"First, my observation was based on the simple fact that the shrill and hysterical rantings of Darryl remind me of women going off the deep end - or PMS'ing or something. (Well, you asked.)"
I'm not questioning your observation. I'm just wondering why you're questioning someone's gender based on their temperament. Should he be concerned that he may not appear to conform to some masculine stereotype? Your comment seemed rather pointed for random observation.
"HUH? *scratches head*"
A helpful gesture. I was speculating that because you may not like the idea of losing your own sense of gender identity then you might have presumed the same of darryl and used that to try and belittle him.
The monkey island joke (which should still make some sense having not played the game), was a suggestion that he could use that as a basis of a comeback by attacking your own gender identity.
It's not a big deal; just, as you would say, a (less?) simple observation.
'You sound like a crazed, irate, jealous female who fits that expression, "hell hath no fury..." - sure you're a male "darryl"?'
That's an odd angle to take. Are you really so fond of the gender divide as to perpetuate such chauvinism? Or are you projecting your own fear of being different into an insult against darryl's presumed sense of masculinity?
If I may suggest a comeback for him: 'How appropriate. You fight like a guy.' (funnier if you've played Monkey Island).
"The best way to counter hate speech (which is almost always ignorance) is with more speech."
This. I'm probably amongst the most 'politically correct' of Techdirt regulars, but there is a hell of a line between objecting to something and banning it. I'll tell someone if they're being offensive, which I wouldn't be able to do if they weren't able to express themselves.
Because he physically harmed someone on the cheerleader team whereas she merely refused to cheer for someone on the basketball team. Technically by your logic he could have assaulted her on the pitch and stayed in the team as long as it didn't interfere with the game, whereas she could have worn the wrong colour socks in protest and been kicked out.
"That doesn't sound like an alleged assault. That sounds like a conviction."
To be fair, Lobo was referring to the rape accusation. Still, one would hope that if refusing to cheer would get a cheerleader kicked off then assaulting a cheerleader would get a player kicked off. I guess what happens on the field is more important to some people.
"He may indeed have raped her, but the charge he plead guilty to was not rape, but *misdemeanor* assault."
So, he gets to stay on the team despite admitting to assaulting a cheerleader, yet the cheerleader is kicked out for refusing to cheer him? I'm astounded that you cannot see how inconsistent that is. He was found guilty of a crime yet stays on the team, yet her objection to that isn't even protected by her first amendment rights and gets her kicked off despite no crime being committed. I guess he'd have to assault someone while playing to get kicked off the team.
"If she did not think his penalty was enough, she would have made other motions against him, such as convincing a majority of the cheerleading team to boycott the game or pushing for a harsher sentencing for the boy in court."
So, you have a problem with her choosing not to cheer for him but suggest that she gets everyone else not to cheer for anyone? That makes no sense.
"It wasn't as if part of the sentence was a restraining order against the boy that prevented one of them from attending the game. She did not fufill her duties and was dismissed by the club."
I wasn't aware that cheerleaders signed contracts or got paid. Regardless, you're again blaming her for not cheering despite previously suggesting that she get the whole team to boycott the game.
"Now, it might have been different if, as I said earlier, she had convinced a majority of the other cheerleaders to take a stand with her and boycott his team, but it was just her."
Why might it have been different? You left that part out.
"Finally, if she had won the case, it would have opened up serious legal loopholes in employment and contract law."
Again, do cheerleaders seriously sign employment contracts? I thought it was a school activity (and a notoriously ill regulated one at that).
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Think about what you're saying...
"If I want to call myself a freetard or a fag or a nigger I bloody well will. And if I want to call you one, I bloody well will too - you don't have to like me for it, and it may well make me a wanker. "
Sorry, did I suggest that I was going to impede your ability to call yourself, or me, names in any way? I'm unsure why you're so angry.
"What I do when someone tries to offend me is ignore it and not give a fuck."
A good thing too, if this post is an example of what you do to someone who doesn't offend you.
'In fact, "lazy faggot" is a perfectly acceptable insult to a lazy person in the UK.'
I bet that goes down well when used on someone who happens to be gay: "do you mean to insult me because I'm gay or are you just using the word in the context that likely forms the basis for it insulting gay people?"
"but I am not going to avoid using the word 'faggot' just because it also has an insulting meaning in some circles."
I don't think anyone is complaining about the words being used in a context of not insulting people.
'It's PC madness to start talking about "flame stopping" material lest someone get upset at the word "retardent".'
Must resist urge to point out spelling error... Oh drat. Yes that would be PC madness. However, it's nothing like what anyone here is suggesting.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Think about what you're saying...
"It would be different if someone here was going on about the mentally handicapped, or comparing 'freeloaders' with them in some way, but no-one is."
By the same argument, gay is never offensive unless used in context of talking about anyone who is homosexual. Except that's not true. Using gay pejoratively is inherently offensive because that's where the derogative meaning came from; people using it to disparage homosexuals. Ditto with retard, which unlike idiot, moron or a host of other words that have similar connotations, only became a pejorative after it was used to label a diagnosis. The term was introduced because of the negative connotations of poorly chosen words like idiot and moron in medical texts.
'Your strawman is that the element '-tard' is purely 'owned' by and only refers to the mentally handicapped. It isn't. Quoting one dictionary definition: "a person who is stupid, obtuse, or ineffective in some way: a hopeless social retard." Sounds like what the maximalists think that "freeloaders" are with regards to following the law and respecting their over-powered monopolies.'
The whole point of such words is that they're comparing the object of ridicule to something viewed unfavourably. If you say something is shit then you are literally comparing it to faeces, through figurative language. If you say something is gay then you are literally comparing it to being homosexual, through figurative language. If you say something is retarded then you are literally comparing it to mental retardation, through figurative language.
Adding definitions to dictionaries may change accepted usage in theory, but suggesting that the added definitions did not directly develop from the pejorative comparison of mental retardation seems incredibly naive.
"Please, feel free to take it up with the IP maximalists and Joe Bidens of this world who are the ones bandying it about and using it as a slur. Don't waste so much time girning at us for it though, when it is such an oblique link."
So, we should ask those who coined the term and use it without any irony (even misplaced) to stop using it before those who we might otherwise agree with? I don't see the logic there.
I'm all for using offensive language to highlight and ridicule those who genuinely seek to offend. One of my favourite comedians is Sarah Silverman who famously jokes about "the blacks" killing Jesus to highlight the absurdity of racist rhetoric, through parody. I enjoy watching South Park, which does more good through being offensive in one episode than Frankie Boyle could hope to do in his life time. I don't enjoy hearing 'freetard' used in the copyright tug-o-war, it's a word coined out of spite and is hardly less offensive when used as a parody of the least offensive aspect of the word.
Having said that, as one other commenter has said, it's just something that makes me wince. No one's calling for the word to be censored, just explaining why they object to its use. I find the anti-political correctness rhetoric ironic from a free speech perspective.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Think about what you're saying...
"I'm tired of overzealous people like yourself jumping all over people for using words you don't like."
I'm not jumping over anyone, I'm telling people why I don't like what they're doing. They're free to ignore me as people keep telling me I'm free to ignore them. It's called communication, you can stop any time you like.
"Well, I mean, fair enough, accept we're reappropriating the word by someone who used it negatively, similar to how the African American community reappropriated the n-word."
The key thing in your example is that nigger was only directly insulting those who re-appropriated it. Unless retard is directly insulting you on its own then the situations aren't really that similar.
I wonder if you would use the word if it was, for example, copynigger instead of freetard.
'Frankly, I stopped reading The Register for their casual use of "freetard." Techdirt is a daily pleasure to read...Mike and friends: please don't ruin it for me.'
While I doubt I'd give anyone here the joy of respite from my complaining about these matters, I too am tired of people saying offensive crap and pretending it doesn't matter.
"If she didn't go through a security check to sign up on the site, how could she claim expectation that everyone else did?"
I don't see a down side to the site being pro active about informing users of risks involved (although no where near to the extent referenced in the article), but I agree entirely with your point.
"Okay pop quiz if this were a man who hooked up with a woman on a dating site and said woman, oh I don't know, stole from him (like cleaned out his wallet or something) would anyone (other than the guy himself) be really trying to argue that Match.com was responsible for checking that woman's background?"
I'm struggling to see your point here. Theft isn't remotely similar to assault apart from also being a crime. Also, what is the point of reversing genders in your example? I only ask because you specifically refer to doing so.
"So if I meet someone in a bar and I am assulted can I sue the bar for letting them in?"
Bars tend not to require you to sign up to use their services. I'm not saying the comparison doesn't have merit, but a bar is not very similar to a dating site.
On the post: Can We Kill Off This Myth That The Internet Is A Wild West That Needs To Be Tamed?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hate Speech
I'm not questioning your observation. I'm just wondering why you're questioning someone's gender based on their temperament. Should he be concerned that he may not appear to conform to some masculine stereotype? Your comment seemed rather pointed for random observation.
"HUH? *scratches head*"
A helpful gesture. I was speculating that because you may not like the idea of losing your own sense of gender identity then you might have presumed the same of darryl and used that to try and belittle him.
The monkey island joke (which should still make some sense having not played the game), was a suggestion that he could use that as a basis of a comeback by attacking your own gender identity.
It's not a big deal; just, as you would say, a (less?) simple observation.
On the post: Can We Kill Off This Myth That The Internet Is A Wild West That Needs To Be Tamed?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hate Speech
That's an odd angle to take. Are you really so fond of the gender divide as to perpetuate such chauvinism? Or are you projecting your own fear of being different into an insult against darryl's presumed sense of masculinity?
If I may suggest a comeback for him: 'How appropriate. You fight like a guy.' (funnier if you've played Monkey Island).
On the post: Can We Kill Off This Myth That The Internet Is A Wild West That Needs To Be Tamed?
Hate Speech
This. I'm probably amongst the most 'politically correct' of Techdirt regulars, but there is a hell of a line between objecting to something and banning it. I'll tell someone if they're being offensive, which I wouldn't be able to do if they weren't able to express themselves.
On the post: Cheerleader Told To Pay School She Sued After Being Kicked Off Squad For Refusing To Cheer Guy Who Assaulted Her
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wacked Mess
Because he physically harmed someone on the cheerleader team whereas she merely refused to cheer for someone on the basketball team. Technically by your logic he could have assaulted her on the pitch and stayed in the team as long as it didn't interfere with the game, whereas she could have worn the wrong colour socks in protest and been kicked out.
On the post: Cheerleader Told To Pay School She Sued After Being Kicked Off Squad For Refusing To Cheer Guy Who Assaulted Her
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why do you consider that cynical? Choosing to make a statement about someone who assaulted you doesn't seem worthy of cynicism.
On the post: Cheerleader Told To Pay School She Sued After Being Kicked Off Squad For Refusing To Cheer Guy Who Assaulted Her
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wacked Mess
To be fair, Lobo was referring to the rape accusation. Still, one would hope that if refusing to cheer would get a cheerleader kicked off then assaulting a cheerleader would get a player kicked off. I guess what happens on the field is more important to some people.
On the post: Cheerleader Told To Pay School She Sued After Being Kicked Off Squad For Refusing To Cheer Guy Who Assaulted Her
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wacked Mess
So, he gets to stay on the team despite admitting to assaulting a cheerleader, yet the cheerleader is kicked out for refusing to cheer him? I'm astounded that you cannot see how inconsistent that is. He was found guilty of a crime yet stays on the team, yet her objection to that isn't even protected by her first amendment rights and gets her kicked off despite no crime being committed. I guess he'd have to assault someone while playing to get kicked off the team.
On the post: Cheerleader Told To Pay School She Sued After Being Kicked Off Squad For Refusing To Cheer Guy Who Assaulted Her
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wacked Mess
So, you have a problem with her choosing not to cheer for him but suggest that she gets everyone else not to cheer for anyone? That makes no sense.
"It wasn't as if part of the sentence was a restraining order against the boy that prevented one of them from attending the game. She did not fufill her duties and was dismissed by the club."
I wasn't aware that cheerleaders signed contracts or got paid. Regardless, you're again blaming her for not cheering despite previously suggesting that she get the whole team to boycott the game.
"Now, it might have been different if, as I said earlier, she had convinced a majority of the other cheerleaders to take a stand with her and boycott his team, but it was just her."
Why might it have been different? You left that part out.
"Finally, if she had won the case, it would have opened up serious legal loopholes in employment and contract law."
Again, do cheerleaders seriously sign employment contracts? I thought it was a school activity (and a notoriously ill regulated one at that).
On the post: Cheerleader Told To Pay School She Sued After Being Kicked Off Squad For Refusing To Cheer Guy Who Assaulted Her
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wacked Mess
If he pleaded guilty to assault, why wasn't he made to change schools or quit the football squad?
"say again, I was a pre-planned petty vindictive move on her part; followed by a money-grab via her parents attorney."
In the same post as a jibe about innocent until proven guilty?
On the post: Announcing: Freetard 2: Free Harder
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Think about what you're saying...
Sorry, did I suggest that I was going to impede your ability to call yourself, or me, names in any way? I'm unsure why you're so angry.
"What I do when someone tries to offend me is ignore it and not give a fuck."
A good thing too, if this post is an example of what you do to someone who doesn't offend you.
On the post: Announcing: Freetard 2: Free Harder
Re: Re: Re: Re: Think about what you're saying...
I bet that goes down well when used on someone who happens to be gay: "do you mean to insult me because I'm gay or are you just using the word in the context that likely forms the basis for it insulting gay people?"
"but I am not going to avoid using the word 'faggot' just because it also has an insulting meaning in some circles."
I don't think anyone is complaining about the words being used in a context of not insulting people.
'It's PC madness to start talking about "flame stopping" material lest someone get upset at the word "retardent".'
Must resist urge to point out spelling error... Oh drat. Yes that would be PC madness. However, it's nothing like what anyone here is suggesting.
On the post: Announcing: Freetard 2: Free Harder
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Think about what you're saying...
By the same argument, gay is never offensive unless used in context of talking about anyone who is homosexual. Except that's not true. Using gay pejoratively is inherently offensive because that's where the derogative meaning came from; people using it to disparage homosexuals. Ditto with retard, which unlike idiot, moron or a host of other words that have similar connotations, only became a pejorative after it was used to label a diagnosis. The term was introduced because of the negative connotations of poorly chosen words like idiot and moron in medical texts.
'Your strawman is that the element '-tard' is purely 'owned' by and only refers to the mentally handicapped. It isn't. Quoting one dictionary definition: "a person who is stupid, obtuse, or ineffective in some way: a hopeless social retard." Sounds like what the maximalists think that "freeloaders" are with regards to following the law and respecting their over-powered monopolies.'
The whole point of such words is that they're comparing the object of ridicule to something viewed unfavourably. If you say something is shit then you are literally comparing it to faeces, through figurative language. If you say something is gay then you are literally comparing it to being homosexual, through figurative language. If you say something is retarded then you are literally comparing it to mental retardation, through figurative language.
Adding definitions to dictionaries may change accepted usage in theory, but suggesting that the added definitions did not directly develop from the pejorative comparison of mental retardation seems incredibly naive.
"Please, feel free to take it up with the IP maximalists and Joe Bidens of this world who are the ones bandying it about and using it as a slur. Don't waste so much time girning at us for it though, when it is such an oblique link."
So, we should ask those who coined the term and use it without any irony (even misplaced) to stop using it before those who we might otherwise agree with? I don't see the logic there.
I'm all for using offensive language to highlight and ridicule those who genuinely seek to offend. One of my favourite comedians is Sarah Silverman who famously jokes about "the blacks" killing Jesus to highlight the absurdity of racist rhetoric, through parody. I enjoy watching South Park, which does more good through being offensive in one episode than Frankie Boyle could hope to do in his life time. I don't enjoy hearing 'freetard' used in the copyright tug-o-war, it's a word coined out of spite and is hardly less offensive when used as a parody of the least offensive aspect of the word.
Having said that, as one other commenter has said, it's just something that makes me wince. No one's calling for the word to be censored, just explaining why they object to its use. I find the anti-political correctness rhetoric ironic from a free speech perspective.
On the post: Announcing: Freetard 2: Free Harder
Re: Re: Re: Re: Think about what you're saying...
It may be. A broken leg is hardly comparable to any mental health issue. A broken leg does not hold the stigma that mental retardation does.
On the post: Obama Says It's Okay To Treat Manning The Way He's Been Treated Because He 'Broke The Law'
Re: Classification
From reports I've read the highest level in the leaks was Secret. Top Secret would have been sent over a different system.
On the post: Announcing: Freetard 2: Free Harder
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Think about what you're saying...
I'm not jumping over anyone, I'm telling people why I don't like what they're doing. They're free to ignore me as people keep telling me I'm free to ignore them. It's called communication, you can stop any time you like.
On the post: Announcing: Freetard 2: Free Harder
Re: Re: Think about what you're saying...
The key thing in your example is that nigger was only directly insulting those who re-appropriated it. Unless retard is directly insulting you on its own then the situations aren't really that similar.
I wonder if you would use the word if it was, for example, copynigger instead of freetard.
On the post: Announcing: Freetard 2: Free Harder
Re: Re: Re: Re: Think about what you're saying...
While I doubt I'd give anyone here the joy of respite from my complaining about these matters, I too am tired of people saying offensive crap and pretending it doesn't matter.
On the post: Woman Sues Match.com Because She Was Assaulted By Someone She Met On Site
Re: Sorry to inject a bit of logic
I don't see a down side to the site being pro active about informing users of risks involved (although no where near to the extent referenced in the article), but I agree entirely with your point.
On the post: Woman Sues Match.com Because She Was Assaulted By Someone She Met On Site
Re: Reversal!
I'm struggling to see your point here. Theft isn't remotely similar to assault apart from also being a crime. Also, what is the point of reversing genders in your example? I only ask because you specifically refer to doing so.
On the post: Woman Sues Match.com Because She Was Assaulted By Someone She Met On Site
Re:
Bars tend not to require you to sign up to use their services. I'm not saying the comparison doesn't have merit, but a bar is not very similar to a dating site.
Next >>