Over 93% of BLM demonstrations are non-violent (1 Viewer)

cuddlemonkey

Well-known monkey
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
1,405
Reaction score
1,787
Offline
Why is it on me to alter my speech just because someone is so ill adjusted to survive in the real world especially as something so stupid as taking offense to the words 'female' and 'male' that was up until 5 mins ago was a completely benign word?

No need to repost whoever's post, they are ignore for a reason.

Because I assume you aren't an butt crevasse, that's why. If the choice is to make someone's day a little better by doing one small thing that costs you nothing or to make a big deal about it, the non-butt crevasse thing to do is to make the tiny little change.

Yet... here you are arguing. And not just arguing, but deciding that someone else giving a valid reason to maybe make that tiny change isn't worth 60 seconds of your day. Why are you so dead set against outside opinions and thoughts?
 

TaylorB

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 20, 2019
Messages
432
Reaction score
1,783
Age
35
Location
Louisiana
Offline
Why is it on me to alter my speech just because someone is so ill adjusted to survive in the real world especially as something so stupid as taking offense to the words 'female' and 'male' that was up until 5 mins ago was a completely benign word?

No need to repost whoever's post, they are ignore for a reason.
Sometimes I think the analysis isn't just whether a word choice consciously offends someone, but also whether it has a reductive effect that impacts perceptions of anyone who reads / hears the word, often subconsciously. I think about this all the time when trying to persuade judges and juries -- I'm trying to show someone suffered a "traumatic brain injury"; defense lawyer would rather say they "got their bell rung." Those phrases can describe the exact same event, but the perception of each is completely different. I know this analogy isn't perfect, but I think even smaller / subtler distinctions can be a big deal in how they influence perception. The jury probably would never notice the difference, or be offended by one or the other, but we often spend a great deal of energy fighting over vernacular because we think it matters, whether the listeners realize it or not.

I don't think I'd ever consciously considered that "female" can be reductive when used in the wrong context, but having read Brandon's explanation, I get why the distinction matters in terms of perception. We can, and should, be better about using more accurate terms going forward, especially when the distinction and why it matters is laid out in clear terms. It's not that burdensome to understand the distinction and make a minor adjustment, and it's a gesture that demonstrates a level of respect that can often be absent from our dialogue.
 

Farb

Mostly Peaceful Poster
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
1,798
Reaction score
1,082
Age
46
Location
Mobile
Offline
Because I assume you aren't an butt crevasse, that's why. If the choice is to make someone's day a little better by doing one small thing that costs you nothing or to make a big deal about it, the non-butt crevasse thing to do is to make the tiny little change.

Yet... here you are arguing. And not just arguing, but deciding that someone else giving a valid reason to maybe make that tiny change isn't worth 60 seconds of your day. Why are you so dead set against outside opinions and thoughts?
Can the same not be said by the offended? Why can the person that is offended just carry on with their day and allow me to have a good day without being corrected on the use of a word that has no negative connotation at all? So who exactly making a big deal over a word? Is the offended being a butt crevasse by imposing how I should act or speech over something so insignificant as the word 'female'. Yes, they are.

Outside opinions and thoughts? These same thoughts that decided a few weeks ago that 'mother' is problematic because a dude in a dress might be offended by that term because that implies only females can give birth? Now 'female' is 'problematic'? Yeah, I not the one asking everyone else to change their values and behavior based on what exactly? Someone self entitled thought of being a victim? Nah. I won't be doing that.

female
noun
Definition of female
1a: a female person : a woman or a girl
b: an individual of the sex that is typically capable of bearing young or producing eggs
 
  • Like
Reactions: JLL

bdb13

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
1,049
Reaction score
1,794
Location
Pensacola, FL
Offline
Because I assume you aren't an butt crevasse, that's why. If the choice is to make someone's day a little better by doing one small thing that costs you nothing or to make a big deal about it, the non-butt crevasse thing to do is to make the tiny little change.

Yet... here you are arguing. And not just arguing, but deciding that someone else giving a valid reason to maybe make that tiny change isn't worth 60 seconds of your day. Why are you so dead set against outside opinions and thoughts?
It's really kind of up to us as individuals to make the determination on what's a reasonable thing to be offended by and what isn't with something like this right? We've all known that stuff like the N-word and racial epithets are bad and offensive, and I know that you could say "female" with a certain tone or in a certain way and it could be rightfully taken as an offense..

But if someone told me I had offended them during the course of normal a conversation because I referred to a woman as a female interchangeably instead of using woman/girl/ lady/whatever else.. I think I would have taken it as just that one person's hang up and not that the term itself is broadly offensive as I've never previously heard of this issue nor do I believe I've seen a woman react negatively toward the use of the word female when nothing else negative was meant or implied by it.

But to the idea that if something you say or do offends somebody you should just change what you're saying or doing... So if a Christian walks up to a Muslim acquaintance with a beard and says "that makes you look like a terrorist you need to shave that off I'm offended by it".. you're essentially saying that that Muslim should comply or you're going to carve out an exception and say the situation is different because the request by the Christian is ridiculous.

So I guess that would be what I was trying to say really, I don't want to genuinely offend anybody either who doesn't deserve it, but for Farb I can see why the female thing doesn't come off as a genuine or reasonable thing that he would see someone be offended by, that for him it would be like that Christian asking the Muslim to shave off the beard.

Anyway, whatever.
 
Last edited:

B4YOU

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 29, 2019
Messages
413
Reaction score
663
Age
41
Location
DC
Offline
You’ll note that animals can also be “females,” but they can’t be “women.”

I think the above sums it up well. @Farb

This conversations make me think of Quark and the Ferengi from Deep Space 9. They always drew it out, "The Feee-male" and it was definitely always derogatory and reductive.

I think there is a segment of the US population that mirrors the Ferengi, a very small population that has Vulcan-like standards, and a small majority just trying to be human.
 

cuddlemonkey

Well-known monkey
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
1,405
Reaction score
1,787
Offline
It's really kind of up to us as individuals to make the determination on what's a reasonable thing to be offended by and what isn't with something like this right? We've all known that stuff like the N-word and racial epithets are bad and offensive, and I know that you could say "female" with a certain tone or in a certain way and it could be rightfully taken as an offense..

But if someone told me I had offended them during the course of normal a conversation because I referred to a woman as a female interchangeably instead of using woman/girl/ lady/whatever else.. I think I would have taken it as just that one person's hang up and not that the term itself is broadly offensive as I've never previously heard of this issue nor do I believe I've seen a woman react negatively toward the use of the word female when nothing else negative was meant or implied by it.

But to the idea that if something you say or do offends somebody you should just change what you're saying or doing... So if a Christian walks up to a Muslim acquaintance with a beard and says "that makes you look like a terrorist you need to shave that off I'm offended by it".. you're essentially saying that that Muslim should comply or you're going to carve out an exception and say the situation is different because the request by the Christian is ridiculous.

So I guess that would be what I was trying to say really, I don't want to genuinely offend anybody either who doesn't deserve it, but for Farb I can see why the female thing doesn't come off as a genuine or reasonable thing that he would see someone be offended by, that for him it would be like that Christian asking the Muslim to shave off the beard.

Anyway, whatever.

That's not what I'm saying at all. My point towards Farb is that he says he sees no reason for it, yet a very good reason was articulated and he refuses to acknowledge it. It's not just the desire to not change, but the willful avoidance of the reasonable answer that was given. Farb has not approached this in good faith and that should be clear to all.

Also, there's a world of difference between someone being offended by the way a certain word is used and someone changing their own appearance because the small-minded idiot called them a terrorist.
 

cuddlemonkey

Well-known monkey
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
1,405
Reaction score
1,787
Offline
Can the same not be said by the offended? Why can the person that is offended just carry on with their day and allow me to have a good day without being corrected on the use of a word that has no negative connotation at all? So who exactly making a big deal over a word? Is the offended being a butt crevasse by imposing how I should act or speech over something so insignificant as the word 'female'. Yes, they are.

Outside opinions and thoughts? These same thoughts that decided a few weeks ago that 'mother' is problematic because a dude in a dress might be offended by that term because that implies only females can give birth? Now 'female' is 'problematic'? Yeah, I not the one asking everyone else to change their values and behavior based on what exactly? Someone self entitled thought of being a victim? Nah. I won't be doing that.

female
noun
Definition of female
1a: a female person : a woman or a girl
b: an individual of the sex that is typically capable of bearing young or producing eggs

Once more, someone articulated a perfectly reasonable way in which the word can have a negative connotation and you have made it clear that you don't want to hear it. Much like you are making clear that if someone tells you, "Hey, that word used in that context bothers me, could you please not use it that way", you would ignore them because how dare they upset you for pointing out calmly how you have upset them. Your feelings aren't the only ones that matter and if you can't take the mildest of criticism, that's nobody's fault but your own.

The only way people grow and learn is to listen to each other and try to empathize. That means listening to people's concerns. Dismissing them out of hand doesn't make you the offended party. It makes you a dick.
 

bdb13

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
1,049
Reaction score
1,794
Location
Pensacola, FL
Offline
That's not what I'm saying at all. My point towards Farb is that he says he sees no reason for it, yet a very good reason was articulated and he refuses to acknowledge it. It's not just the desire to not change, but the willful avoidance of the reasonable answer that was given. Farb has not approached this in good faith and that should be clear to all.

Also, there's a world of difference between someone being offended by the way a certain word is used and someone changing their own appearance because the small-minded idiot called them a terrorist.

It's a little different for sure, but was the first thing that popped in my head in regards to changing what you're doing because someone's offended by it.. I'm sure I come up with a more apples-to-apples scenario but it doesn't matter.

And maybe I'm wrong but in reality I think the majority of women out there would not be offended by the usage of the term female in normal conversation unless there was an inflection on the word or something that made it obvious it was being used to offend, (I'm possibly ignorant for thinking that but that's just been my experience with women as I'm sure I've used female interchangeably in conversation before absent any malice and it has never been a thing) while I'm certain that the vast majority of black people would be offended if I used the n-word in normal conversation in reference to a black person... So I think that's part of it as well for people who then go, "who out there is this actually offending?"

I can get the point that y'all are making and at the same time get that Farb's lived reality tells him that this is made up PC garbage by the libs... I get it,I don't think I'm able to bridge that gap though LOL.
 

Farb

Mostly Peaceful Poster
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
1,798
Reaction score
1,082
Age
46
Location
Mobile
Offline
Once more, someone articulated a perfectly reasonable way in which the word can have a negative connotation and you have made it clear that you don't want to hear it. Much like you are making clear that if someone tells you, "Hey, that word used in that context bothers me, could you please not use it that way", you would ignore them because how dare they upset you for pointing out calmly how you have upset them. Your feelings aren't the only ones that matter and if you can't take the mildest of criticism, that's nobody's fault but your own.

The only way people grow and learn is to listen to each other and try to empathize. That means listening to people's concerns. Dismissing them out of hand doesn't make you the offended party. It makes you a dick.
This is just silly. If someone is offended by the term 'female' then that is really on them and they should seek some type of help. How did they ever make it through a biology text book without counseling?

The 'articulate and perfectly reasonable way', I find still incorrect and silly so why would I agree with it?

Is the term 'male' offensive too, or are we only offended for the sake of 'birthing people'.

Also, this is a better discussion for the language thread.
 

cuddlemonkey

Well-known monkey
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
1,405
Reaction score
1,787
Offline
This is just silly. If someone is offended by the term 'female' then that is really on them and they should seek some type of help. How did they ever make it through a biology text book without counseling?

The 'articulate and perfectly reasonable way', I find still incorrect and silly so why would I agree with it?

Is the term 'male' offensive too, or are we only offended for the sake of 'birthing people'.

Also, this is a better discussion for the language thread.

Based on the things you have said, I was under the impression that you didn't read it. Am I mistaken in that assumption?
 

V Chip

Truth Addict
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
900
Reaction score
1,603
Age
53
Location
Outside Atlanta
Offline
Why is it on me to alter my speech just because someone is so ill adjusted to survive in the real world especially as something so stupid as taking offense to the words 'female' and 'male' that was up until 5 mins ago was a completely benign word?
There’s no way you’re actually misunderstanding the point. You’ve got to be trolling.
 

UncleTrvlingJim

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 8, 2018
Messages
1,147
Reaction score
2,628
Location
Virginia
Offline
Based on the things you have said, I was under the impression that you didn't read it. Am I mistaken in that assumption?

He has brandon on ignore, which is allowed by the forum.

I'm pretty sure @Farb doesn't care at this point, but generally when you refer to someone as the female, or the male, it's used as a clinical way that can often be intended to be dehumanizing. Reducing someone to merely their anatomical traits, versus the more common term of man or woman which conveys a sense of personhood, in general.

I can't think of a time I've referred to a woman as "the female", or a group of women as "females" outside of some sort of demographic trait. It might have happened, but it seems an odd choice. Like I've never referred to a man as "the male". But apparently some people do... so whatever.

I did a quick search of a few members posts to see if they've ever used the term "male" to refer to a single person or a group of people, and I can't find an example (it's only been used to talk about demographics not a specific person), but they have referred to people as the man or whatever. So, using the term "the male" or "the female", is probably a deliberate choice vs. "the man" or "the woman".

Too much trying to divine intent from a stranger on the internet..... not worth the trouble, IMO.
 
Last edited:

cuddlemonkey

Well-known monkey
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
1,405
Reaction score
1,787
Offline
He has brandon on ignore, which is allowed by the forum.

I'm pretty sure @Farb doesn't care at this point, but generally when you refer to someone as the female, or the male, it's used as a clinical way that can often be intended to be dehumanizing. Reducing someone to merely their anatomical traits, versus the more common term of man or woman which conveys a sense of personhood, in general.

I can't think of a time I've referred to a woman as "the female", or a group of women as "females" outside of some sort of demographic trait. It might have happened, but it seems an odd choice. Like I've never referred to a man as "the male". But apparently some people do... so whatever.

I did a quick search of a few members posts to see if they've ever used the term "male" to refer to a single person or a group of people, and I can't find an example (it's only been used to talk about demographics not a specific person), but they have referred to people as the man or whatever. So, using the term "the male" or "the female", is probably a deliberate choice vs. "the man" or "the woman".

Too much trying to divine intent from a stranger on the internet..... not worth the trouble, IMO.

Yep. I just wanted to highlight the fact that he dismissed an argument as "incorrect and silly" without actually reading it. Dismissed it while boasting about actively ignoring it, even.
 

bdb13

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
1,049
Reaction score
1,794
Location
Pensacola, FL
Offline
He has brandon on ignore, which is allowed by the forum.

I'm pretty sure @Farb doesn't care at this point, but generally when you refer to someone as the female, or the male, it's used as a clinical way that can often be intended to be dehumanizing. Reducing someone to merely their anatomical traits, versus the more common term of man or woman which conveys a sense of personhood, in general.

I can't think of a time I've referred to a woman as "the female", or a group of women as "females" outside of some sort of demographic trait. It might have happened, but it seems an odd choice. Like I've never referred to a man as "the male". But apparently some people do... so whatever.

I did a quick search of a few members posts to see if they've ever used the term "male" to refer to a single person or a group of people, and I can't find an example (it's only been used to talk about demographics not a specific person), but they have referred to people as the man or whatever. So, using the term "the male" or "the female", is probably a deliberate choice vs. "the man" or "the woman".
Maybe I'm thinking about it in a more clinical way because in my head I'm playing this out like I'm pointing out someone from across the road and I'm like "the female over there", or "the male over there".. doesn't seem odd to me like that.. I dunno.

I asked my wife about it and didn't know what she was going to say but she basically had the same point of view as me, said she thinks the female thing would only bother her if it was said by someone who knew her name and used "female" instead (but then that same thing would be true if they called her 'woman' in that scenario as well lol, so I don't think that was unique to the term female).

Anyways.. I'm going to scroll up to even remember what thread this is again, sorry for my contribution to that.
 

RobF

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
483
Reaction score
1,622
Location
Warrington, UK
Offline
And maybe I'm wrong but in reality I think the majority of women out there would not be offended by the usage of the term female in normal conversation unless there was an inflection on the word or something that made it obvious it was being used to offend
Thing is, 'in normal conversation' implies 'female' is being used in a normal context (like @UncleTrvlingJim described).

As with many terms, it's its usage outside its typical context that can be dubious; where it's being used instead of another, more common term, and where the switch is towards a more objectifying and/or reductive sense, or to a term with different, negative, connotations.

In normal conversation, when referring to crimes against women, the phrases "crimes against women", and "violence against women", are overwhelmingly the typical ones. As @UncleTrvlingJim and @brandon have both observed, 'female' tends to be used in a clinical, or biological sense; in this particular context, the much less common phrase "crimes against females" is mostly just used in a context of statistical analysis, where data sets are classified by male and female.

We tend to use 'women' rather than 'females' conversationally, because 'females' is a different term, used in that different context, and using it outside of that context can be dehumanising accordingly; as @brandon observed earlier, 'You’ll note that animals can also be “females,” but they can’t be “women.”'

In my experience, most conversations about this generally tend to break down accordingly:

"Hey, why would you use <word> in this context? It's pretty offensive."
"No, <word> isn't offensive, it's used all the time, like in this (different) context."

The context tends to be deliberately ignored by the accused, but it's the context that matters. We're not robots. Different words might have similar, or even essentially identical, meanings, or be used to refer to the same thing, but the context we associate with them can differ, and invoking the words invokes those contexts. Our choice of language can reveal our underlying thinking, or be used to frame a conversation accordingly (for example, if in a conversation about squirrels, one person calls them 'squirrels' and another calls them 'vermin', that gives you a pretty good idea of how the second person views squirrels and how they wish to frame the conversation).

And this does have bearing on this topic as well; the descriptive language choices relating to BLM are an essential part of the topic, from the crudely blunt ("peaceful" versus "violent", or "rioter" or even "thug" versus "protester") to the more subtle (consider where the term "force" is used and where the term "violence" is used, or think about "peaceful" versus "non-violent"). @RebSaint touched on this in the fourth post:

I don't post much anymore, but I just wanted to jot down a random collection of thoughts that have a lot to do with the current political climate and race relations. I figured this thread would be the best place.

Associating or connecting black protest with violence and/or criminality is nothing new to the right, and has been very much a part of the southern strategy, which is largely the reason we have Trump. Much of the right has doubled down on stoking white anger, fear, and loathing of minorities pointing out the perpetuation of institutionalized oppression in the present day. Painting BLM with the broadest "violent" and "radical" brush is reminiscent of Nixon supporters clamoring for "law and order" while ignoring the continuation of Jim Crow policies, practices, and institutionalized racism. In many ways, we're seeing history repeat itself and as usual, there will be many on the wrong "side" of history on lots of these issues.

The most ridiculous allegation I've seen is that BLM favors the destruction of the nuclear family because they support Marxism. Yes, this claim has historical dimensions going back to the proslavery argument before the Civil War.

The focus tends to be on whether the accusations made to associate or connect black protest with violence and/or criminality are false, or inaccurate, but beyond that, choice of language is also a crucial part of this.
 

bdb13

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
1,049
Reaction score
1,794
Location
Pensacola, FL
Offline
Thing is, 'in normal conversation' implies 'female' is being used in a normal context (like @UncleTrvlingJim described).

As with many terms, it's its usage outside its typical context that can be dubious; where it's being used instead of another, more common term, and where the switch is towards a more objectifying and/or reductive sense, or to a term with different, negative, connotations.

In normal conversation, when referring to crimes against women, the phrases "crimes against women", and "violence against women", are overwhelmingly the typical ones. As @UncleTrvlingJim and @brandon have both observed, 'female' tends to be used in a clinical, or biological sense; in this particular context, the much less common phrase "crimes against females" is mostly just used in a context of statistical analysis, where data sets are classified by male and female.

We tend to use 'women' rather than 'females' conversationally, because 'females' is a different term, used in that different context, and using it outside of that context can be dehumanising accordingly; as @brandon observed earlier, 'You’ll note that animals can also be “females,” but they can’t be “women.”'

In my experience, most conversations about this generally tend to break down accordingly:

"Hey, why would you use <word> in this context? It's pretty offensive."
"No, <word> isn't offensive, it's used all the time, like in this (different) context."

The context tends to be deliberately ignored by the accused, but it's the context that matters. We're not robots. Different words might have similar, or even essentially identical, meanings, or be used to refer to the same thing, but the context we associate with them can differ, and invoking the words invokes those contexts. Our choice of language can reveal our underlying thinking, or be used to frame a conversation accordingly (for example, if in a conversation about squirrels, one person calls them 'squirrels' and another calls them 'vermin', that gives you a pretty good idea of how the second person views squirrels and how they wish to frame the conversation).

And this does have bearing on this topic as well; the descriptive language choices relating to BLM are an essential part of the topic, from the crudely blunt ("peaceful" versus "violent", or "rioter" or even "thug" versus "protester") to the more subtle (consider where the term "force" is used and where the term "violence" is used, or think about "peaceful" versus "non-violent"). @RebSaint touched on this in the fourth post:



The focus tends to be on whether the accusations made to associate or connect black protest with violence and/or criminality are false, or inaccurate, but beyond that, choice of language is also a crucial part of this.
Good post, thanks. I get it.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Advertisement

General News Feed

Fact Checkers News Feed

Sponsored

Top Bottom