i dunno, generally speaking, i subscribe to the Lenny Bruce school of thought on the subject of “bad” words.
on the other, i can’t help but be struck by the absurdity of Randall “taking back” the phrase “porch monkey” in Clerks 2…
[quote=“jhereg, post:12, topic:599”]i dunno, generally speaking, i subscribe to the Lenny Bruce school of thought on the subject of “bad” words.
on the other, i can’t help but be struck by the absurdity of Randall “taking back” the phrase “porch monkey” in Clerks 2…[/quote]
I hadn’t even heard the phrase “porch monkey” until Clerks 2. I guess if I’d heard it without context, I would have thought of it in the same way as “code monkey.” What made that gag in Clerks 2 funny was that Randall wasn’t black. A white person can’t “take back” an anti-black slur. But women can - and some have - taken back the word “bitch.” I like how some gay men use the word in an admiring and sometimes even affectionate way. We need more of that.
I need to? Really? Tell me how… I was so fed up I wasn’t aware of the possibility.
Yeah, that term is property of piskies!
I used to think that guy wasn’t funny, but that is funny. I suppose I would have said something to the effect of “Many of you struggle to survive while I live a life of excess! GLOAT mo’facker GLOAT!” and nobody would have laughed.
Reading over the post which sparked this thread I saw the word ‘emo’. I have my own bone to pick with the word emo, which being a recent label has not deviated much from it’s origin. It seems to me like some people get harsh on others for expressing their feelings. I grew up in this culture, I often felt like shit, I occasionally made that apparent - and I depised the ones who mocked me for it.
Well… looks like my soapbox is rests on the saddle of my high horse which stands on a rockingchair balanced on a highwire… not that I feel like apologizing…
Reading over the post which sparked this thread I saw the word 'emo'. I have my own bone to pick with the word emo, which being a recent label has not deviated much from it's origin. It seems to me like some people get harsh on others for expressing their feelings. I grew up in this culture, I often felt like shit, I occasionally made that apparent - and I depised the ones who mocked me for it.I think that was more self-deprecation than anything... I don't think the original poster really thinks expressing emotion is a bad thing (especially since one of the things he talked about was how much less emotion he was able to express recently), but was simply making fun of himself for writing such a long post. Although certainly I can't speak for him, that's how I interpreted it, anyway...
Concerning offensive terms, i find a lot of wisdom in examining the simplistic and twisted perspectives of Michael Scott on The Office.
In the episode “Gay Witch Hunt”, Michael Scott (the boss) calls his employee Oscar “faggy,” not knowing about Oscar’s homosexuality.
It may seem a little off-topic, but I present it in terms of thinking about offensive words and how we generally make a mess of using them.
[hr]
Michael Scott: I need to know who else is gay. I don’t want to offend anyone else.
Dwight Schrute: You could assume everyone is, and not say anything offensive.
Michael Scott: Yeah. I’m sure everyone would appreciate me treating them like they were gay.
Michael Scott: I call everybody faggy. Why would anyone find that offensive?
Toby (the HR guy): I think Oscar would like it if you just used “lame” or something.
Michael Scott: But that’s what faggy means!
Michael Scott: You don’t call retarded people retards. It’s bad taste. You call your friends retards when they are acting retarded. And I consider Oscar a friend.
Michael Scott: Did you know that gay used to mean happy? When I was growing up it meant “lame”. And now it means a man who makes love to other men. We’re all homos. Homo sapiens.
Michael Scott: I am just coming out myself. I am coming out hetero.
Michael Scott: I’m glad that today spurred social change. That’s part of my job as regional manager, but you know what even if it didn’t, at least we put this matter to bed. That’s what she said…or he said.
"Bitch" is, yes, a word for a female dog, but a breeding female dog. These nonhuman animals are obviously not really liking having sex when they don't want to, so, often times, they have to be "coerced", that is, impregnated against their will, raped, and, they are "difficult" (I would be too I would hope), so they get called "bitch" along with any "difficult" woman or "weak"/complaining man.not going to lie, in this context I'd take being called a bitch as a compliment. you might just want to change one of the words around to strong willed >>
(seriously)
I think it’s more important to have conversations and let people know how you feel, because then you are discussing contexts, not arrangements of letters.
I often remind people of the root of words like ‘gypped’, or that Dr. King more often than not referred to his people as Negroes.
conversations seem more valuable than definitions when dealing with with political and social ‘correctness’.
Here’s something that I don’t understand about those who aren’t willing to check their language.
When you use words that you know could offend someone, you alienate people. No amount of “reasoning” is going to un-alienate them, especially when they have already stated that they find those words offensive. Their feelings are their own and it’s not up to you to say how they should feel. Is it really that important to be able to do things “your way” - so much so that you’d prioritize it over your relationships with other people?
What’s more difficult - checking your language, or undergoing the consequences of not checking it (i.e., losing group esteem)? What’s more in the spirit of rewilding - criticizing someone for expressing that they have taken offense (so that you can justify continuing to doing things your own way), OR acknowledging the relationship between the choices you make and the feelings of other people?
…And in this case, thereandback, who started this thread, did just that - (s)he (can’t remember the gender) let us know very clearly how (s)he felt when people use the word “bitch.” Given the history of the word (and anyone who has read this thread now knows its history), I think that refusing to refrain from using it shows a lack of serious commitment to gender equality.
Yes, words are arrangements of letters … arrangements which carry meaning. I guess you could choose to arrange letters in the shape of a wall separating you from other people or you could choose to arrange them in a more constructive way.
Am I to address your concerns personally, or allow what is said to be said? I wasn’t addressed personally, but I was quoted. Your words addressed my words, but they didn’t address me.
People often comment on the things they are most preoccupied with.
in my (seriously) post, I didn’t use the “B” word at all, to show I have a respectful side, as well as a raging coyote within me.
I would like to request you to ‘check’ the following suggestions and assumptions:
“aren’t willing to check ‘their’ language”
“you alienate people”
“you’d prioritize it(‘your way’) over relationships”
“lack of serious commitment to gender equality”
and of course
the ‘B’ word.
Respectfully,
Me
[quote=“SilverArrow, post:19, topic:599”]Here’s something that I don’t understand about those who aren’t willing to check their language.
When you use words that you know could offend someone, you alienate people. No amount of “reasoning” is going to un-alienate them, especially when they have already stated that they find those words offensive. Their feelings are their own and it’s not up to you to say how they should feel. Is it really that important to be able to do things “your way” - so much so that you’d prioritize it over your relationships with other people?
What’s more difficult - checking your language, or undergoing the consequences of not checking it (i.e., losing group esteem)? What’s more in the spirit of rewilding - criticizing someone for expressing that they have taken offense (so that you can justify continuing to doing things your own way), OR acknowledging the relationship between the choices you make and the feelings of other people?
…And in this case, thereandback, who started this thread, did just that - (s)he (can’t remember the gender) let us know very clearly how (s)he felt when people use the word “bitch.” Given the history of the word (and anyone who has read this thread now knows its history), I think that refusing to refrain from using it shows a lack of serious commitment to gender equality.
Yes, words are arrangements of letters … arrangements which carry meaning. I guess you could choose to arrange letters in the shape of a wall separating you from other people or you could choose to arrange them in a more constructive way.[/quote]
SilverArrow,
Hm…may I ask you who…'cause this sure sounds like unsolicited advice aimed at the whole community and assuming a lot. Do you see what I mean?
I don’t know, to me the way you (Silver Arrow and not to single you out, this goes out to all you you-ers, ha ha, or should I say ‘us’ you-ers; unspecified ‘you’ users) use ‘you’ a lot in this last post makes me wunder if you have or haven’t spent some time acknowledging any of the notices our moderators posted on moving around using unsolicited advice and/or abandoning this kind of advice altogether for at least on this forum, and how the moderators also ask if someone perfers spreading unsolicited advice on forums we ask please at least leave this forum free of such advice?
most likely she didn’t notice it but it is a good note to mention, maybe silverArrow you could tell us about your experience that led you to that. 
Also I wonder how do you know what words offend someone, if you’re not intentionally trying to offend?
semi-idle curiousity…
who finds this book title offensive?
if I took offense at every instance in our pop culture where someone treats us in a lame way, with action, words, or ideas, I’d lose my mind!
This thread has started to grind on my nerves.
Let me tell a little bit of my story here, as it pertains to rewild.info.
I do moderator work here with this attitude: whatever environment I help create, will draw like to like.
If I create an environment of rules, as personal power-trips where my word comes down as law, then I’ll start attracting folks who want that.
I don’t like those people (sorry to ‘those people’, but I don’t. your kind leaves me with the blahs). I like those-who-rewild - folks who question, stand up for their inner nature (in a tao-of-pooh kind of way), and who innovate without regard to conventional cultural concepts of risk. In other words, you guys.
I know, of course, this implies a possibly bumpy ride here - heck, why not scream and poop and rub dirt in each other’s hair, doesn’t that ‘innovate without regard to conventional yadda yadda’?
So how to temper it? For me, it feels really simple. We all know what makes sense to each one of us, i.e. to ME. To all us ME’s here.
Let’s assume, as questioning beings with varying and unique inner natures (and truths), that different things make sense to each one of us. Some people will have triggers with certain words, with certain topics. Some people will feel constrained by certain guidelines, or certain notions of ‘how to discuss’ things.
Rewilding means honoring all of these together, doesn’t it? How do we do that?
Understanding, for me as a moderator, that if I don’t honor all these things together, someone will start their own rewild.info. A better one. They’ll probably even call it ‘rewilding.info’ too. Or maybe ‘rewildingrox.org’, or ‘borntorewild.net’, or something really cool like that.
I don’t have any power here except to make honey that will attract the bees I care about. I have to keep this place sweet.
This thread tastes a little sour in my mouth.
For me, my personal algorithm for useful conversation here goes ‘tell your story, ask a question, or post somewhere else appropriate to what you want to say different’. I encourage this because I think it will tend to create what I want here. However, I could use this as a bludgeon, just like the Founding Fathers used the Iroquois Great Law of Peace to create the beast known as the US Constitution, to beat people over their head with.
I only have to leave out the Peace part.
In our context, I like to call this ‘generous interpretation’. In what way would what the other person has to say, make sense? What most positive and genuine meaning can one reasonably read into another’s email? And, do I have an investment in other people adjudicating me as ‘Right’, as opposed to ‘Wrong’?
Perhaps the guideline I encourage needs an extra bit? ‘Tell a story, ask a question, and read posts assuming the most positive interpretation.’
For me, what George Carlin or Lenny Bruce, or any other heroes of mine would think about the general tight-assed reaction to words like ‘bitch’, ‘fuck’, etc., seems irrelevant to the person I have right in front of me, looking for community, and having a story to tell. I want to know: what can I do to welcome them, to create a safe enough space to hear their story, a story that will surely show me something unlooked for and unique about rewilding? Yeah, fuck the system…but not this person sitting right here, in front of me. Systems suck. People have hearts that beat.
You’ll notice, surely, that I don’t type platitudes and roll over for folks for just anything. But if I can get to a place of sincerity, I’ll do what it takes to make that happen. And if that means not saying my favorite swear words, who cares?
My friend Derrick won’t go near alcohol. It freaks him out. Well shit, get over it, Derrick, right? I mean, native peoples brewed herbal wine and beers all round the world. Alcohol has a long and distinguished history. Hill peoples in the US made it to keep their close-to-the-land culture intact. Alcohol rox!
Unless of course, I ask Derrick why he can’t handle the smell of alcohol. And I hear his childhood stories of abuse at the hand of a drunken father. Suddenly my lucid and correct critique of those who have a problem with alcohol seems like a bunch of bullshit. Or rather, I can ‘BE’ right, or I can have a friend. I can show off my Ph.D. in the history of alcohol (or the use of the word ‘bitch’, or any other thing), or I can have community (yes, filled with people who have irrational hang-ups, moodiness, cry at inappropriate times, etc. i.e., real people.). We don’t know before hand what will touch someone off - we can only respond afterwards with empathy and friendship (if we value these things).
NOBODY HERE CAN TELL YOU HOW TO LIVE YOUR LIFE, OR DO YOUR OWN REWILDING.
But when we come together, with all our foibles and excellences, we need help to share our we do our own rewilding. So guidelines pop up, and I make sure to stress them often: tell your story, ask a question (or make a request), and interpret generously with lots of empathy.
And don’t forget to ask for help if you need it, from anybody!
(Note: simulpost w/ Willem.)
That’s why I’ve given up on pop culture.
Sometimes you don’t know. Then it’s up to other people to let you know how you might come off by casually using this word or that. After you understand how damaging a word can be to levels of trust and conviviality within your community, THEN you make a decision: “Will I continue to perpetuate a divisive atmosphere of hate, and refuse to acknowledge the effects of my choices? Or will I set aside my ego, admit that in the past I was (however unwittingly) damaging my community, and change my future behavior?”
No personal experiences come to mind. It’s just common sense to me.
If you saw a photograph of people starving in a famine, it would take a very small leap of the imagination to understand that they need nourishment. Common sense, right?
Likewise, when someone enlightens me as to the inherent hostility of a word, I can understand that it’s offensive. I don’t have to be on the receiving end of the offense to understand that, just as I don’t need to actually be in a situation where I’m starving to understand what starving people need. It only takes empathy and a small leap of the imagination. So it’s common sense.
[quote=“Neighbor Scout, post:21, topic:599”]SilverArrow,
Hm…may I ask you who…'cause this sure sounds like unsolicited advice aimed at the whole community and assuming a lot. Do you see what I mean?
I don’t know, to me the way you (Silver Arrow and not to single you out, this goes out to all you you-ers, ha ha, or should I say ‘us’ you-ers; unspecified ‘you’ users) use ‘you’ a lot in this last post makes me wunder if you have or haven’t spent some time acknowledging any of the notices our moderators posted on moving around using unsolicited advice and/or abandoning this kind of advice altogether for at least on this forum, and how the moderators also ask if someone perfers spreading unsolicited advice on forums we ask please at least leave this forum free of such advice?[/quote]
NeighborScout … surely you have been in a situation in which somebody says, to a group, something like this: “You know how when you have a really realistic and mundane dream, you believe that it actually happened the next day?”
It’s called the universal “you” and it doesn’t address anyone in particular. That’s the “you” I was using.
Secondly, NeighborScout, what you want to see as “unsolicited advice” may just be conclusions I’ve made from my own observations of group dynamics – what does, and what doesn’t, contribute to community health. In my post, I’m not demanding or even asking that other people do anything … just letting everyone know where their responsibility lies and what their choices mean within the context of a community, especially an online community like this one. If you (universal you) do or don’t want to be part of a functioning community, then that’s your choice…
Lastly, Tony: the universal “you” in my post was meant for anyone who has read what thereandback (and others) had to say about the offense inherent to the word AND who still refuses to acknowledge that the word is damaging. I know many people whose arrogance gets in the way of their own personal growth as well as getting in the way of social relationships. I was sensing some of that throughout the entire thread, and I wanted to address it, to clue people in as to why indeed they need to be responsible with language.
The last part of my post is a response to the idea that you expressed, not to you.
It seems to me that those who are treating this so lightly or putting it off as if it were a joke have likely never significantly suffered because of the actions and effects of those who sincerely use language like this to enforce their own crushing ideas and culture. I don’t know all the ways that could be possible, but I think some are a lack of empathy possibly combined with entirely self-serving and narcissistic thinking, a life removed and or sheltered from the worst of all of this (I expect the place I live has it a bit worse than others), or a life as part of the previously mentioned crushing culture. I wish I could be more explicit but I don’t feel comfortable enough for that. At least there are those like Willem who actually try to understand.
out of considerably less idle curiousity, is thereandback (the original poster) following this thread?
Silver arrow, you’re fabulous. Everyone is in there own way, but your posts here have been a pleasure to read. Thank you.
I’m wondering the same thing!
TrollSplinter, thanks, all I have to say in defense of fabulousness is that I blame it on the damn herons. And the pike and the bluegills and the frogs and the lake, and the sun, and the moon, both of which are reflected in the fucking lake. Blame them.
I would love for someone more constructive than I to start a conversation about the use of the impersonal ‘you’.
I still maintain that you cannot infer things like a lack of commitment to gender equanimity or any other deeply held belief by the symbols of language. Symbols are cues, they don’t tell the whole story.