Split Thread Issues around language and offense, with reference to transgenderism.

[wareyin]

Things get really tough when you have to start making definitions and trying to figure out which one is the right one. How do you define words like "offensive" and "defective"? We should start with something easier.

Like -- "girl". (grrr. Can't find "duck" smiley.)

I see what you did there.

 

[Belz...]

And this is why this argument has gone on for so long. You need basic, standard use of language explained to you, and you revert back to already debunked claims (argument based on emotion) after enough pages have passed.

I think it's obvious to all that you wish to use emotionally charged language in spite of, or because of, the emotional responses that language causes.

You don't get to dodge my request for you to demonstrate your claim re: the 'emotional charge' of the terms I use, and still make the claim. It seems now that you know that you can't demonstrate it, which is why you're trying to shift some sort of blame onto me, namely that I want to offend people with these words.

I also love the use of the words "obvious to all" above, which translates as "my opinon" -- your opinion, which you are trying to project onto others as some sort of appeal to popular vote. This entire discussion is based on your personal perspective of what's offensive or not, and whether people should use those words.

 

[wareyin]

You don't get to dodge my request for you to demonstrate your claim re: the 'emotional charge' of the terms I use, and still make the claim. It seems now that you know that you can't demonstrate it, which is why you're trying to shift some sort of blame onto me, namely that I want to offend people with these words.

I also love the use of the words "obvious to all" above, which translates as "my opinon" -- your opinion, which you are trying to project onto others as some sort of appeal to popular vote. This entire discussion is based on your personal perspective of what's offensive or not, and whether people should use those words.

Nope.

You know, in this thread we do have 2 different ways of handling the situation to compare. One situation: AdamSK shortens a your name, and a couple of other posters adopt that shorthand. You claim you don't like it, so everybody who used it immediately stops.
The second situation: Argumemnon uses emotionally charged language; luchog, wareyin, TomB, and others all tell him it is offensive, or not appropriate, or various words to that effect. The response? A demand for proof that it is offensive.

Which way of handling this situation had a happier outcome?

 

[AdamSK]

You know, in this thread we do have 2 different ways of handling the situation to compare. One situation: AdamSK shortens a your name, and a couple of other posters adopt that shorthand. You claims you don't like it, so everybody who used it immediately stops.

Note what did not happen.

1) I was not called a bigot.

2) Argumemnon did not claim that my use of shorthand was offensive, marginalizing, or insulting anyone.

3) Nobody impugned my motives or implied I was choosing my language in bad faith.

I presume that if someone had told Argumemnon that his terminology was upsetting them, personally, and would he please use a different term, he likely would have complied. That is not what happened, is it?

 

[Belz...]

Nope.

You know, in this thread we do have 2 different ways of handling the situation to compare. One situation: AdamSK shortens a your name, and a couple of other posters adopt that shorthand. You claim you don't like it, so everybody who used it immediately stops.
The second situation: Argumemnon uses emotionally charged language; luchog, wareyin, TomB, and others all tell him it is offensive, or not appropriate, or various words to that effect. The response? A demand for proof that it is offensive.

Which way of handling this situation had a happier outcome?

Two situations that have little to do with one another: in one case, I personally said, not even requested, that 'Arg' was weird. That's it. Not offensive. Not bothering. Just weird. I don't care if people comply. In the second situation, no one here has claimed that it was offensive to them. The only claim made was that it's theoretically offensive, without any sort of demonstration that it is. We're supposed to accept it as dogma, even though there's no history behind the claim, contrary to, say, the n-word.

There is nothing but hot air on your side of the discussion.

 

[wareyin]

Two situations that have little to do with one another: in one case, I personally said, not even requested, that 'Arg' was weird. That's it. Not offensive. Not bothering. Just weird. I don't care if people comply. In the second situation, no one here has claimed that it was offensive to them. The only claim made was that it's theoretically offensive, without any sort of demonstration that it is. We're supposed to accept it as dogma, even though there's no history behind the claim, contrary to, say, the n-word.

There is nothing but hot air on your side of the discussion.

Are you really going to go with 'just because many people tell me a word is offensive, that doesn't make it offensive. I need proof'?

 

[AdamSK]

Are you really going to go with 'just because many people tell me a word is offensive, that doesn't make it offensive. I need proof'?

Are you really going to claim that we should categorize a discussion as marginalizing and bigoted because someone claims it's offensive without explanation or proof?

 

[wareyin]

Are you really going to claim that we should categorize a discussion as marginalizing and bigoted because someone claims it's offensive without explanation or proof?

"Someone" or "many people"? Because Argumemnon admitted it was "many people" already.


eta: and to claim, after pages and days of several people explaining, that there has been no explanation? Ridiculous

 

[AdamSK]

"Someone" or "many people"? Because Argumemnon admitted it was "many people" already.

Are you really going to claim that we should categorize a discussion as marginalizing and bigoted because more than one but fewer than ten individuals claim it's offensive without explanation or proof?

 

[xjx388]

Are you really going to claim that we should categorize a discussion as marginalizing and bigoted because more than one but fewer than ten individuals claim it's offensive without explanation or proof?

Not only that: they claim its offensive while stating that they were not personally offended nor offering any evidence of anyone anywhere actually being offended. This whole side track is just ridiculous.

 

[wareyin]

Are you really going to claim that we should categorize a discussion as marginalizing and bigoted because more than one but fewer than ten individuals claim it's offensive without explanation or proof?

First, you've been given several explanations already. Second, for someone who was whining this morning about wanting to ignore this conversation, extending it is an odd act to take. Third, since you and Argumemnon are just going to keep on pretending that even though a significant percentage of participants in a discussion tell you something is offensive, you can just decide it isn't, here are some proofs that the word "defect", and it's adjective form "defective" have a long history of being offensive:

de·fect (dē'fekt), Negative or pejorative connotations of this word may render it offensive in some contexts.
An imperfection, malformation, dysfunction, or absence; an attribute of quality, in contrast with deficiency, which is an attribute of quantity.

Defective: 2 (also mentally defective) dated or offensive Having mental disabilities.

21.4% of the U.S. nationally representative 2007 HealthStyles survey find the term "birth defects" offensive.

The American Psychological Association describes the phrase "defective child" as problematic.

Is this enough?

 

[wareyin]

Not only that: they claim its offensive while stating that they were not personally offended nor offering any evidence of anyone anywhere actually being offended. This whole side track is just ridiculous.

Wrong on so many levels. Or are you in the camp of 'calling someone an uppity negro isn't offensive unless the person who is so called gets offended'?

 

[xjx388]

First, you've been given several explanations already. Second, for someone who was whining this morning about wanting to ignore this conversation, extending it is an odd act to take. Third, since you and Argumemnon are just going to keep on pretending that even though a significant percentage of participants in a discussion tell you something is offensive, you can just decide it isn't, here are some proofs that the word "defect", and it's adjective form "defective" have a long history of being offensive:

de·fect (dē'fekt), Negative or pejorative connotations of this word may render it offensive in some contexts.
An imperfection, malformation, dysfunction, or absence; an attribute of quality, in contrast with deficiency, which is an attribute of quantity.

Defective: 2 (also mentally defective) dated or offensive Having mental disabilities.

21.4% of the U.S. nationally representative 2007 HealthStyles survey find the term "birth defects" offensive.

The American Psychological Association describes the phrase "defective child" as problematic.

Is this enough?

Well, we are already well down this rabbit hole . . .

Nope, not enough. "In some contexts," implies that in others it's not offensive. 78.6% don't find "birth defects" offensive. I agree that "defective child" is problematic in that it implies the child is defective. But saying that transgenderism may be the result of a defective gene is perfectly acceptable whereas saying that a transgendered person is a defective person is not. Surely you can see the difference.

 

[xjx388]

Wrong on so many levels. Or are you in the camp of 'calling someone an uppity negro isn't offensive unless the person who is so called gets offended'?

There is no context in which I could call anyone "uppity" without it being somewhat offensive. This is because the word "uppity" exclusively applies to a negative state of being of a person. "Uppity," is never a compliment nor can it be applied to things like genes.

"A defective gene," is a perfectly apt description of the underlying causes of many things and carries no negative connotations against the person carrying the gene.

 

[wareyin]

Well, we are already well down this rabbit hole . . .

Nope, not enough. "In some contexts," implies that in others it's not offensive.

The challenge was to explain or provide proof that this language is offensive. Now you want proof that it's offensive in all cases, which was never the claim? Why?

78.6% don't find "birth defects" offensive.

1 in 5 Americans tells you it's offensive, but that's not enough proof that it's offensive? You implied earlier that there was a need (for some reason) to find "evidence of anyone anywhere actually being offended", yet now 21.4% of Americans isn't enough?

I agree that "defective child" is problematic in that it implies the child is defective. But saying that transgenderism may be the result of a defective gene is perfectly acceptable whereas saying that a transgendered person is a defective person is not. Surely you can see the difference.

And surely you can see that using problematic language like "defective", even if you try to put one layer in between, still carries negative connotations, or be offensive.

 

[wareyin]

There is no context in which I could call anyone "uppity" without it being somewhat offensive. This is because the word "uppity" exclusively applies to a negative state of being of a person. "Uppity," is never a compliment nor can it be applied to things like genes.

Good thing "defect" is such a compliment, then! Oh, wait...

"A defective gene," is a perfectly apt description of the underlying causes of many things and carries no negative connotations against the person carrying the gene.

Maybe in a dry, scientific only conversation, but this ain't that.

 

[xjx388]

The challenge was to explain or provide proof that this language is offensive. Now you want proof that it's offensive in all cases, which was never the claim? Why?

Huh? All I am saying is that "defect" is not necessarily offensive in every context and that Argumemnon's use would not be considered offensive.

1 in 5 Americans tells you it's offensive, but that's not enough proof that it's offensive? You implied earlier that there was a need (for some reason) to find "evidence of anyone anywhere actually being offended", yet now 21.4% of Americans isn't enough?

If I am having a conversation about with a group of people who don't find the term "birth defects" offensive, wouldn't it be absurd for one of them to argue with me about how some other people might find it offensive in other contexts?

Here we have a bunch of people who have admitted that they were not offended by the term "genetic defect," yet have argued for pages that it is indeed offensive to some nebulous group of people. Absurd.

And surely you can see that using problematic language like "defective", even if you try to put one layer in between, still carries negative connotations, or be offensive.

Not if we say, "This kid has a defective gene which has caused his Down's Syndrome." That is not offensive to anyone but the most sensitive of individuals.

Good thing "defect" is such a compliment, then! Oh, wait...

It is impossible to compliment or insult a gene.

Maybe in a dry, scientific only conversation, but this ain't that.

Neither is it a personal conversation about any particular person and Argumemnon was attempting to look at the issue in a scientific way. The term was innocuous in that context.

 

[Shadowdweller]

I tend toward the opinion there are better ways to promote Transgender rights / acceptance / tolerance / nondiscrimination than engaging in semantic arguments.

 

[wareyin]

Huh? All I am saying is that "defect" is not necessarily offensive in every context and that Argumemnon's use would not be considered offensive.

Nobody claimed "defect" is necessarily offensive in every context. I've personally stated that in an academic or scientific context it isn't. The problem is that this is not that dry academic discussion, therefore it isn't appropriate here, as many have pointed out.

If I am having a conversation about with a group of people who don't find the term "birth defects" offensive, wouldn't it be absurd for one of them to argue with me about how some other people might find it offensive in other contexts?

Here we have a bunch of people who have admitted that they were not offended by the term "genetic defect," yet have argued for pages that it is indeed offensive to some nebulous group of people. Absurd.

You know what's absurd? Admitting that words (like uppity) can be offensive even if the people involved aren't personally offended, then turning around and pretending that words are only offensive if the people involved admit to being personally offended.

Not if we say, "This kid has a defective gene which has caused his Down's Syndrome." That is not offensive to anyone but the most sensitive of individuals.

It is impossible to compliment or insult a gene.

It is possible to insult the person carrying those genes.

Neither is it a personal conversation about any particular person and Argumemnon was attempting to look at the issue in a scientific way. The term was innocuous in that context.

This is the Social Issues & Current Events forum, and pretending that a poster's words shouldn't be looked at in a social issue connotation but only a scientific setting isn't going to fly. Especially when the social connotations of those word choices are pointed out, and the response is to tell everyone else to grow a thicker skin.

 

[xjx388]

Nobody claimed "defect" is necessarily offensive in every context. I've personally stated that in an academic or scientific context it isn't. The problem is that this is not that dry academic discussion, therefore it isn't appropriate here, as many have pointed out.



You know what's absurd? Admitting that words (like uppity) can be offensive even if the people involved aren't personally offended, then turning around and pretending that words are only offensive if the people involved admit to being personally offended.



It is possible to insult the person carrying those genes.



This is the Social Issues & Current Events forum, and pretending that a poster's words shouldn't be looked at in a social issue connotation but only a scientific setting isn't going to fly. Especially when the social connotations of those word choices are pointed out, and the response is to tell everyone else to grow a thicker skin.

All I can say is that I totally disagree with you. As I said before, this is a skeptic board first and foremost and that should be the overarching context. No matter the subject, most people here, I presume, are interested in a skeptical discussion which will necessarily involves a discussion of scientific and academic points. If we are just going to point fingers at each other for every perceived offense, then I submit that a skeptical discussion is well-nigh impossible.