinion is not necessarily better than mine, nor is mine necessarily better than yours. Let's just end this debate and agree that there are more important examples of racism and sexism to be worrying about.
Not all opinions are equally valid. Also, language may not be the biggest issue of sexism or racism, but it is important. If we all were to freely use sexist and racist slurs we would alienate women and people who aren't white from the communist movement. I think that a) that would be a great loss of ideas and perspectives and b) a group of white men who are happy to use sexist and racist language are in no position to create a society where discrimination doesn't exist.

the debater

14th September 2013, 17:36

. Behind this lies the assumption that it is a bad thing to be feminine, to be a woman.

To be more specific, the assumption is not that it is a bad thing to be feminine, but rather, that it's a bad thing for a male to be feminine when it comes to sports. If a female isn't good at sports, she's not going to get called weak or cowardly. If a male is bad at sports, then there's a higher chance of him being called weak or cowardly.

No, the thing is the Redskins should probably not be called the Redskins because it is a racial slur. That's the thing.

The thing is today, redskin is not a derogatory term for the vastly most part. There are far more important issues to be worrying about rather than sports team names and mascots. Let's focus on real racial and ethnic issues, not trivial ones.

The fact that "girly" is an insult is very telling - it implies that it's bad to be female, that women aren't good at sports, etc. How can you not understand why that is sexist?

It's okay for women to not be good at sports. If a man isn't good at sports, that's where we have problems in our society.

Not all opinions are equally valid. Also, language may not be the biggest issue of sexism or racism, but it is important. If we all were to freely use sexist and racist slurs we would alienate women and people who aren't white from the communist movement. I think that a) that would be a great loss of ideas and perspectives and b) a group of white men who are happy to use sexist and racist language are in no position to create a society where discrimination doesn't exist.

What about non-whites and feminists who don't believe in getting too easily offended? Wouldn't having an ultra-PC approach to leftist ideology turn away those people? Likewise, in case you were implying that I was a white man, I'm actually mixed. If you weren't implying that I was a white man, then never mind.

Quail

14th September 2013, 18:17

It's okay for women to not be good at sports. If a man isn't good at sports, that's where we have problems in our society.

Those poor men. Yes, patriarchal gender roles harm everyone, but if anything what you've just said reinforces my point. It's okay for women not to be good at sports because it's assumed that women are weak and bad at sports. It's only an insult to be called something feminine because there are negative connotations attached to femininity.

What about non-whites and feminists who don't believe in getting too easily offended? Wouldn't having an ultra-PC approach to leftist ideology turn away those people? Likewise, in case you were implying that I was a white man, I'm actually mixed. If you weren't implying that I was a white man, then never mind.
The thing is, a lot of women and non-white people are offended and alienated by sexist/racist slurs. So if you want to build a mass movement, why would you deliberately alienate people? The way I see it, it's really fucking easy not to use sexist/racist slurs in everyday conversation, so why bother doing it when it is not only "offensive" but actively reinforces and legitimises sexism and racism.

I wasn't implying you were a white man, but a movement which comes across as actively hostile to women and people who aren't white isn't going to end up being very diverse, in which case it won't be able to take the specific needs of marginalised groups into account and so will further exclude those people.

But again, this has become all about people being "over-sensitive" and "easily offended" instead of the real issue, which is the way that language can reinforce sexism/racism/etc. It's really just a way of silencing people.

Art Vandelay

14th September 2013, 18:19

Yikes page 6 and it looks the same as page 2 when I lost patience and stopped posting; it would appear our OP has found a kindered spirit. Look I dont understand what is so hard to understand about the concept that if we want to organize our class, as Marx put it, as 'a class for itself,' this necessarily entails organizing the struggle of oppressed groups into the class struggle. To do so, necessarily entails creating avenues and spaces where oppressed groups feel comfortable/capable of raising their desires/concerns. Inherent in that, is tailoring our language, so as not to be offensive. Seriously why is it that the first reaction people seem to have when called out, is to jump to defend their reactionary drivel, as opposed to showing a semblance of empathy and trying to understand why someone reacted the way they do. Also is it that much to ask to refrain from language others find offensive, whether or not you agree with their reasoning as to why they are offended, I dont know, just to be a decent human being? For all the white, first world, communist struggling with this concept, think of it as a small price to pay for hundreds of years of patriarchy/slavery/genocide/nonsense/etc.

Hit The North

14th September 2013, 18:23

To be more specific, the assumption is not that it is a bad thing to be feminine, but rather, that it's a bad thing for a male to be feminine when it comes to sports.

But the assumption is also that females are not good at sports as a matter of general fact.

If a female isn't good at sports, she's not going to get called weak or cowardly. If a male is bad at sports, then there's a higher chance of him being called weak or cowardly.
So now you've unpacked the deeper connotations of the term for yourself: you have described an aspect of a sexist culture - the assumption that it is abnormal for females to excel at sport and normal for males to excel.

What about non-whites and feminists who don't believe in getting too easily offended? Wouldn't having an ultra-PC approach to leftist ideology turn away those people? But these people are unlikely to come on the site slinging racial and sexist epithets around. But if they did and then failed to respond to reasonable argument to tone down their language, then we would have to assume that either they are being principled to the point of idiocy, or that they were insincere in their politics and likely here just to troll our community.

Again, it is not a case of being "ultra-PC", it is about creating a suitable community-standard of public expression that reflects our political values and ambitions.

Art Vandelay

14th September 2013, 18:24

What about non-whites and feminists who don't believe in getting too easily offended? Wouldn't having an ultra-PC approach to leftist ideology turn away those people? Likewise, in case you were implying that I was a white man, I'm actually mixed. If you weren't implying that I was a white man, then never mind.

This is rich. Let me respond on behalf of everyone here with the capability of stringing a few brain cells together to engage in critical thinking, we'll keep the oppressed minorites and tell the people who insist on using racist/sexist/homophobic slurs, to not let the door hit them on their way out.

#FF0000

14th September 2013, 23:15

What about non-whites and feminists who don't believe in getting too easily offended? Wouldn't having an ultra-PC approach to leftist ideology turn away those people? Likewise, in case you were implying that I was a white man, I'm actually mixed. If you weren't implying that I was a white man, then never mind.

It doesn't matter if they're not white or a self-described "feminist". If they're wrong, they are wrong. We talked about this already.

It's okay for women to not be good at sports. If a man isn't good at sports, that's where we have problems in our society.

Women aren't expected to be good at anything, though. Even if a woman is a dork with a degree in a STEM field, she's less likely to get a job than equally qualified dudes.

Le Socialiste

16th September 2013, 06:12

The thing is today, redskin is not a derogatory term for the vastly most part. There are far more important issues to be worrying about rather than sports team names and mascots. Let's focus on real racial and ethnic issues, not trivial ones.

Tell that to the people on the receiving end of the term, and who are actively fighting to have the team's name changed. In fact, just take Ray Halbritter's word for it (leader of the Oneida Nation):

"We have highest rates of infant mortality and suicide in the United States. Seven of the ten poorest counties in the country are Native American. They say having a team named after a slur is not harmful. Well, it is harmful. Language and symbolism are very important. People who are not on the receiving end of this, I can understand why they don't see it. They don't feel a connection because they are not the ones being harmed. That's why we're standing up. This is not just about having a politically correct way of speaking. We have children and we are saying enough is enough . . . It's about the self-esteem and self-perception of our kids. Our children are growing up with a NFL team saying this is what we are. It reminds me of Letter from a Birmingham Jail when Dr. Martin Luther King talks about what it does the first time a young Black man hears 'the n-word' or is denied entry into restaurant. It's about how our children will see themselves.

If Roger Goodell were in a room full of Native Americans, he would not say: 'Hello Redskins, nice to see you.' If Roger Goodell met my children he would not say, 'Nice to meet you little redskins.' So it stands to reason that if a term is not acceptable for casual conversation, it should not be marketed to America through a sports team."

http://www.thenation.com/blog/176156/oneida-nation-fights-change-name-washington-football-team#axzz2f0TQvJaV