NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been thinking about this a lot, and I've decided to compile a list of offensive words and terms that I've picked up from the last few days just on NSG.

Bitch
Fireman
Policeman
Mister
Mrs.
Miss
Ms.
air hostess
Headmaster
salesman
manageress
cinema usherette
male nurse
sportsmen
statesmen
man-made
black
God
Lord

If anyone else has any more offensive words, or words that offend them personally, please add them here so I can compile them into the op for reference on what words we should avoid using.

There is no force to this, but I strongly urge that everyone follow this recommendation.

Contributors:

Heikoku: Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis (don't even know what that is, but added)
Anti-Social Darwinism: politically correct (both the term and what it represents)
SaintB: Dog as in reference to a person (This is my dog <name>) as being compared to a canine might bother certain cat lovers.
Brother (or bro)
NNLDI: European
Nanatsu: Brit
Kahless Khan: college student

...because NSG posters are equivalent in stature and significance to people who are supposed to represent the collective people of Europe, right?

Couldn't you at least have the decency to keep your absurd comparisons to the thread that's actually about this topic?

...because NSG posters are equivalent in stature and significance to people who are supposed to represent the collective people of Europe, right?

Couldn't you at least have the decency to keep your absurd comparisons to the thread that's actually about this topic?

I'm combining offensive terms from two different threads into one, so we can always be sure not to offend on NSG.

Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis

Floccinaucinihilipilification

Antidisestablishmentarianism

Taumatawhakatangihangakoauauotamateapokaiwhenuakitanatahu

KrungThepMahanakhonAmonRattanakosinMahintharaAyuthayaMahadilokPhopNoppharatRatchathaniBuriromUdomrat chaniwetMahasathanAmonPimanAwatanSathitSakkathattiyaWitsanukamPrasit

The last offends me because it puts all the titles of Bangkok together, when they should be separated.

I'm combining offensive terms from two different threads into one, so we can always be sure not to offend on NSG.

I'm sorry; should I have said "threads"?

Your comparison is still absurd and a new thread is still the wrong place to make it.

Not something I usually do, but what they hell, eh?

"In before lock"

Because, let's face it.... it's spamalicious.

In before the lock, too.

Ah, so you aren't actually serious about a conversation on the issue...you just want to cry about how you're being repressed. You want to ignore the official context and pretend it applies even to casual speech.

Ah, so you aren't actually serious about a conversation on the issue...you just want to cry about how you're being repressed. You want to ignore the official context and pretend it applies even to casual speech.

I see, satire to make a point is only okay when you agree with it. :rolleyes:

Also:

http://othyr.com/titin.html

But that would show so much effort in offending me that I might get flattered instead.

Also:

http://othyr.com/titin.html

But that would show so much effort in offending me that I might get flattered instead.

Cool! That's awesome. However, it's not going in the thread. :p

Cool! That's awesome. However, it's not going in the thread. :p

You'd need to post four times just for it.

You'd need to post four times just for it.

I'm psychic, lemme guess...

You tried, didn't you?:D

I'm psychic, lemme guess...

You tried, didn't you?:D

Once. Then I figured I'd be modded for spamming. Though I'll ask a mod...

I see, satire to make a point is only okay when you agree with it. :rolleyes:

Satire to make a point is only okay when it's making a coherent point.

Satire to make a point is only okay when it's making a coherent point.

Which it is.

Which it is.

Unless it's complaining about people finding the slur "bitch" offensive when applied to people, it really isn't. If he's attempting to draw a humorous comparison between slurs and the rest, then he needs to include more words than "bitch", because otherwise it doesn't work. Also, if that's what he's trying to do, then his post doesn't qualify as satire.

It barely qualifies as satire as is, but that would push it over the line into "not satire".

Unless it's complaining about people finding the slur "bitch" offensive when applied to people, it really isn't. If he's attempting to draw a humorous comparison between slurs and the rest, then he needs to include more words than "bitch", because otherwise it doesn't work. Also, if that's what he's trying to do, then his post doesn't qualify as satire.

It barely qualifies as satire as is, but that would push it over the line into "not satire".

*sigh* It's about a thread where the EU suggested that politicians and the sort use gender neutral terms for other politicians, and it just kind of snowballed from there.

*sigh* It's about a thread where the EU suggested that politicians and the sort use gender neutral terms for other politicians, and it just kind of snowballed from there.

The mocking of a position does not necessarily translate to satire.

Most of those words are just non-gender-neutral, rather than offensive in any way. I try always to keep gender-neutral, but it doesn't really bother me when someone uses an older word.

Hello should be added, since it contains 'hell' in it, and thus violating the first amendment and essentially forcing religion down my throat.

Woman and female should be added, since they are inherently gendered, and it is an observable fact that a word not being gender neutral is thus offensive and wrong, just as much as ought = is.

I've been thinking about this a lot, and I've decided to compile a list of offensive words and terms that I've picked up from the last few days just on NSG.

Bitch
Fireman
Policeman
Mister
Mrs.
Miss
Ms.
air hostess
Headmaster
salesman
manageress
cinema usherette
male nurse
sportsmen
statesmen
man-made
black
God
Lord

If anyone else has any more offensive words, or words that offend them personally, please add them here so I can compile them into the op for reference on what words we should avoid using.

There is no force to this, but I strongly urge that everyone follow this recommendation.


*sigh*

This is really fucking pathetic.

1. From the one thread based ON PROVEN LIES ABOUT THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, I'll simply try to explain for the umpteenth time that suggesting a more erudite, accurate, and inoffensive alternative to a gender-specific term is NOT any type of censorship. Further, are you really so clueless about sexism that you don't recognize the value of gender-neutral language, especially for historically gender-specific occupations?

2. I don't know what thread caused you to put the word "black" on your list.

3. "Lord" and "God" are inappropriate IF YOUR EMPLOYER SPECIFICALLY ASKS YOU NOT TO USE THEM IN CERTAIN CONTEXTS, like speeches at staff meetings.

<snippity>

My point is simply that, the reason gender-neutral language is wanted to be adopted is to not cause offense. The reason Lord and God were asked to be removed is not to cause offense. The thread a week or so ago that someone got pissy about the word "black" was because it was offensive.

The point of this thread is that people are too fragile and easily offended. They need to lighten up.

The point of this thread is that people are too fragile and easily offended. They need to lighten up.
Them niggers and kikes too, they need to lighten up.

Them niggers and kikes too, they need to lighten up.

Yep.

Actually, I was talking to a guy from Jamaica a couple months ago. Interestingly, calling each other "nig*er" is a completely normal and accepted thing to do between people in Jamaica.

EDIT: Oddly, jolt censored me.

Actually, I was talking to a guy from Jamaica a couple months ago. Interestingly, calling each other "nig*er" is a completely normal and accepted thing to do between people in Jamaica.
Well the term can't possibly be offensive then.

Lets just use the term to describe all black folk. I mean, if one black person uses it, how on earth could another find it offensive?

On a more serious note, are you genuinely unable to perceive of a situation where gendered language, or an unneeded insertion of religious language could be seen to be offensive?

Are you truly baffled by the notion that an institution would want to promote equality in the sexes, or refrain from having a secular workplace become a point of promotion for a certain religion?

Ah, so you aren't actually serious about a conversation on the issue...you just want to cry about how you're being repressed. You want to ignore the official context and pretend it applies even to casual speech.

Having a bad day?

You can probably add niggard to the list since so many people don't know what it means and mistake it for something else.

Well the term can't possibly be offensive then?

Lets just use the term to describe all black folk. I mean, if one black person uses it, how on earth could another find it offensive?

There's a certain amount of effort that goes into preventing people from getting offended, it's true. We don't call women "cunts" for example (unless they're really good friends), nor do we call men "dicks" (unless the same thing). Why? It's offensive to refer to someone by a single piece of their anatomy, especially that piece.

However, when we start attempting to do a complete rewrite of our language on the off-chance that someone might get offended, we're taking it to a whole new place: a place that makes little sense.

There's a level of reasonableness here that the world seems to be lacking. Something NSG is especially good at doing as a whole is stretching this reasonableness beyond all expectations, and attempting to make the ridiculous look plausible and rational.

For instance, most cars have one of these in some form or fashion:

http://www.recyclethis.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/car_bumper.jpg

It's a bumper, designed to help protect the car and part of the design that keeps the occupant safe. However, I don't think most of you would want to see this on every car:

http://www.carrollgrillguards.com/developer/photos/Semi-BLUE-FRONT-RIGHT.gif

Yep.

Actually, I was talking to a guy from Jamaica a couple months ago. Interestingly, calling each other "nig*er" is a completely normal and accepted thing to do between people in Jamaica.

EDIT: Oddly, jolt censored me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJz-gmy8YOc

"Mommy's little bastard!"

On a more serious note, are you genuinely unable to perceive of a situation where gendered language, or an unneeded insertion of religious language could be seen to be offensive?

At an atheist's funeral, injection of religion unwanted by the family members could be seen as offensive, as it would be a slap in the face to the person who died.

However, gendered language, if used properly - no, nothing comes to mind.

Are you truly baffled by the notion that an institution would want to promote equality in the sexes, or refrain from having a secular workplace become a point of promotion for a certain religion?

I'll take that question in two parts:

Equality of the sexes != butchering of language and form.

Workplace a point of promotion for religion - if they don't want that, they should say "We don't want religion injected here or there", not "We're afraid some employees/customers/contractors might be offended, so don't do that here." If the former is true, say it. If the latter is true, why is everyone so uptight about it?

You can probably add niggard to the list since so many people don't know what it means and mistake it for something else.

I have noticed that; I used the word in an e-mail (in adjective from) and I never heard from the person again.

every word ever uttered can be offensive, so we all just shouldn't talk /NSG

However, when we start attempting to do a complete rewrite of our language on the off-chance that someone might get offended...
See, here's where your whole 'argument' falls down.

Who's "attempting to do a complete rewrite of our language"?

You are, once again, boxing at shadows; only now it's in a whole thread of its own.

However, gendered language, if used properly - no, nothing comes to mind.
'If used properly', being the operative phrase.

Who's "attempting to do a complete rewrite of our language"?

This EU commission or whatever they are. They're telling people (politicians) not to use the Titles that have been around for centuries because they're gendered. They are telling them also not to use words that are not offensive, were not designed to be offensive, and are technically correct to use. It's not like "bitch", "****", "******", "kike", "dick", or whatever other profanity that's designed and accepted to be meant as an offense.

You are, once again, boxing at shadows; only now it's in a whole thread of its own.

At least it's isolated.

'If used properly', being the operative phrase.

Right, for instance - you wouldn't say "Mister" to a woman. That would probably be seen as offensive, much the same way you wouldn't say "Miss" or "Ms." to a man. That would probably be taken as an offense.

This EU commission or whatever they are.
They are in no way attempting to re-write the English lexicon, or any lexicon for that matter. They are, as you should well know by now, advising that the EU be sensitive to potentially offensive language.

Your apparent inability to comprehend this after nearly 400 posts on the matter is astounding.

Words are only offensive if you allow them to be offensive. *nods*

They are in no way attempting to re-write the English lexicon, or any lexicon for that matter. They are, as you should well know by now, advising that the EU be sensitive to potentially offensive language.

Your apparent inability to comprehend this after nearly 400 posts on the matter is astounding.

Except only the worst kind of seeker of offense would get offended by Mr. or Ms. or 99% of these other words. I mean, how far are we willing to go?

Bush got compared to a chimp more times than I can count. Bush would probably be offended by any reference to monkeys. On account of that possibility, should we cut out all reference to monkeys?

Except only the worst kind of seeker of offense would get offended by Mr. or Ms. or 99% of these other words. I mean, how far are we willing to go?
A reasonable amount.

There are times where the use of Mrs. can be offensive. Constantly referring to a woman by her marriage-status-title, rather than her name, for example, can be offensive. I've been in situations where a woman has been treated differently, called by her marriage-status-title instead of her name when all the men in the situation have been called by their name, not their marriage-status-title, to the point where the speaker is clearly putting down the woman.

For situations like this, or when, say, drafting legislation where equality between genders is a goal, we can easily see where caution over gender-specific terms is advisable. The difference between the above and "attempting to do a complete rewrite of our language" is obvious.

I'd assume that your uninformed rant is now over?

A reasonable amount.

There are times where the use of Mrs. can be offensive. Constantly referring to a woman by her marriage-status-title, rather than her name, for example, can be offensive. I've been in situations where a woman has been treated differently, called by her marriage-status-title instead of her name when all the men in the situation have been called by their name, not their marriage-status-title, to the point where the speaker is clearly putting down the woman.
Except only the worst kind of seeker of offense would get offended by Mr. or Ms. or 99% of these other words. I mean, how far are we willing to go?

Would you like to try that again?

For situations like this, or when, say, drafting legislation where equality between genders is a goal, we can easily see where caution over gender-specific terms is advisable. The difference between the above and "attempting to do a complete rewrite of our language" is obvious.

Except I still don't see how marking huge sections of the language "unusable" promotes gender equality. I didn't before, and I still don't.

I'd assume that your uninformed rant is now over?

You'd assume incorrectly.

I've heard people use the term 'waitron' as a substitute for 'waiter' or 'waitress.' I don't know, it seems more unwieldy than 'server' which seems to be a much more reasonable substitute. Plus, whenever I hear it, it makes me think of some kind of food-serving robot. "Introducing the latest in food service technology...the Waitron 3000!"

One thing that does annoy me is when you're watching an interview on a DVD and some woman refers to herself as an actor. You're not an actor, you're an actress. The only way you could be an actor is if you indulged in some very expensive surgery.

Would you like to try that again?
Are you implying that those who wish to be called by their names instead of their titles are deliberately out to seek offence? Can you not fathom the possibility that a term such as 'Miss', 'Mrs', 'Mister', 'Boy', 'Sir', etc., can be used in an offensive manner?

Are you really that blind?

You'd assume incorrectly.
Then rail ahead with your uninformed rant.

Words are only offensive if you allow them to be offensive. *nods*I knew I was forgetting something. I need to remember to nod at the end of my posts.

Are you implying that those who wish to be called by their names instead of their titles are deliberately out to seek offence?

No, I'm saying anyone who would be offended by the proper use of a title is out to seek offense. If they do not wish to be referred to that way, they can say so.

Can you not fathom the possibility that a term such as 'Miss', 'Mrs', 'Mister', 'Boy', 'Sir', etc., can be used in an offensive manner?

'Boy' could, as it implies youth, inexperience, and lack of seniority, especially to someone who has them. The others, unless addressed to the wrong gender (or said extremely sarcastically), nope, don't see it.

Are you really that blind?

Like Ray Charles. I always took being called "Mister" or "Sir" as a sign of respect.

Then rail ahead with your uninformed rant.

Thank you. I will.

Words that I find offensive. This is in no way applicable to others, though some may agree with me.

politically correct (this term and the philosophy it defines both offend me).

I may add others as needed.

I've heard people use the term 'waitron' as a substitute for 'waiter' or 'waitress.' I don't know, it seems more unwieldy than 'server' which seems to be a much more reasonable substitute. Plus, whenever I hear it, it makes me think of some kind of food-serving robot. "Introducing the latest in food service technology...the Waitron 3000!"

One thing that does annoy me is when you're watching an interview on a DVD and some woman refers to herself as an actor. You're not an actor, you're an actress. The only way you could be an actor is if you indulged in some very expensive surgery.
Yet "actor" is the correct word and has been for quite some time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actor#Terminology):

The word actor refers to a person who acts regardless of sex, while actress refers specifically to a female person who acts; therefore a female can be both. The Oxford English Dictionary states that originally "'actor' was used for both sexes". The English word actress does not derive from the Latin actrix, probably not even by way of French actrice; according to the Oxford English Dictionary, actress was "probably formed independently" in English. As actress is a specifically feminine word, some feminists assert that the word is sexist. Gender-neutral usage of actor has re-emerged in modern English,[4][5] especially when referring to male and female performers collectively, but actress remains the common term used in major acting awards given to female recipients and is still common in general usage.

You feel better now that you've corrected my minor pet peeve?

I tend to think it is better not to go around deliberately offending people, if you listen to people you can usually pick up what words they like or dislike being used about them. If you do say something that they don't they can tell you, and unless you are an asshole, you won't use it again. It is not censorship it is just being polite.

I don't think legislation is the way to go though, this kind of change comes about through societal change. I generally find that if white people like to use the word n*gg*r, or men who like to call women cunts or bitches, these are to the people to avoid because they are morons. Then I also tend to be wary about people who complain about PC-ness all the time - often these are the same morons.

The kind of language that offends me is the meaningless jargon used by bureaucracies - the kind of things people spout in meetings when they feel the need to talk to show their importance but they actually have nothing to say. This kind of bullshit

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20090318/tuk-are-you-cutting-out-coterminosity-dba1618.html

I've been thinking about this a lot, and I've decided to compile a list of offensive words and terms that I've picked up from the last few days just on NSG.

Bitch
Fireman
Policeman
Mister
Mrs.
Miss
Ms.
air hostess
Headmaster
salesman
manageress
cinema usherette
male nurse
sportsmen
statesmen
man-made
black
God
Lord

If anyone else has any more offensive words, or words that offend them personally, please add them here so I can compile them into the op for reference on what words we should avoid using.

There is no force to this, but I strongly urge that everyone follow this recommendation.

Contributors:

Heikoku: Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis (don't even know what that is, but added)

None of them are offensive.

However, gendered language, if used properly - no, nothing comes to mind.


By the way, some languages, like romance languages, are intrinsecally gendered: every noun has a grammatical gender! Even inanimate objects have a grammatical gender. Even general concepts have a gender. Take italian "(la) persona" (the person). It's feminine and it can be used for both males and females. Or take "(l') essere umano" (the human being). It's masculine and it can be used for both males and females.

By the way, some languages, like romance languages, are intrinsecally gendered: every noun has a grammatical gender! Even inanimate objects have a grammatical gender. Even general concepts have a gender. Take italian "(la) persona" (the person). It's feminine and it can be used for both males and females. Or take "(l') essere umano" (the human being). It's masculine and it can be used for both males and females.

The whole gender of inanimate objects is extremely confusing to an English speaker. Why is a moustache feminine in French? It always makes me think of this Laurie Anderson piece

Smoke Rings lyrics

Standby. You're on the air.
Buenos noches Senores y Senoras. Bienvenidos.
La primero pregunta es: Que es mas macho.
pineapple o knife ?
Well
let's see. My guess is that a pineapple is more
Macho than a knife Si! Correcto!
Pineapple es mas macho que knife.
La segunda pregunta: Que es mas macho

lightbulb o schoolbus?
Uh
lightbulb?
No! Lo siento. Schoolbus es mas macho que lightbulb
Gracias. And we'll be back in un momento.

The whole gender of inanimate objects is extremely confusing to an English speaker. Why is a moustache feminine in French? It always makes me think of this Laurie Anderson piece

Dunno about french, but in italian we derive almost everything from latin and greek. If it's masculine or neuter in latin or greek, it's masculine in italian. If it's feminine in latin or greek, it's feminine in italian.
It think that the whole issue with grammatical gender can be traced back to a primitive animism of sorts, but it's just a wild guess of mine.

European offends me.

Dog as in reference to a person (This is my dog <name>) as being compared to a canine might bother certain cat lovers.

Brother, because afro-mericans call each other brother but may get angry when someone not of their particular demographic uses it.

By the way, some languages, like romance languages, are intrinsecally gendered: every noun has a grammatical gender! Even inanimate objects have a grammatical gender. Even general concepts have a gender. Take italian "(la) persona" (the person). It's feminine and it can be used for both males and females. Or take "(l') essere umano" (the human being). It's masculine and it can be used for both males and females.

I've never spoken a romance language (still struggling to learn Spanish), so forgive me if my question seems... strange.

How can you use la persona when referring to a guy or l' essere umana to refer to a woman, if the language itself is gendered the opposite way?

One thing that does annoy me is when you're watching an interview on a DVD and some woman refers to herself as an actor. You're not an actor, you're an actress. The only way you could be an actor is if you indulged in some very expensive surgery.

Actor: one who acts. It's not an inherently gendered term, and speaking as a female who acts, I very much prefer it to the pointlessly gendered "actress."

Actor: one who acts. It's not an inherently gendered term, and speaking as a female who acts

I didn't know you were an actre *Gets shot*

I didn't know you were an actre *Gets shot*

I wish you would stop getting sho- *gets shot*

Brit, when one is referring to someone from the British Isles. *nod*

'Boy' could, as it implies youth, inexperience, and lack of seniority, especially to someone who has them. The others, unless addressed to the wrong gender (or said extremely sarcastically), nope, don't see it.
So, 'unless the terms are used in an offensive way, I don't see how they could be offensive'. Good, then you admit the term can be used in an offensive way.

Thus, you should be able to see why institutions attempting to promote gender equality are wary of language that could used in a manner that cause offence.

Well done; it only took you 400 posts and two separate threads.

So, 'unless the terms are used in an offensive way, I don't see how they could be offensive'. Good, then you admit the term can be used in an offensive way.

Thus, you should be able to see why institutions attempting to promote gender equality are wary of language that could used in a manner that cause offence.

Well done; it only took you 400 posts and two separate threads.

And I can use a thousand gender neutral terms in an offensive way simply by changing the tone of voice to suit.

For instance, if I addressed as a judge as "The Honorable Judge Brady", but stressed "honorable" in a sarcastic way, that would be offensive - because I'm saying that I don't really believe he deserves the title of honorable. Very similarly, you could say the same with Mister or Ms or pretty much any other term.

EDIT: Any term of respect can be turned into a word of offense simply by applying stress in such a way to show that you don't think they deserve to get it. Mr. and Mrs and Miss and Ms are all titles that imply respect.

And I can use a thousand gender neutral terms in an offensive way simply by changing the tone of voice to suit.
Yes, you've grasped the concept.

As I say, well done.

Yes, you've grasped the concept.

As I say, well done.

And yet no one is suggesting that we get rid of all terms that can be used with honor because people can use them sarcastically. If we get rid of all words that can be used sarcastically to cause offense, this will become a very limited language, indeed.

And yet no one is suggesting that we get rid of all terms that can be used with honor because people can use them sarcastically. If we get rid of all words that can be used sarcastically to cause offense, this will become a very limited language, indeed.

And language is already quite limited as it is.

And yet no one is suggesting that we get rid of all terms that can be used with honor because people can use them sarcastically.
You're right, no-one is.

If we get rid of all words that can be used sarcastically to cause offense, this will become a very limited language, indeed.
Again, quite right; you're good at this game.

Another round of 'state the blindingly obvious'?

You're right, no-one is.

Good.
Again, quite right; you're good at this game.

Another round of 'state the blindingly obvious'?

And yet, your reasoning for getting rid of gendered terms is that they could be used sarcastically to cause offense, as you have stated.

However, there are a multitude of other terms that are not gendered which can be used sarcastically to cause offense.

What makes those terms different?

And yet, your reasoning for getting rid of gendered terms...
You're doing it again.

A relapse is a terrible thing.

This argument was lost by both parties a long time ago. Give it a rest, guys. You both have very different opinions on the subject, strong ones at that. Agree to disagree.

You're doing it again.

A relapse is a terrible thing.

Sorry, just because a word can be used in an offensive way is no reason to get rid of it when there are plenty of non-offensive uses.

I feel like Ray Charles trying to see the reasoning behind that.

You both have very different opinions on the subject, strong ones at that.
No, Galloism continues to spout nonsense about folks, i.e. the EU, "getting rid" of language.

This is false. It's not a differing opinion, it's incorrect information, as has been pointed out over the course of 400 posts.

No, Galloism continues to spout nonsense about folks, i.e. the EU, "getting rid" of language.

This is false. It's not a differing opinion, it's incorrect information, as has been pointed out over the course of 400 posts.

I have said, more than once, that it only applies to the politicians of the EU. It still doesn't make any sense.

I have said, more than once, that it only applies to the politicians of the EU. It still doesn't make any sense.
Then you can talk about your misunderstanding of the situation in the appropriate thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=586945).

Attention-whoring is not appreciated.

No, Galloism continues to spout nonsense about folks, i.e. the EU, "getting rid" of language.

This is false. It's not a differing opinion, it's incorrect information, as has been pointed out over the course of 400 posts.

I've followed the argument. I don't think he's implying anything about getting rid of anything. I think he just finds the ban on the EU parliaments to be baffling. I have found it to be so too, since I'm not in Spain at the moment. And it's not about getting rid of anything, these are terms that are intrinsic to language, but it's more about how they intend on substituting them to comply with the new statutes. I am not getting into this argument. I find it wasteful.

I think he just finds the ban on the EU parliaments to be baffling.
Grief; not you too!

There is no ban.

As I said, talk about it in the thread we've already got open (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=586945).

Grief; not you too!

There is no ban.

As I said, talk about it in the thread we've already got open (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=586945).

Bah! Screw this shit.

Yep.

Actually, I was talking to a guy from Jamaica a couple months ago. Interestingly, calling each other "nig*er" is a completely normal and accepted thing to do between people in Jamaica.

EDIT: Oddly, jolt censored me.

Yeah, there's a pretty fucking giant difference between a black guy using "******" and a white guy using "******".

Fakeedit: This board software could use some better filtering software.

There are no "bad" words, it all depends on how you use them.


No, Galloism continues to spout nonsense about folks, i.e. the EU, "getting rid" of language.

This is false. It's not a differing opinion, it's incorrect information, as has been pointed out over the course of 400 posts.

And Chumblywumbly is telling the truth here.

Yeah, there's a pretty fucking giant difference between a black guy using "******" and a white guy using "******".

Fakeedit: This board software could use some better filtering software.

black guys tend to use nigga

My point is simply that, the reason gender-neutral language is wanted to be adopted is to not cause offense. The reason Lord and God were asked to be removed is not to cause offense. The thread a week or so ago that someone got pissy about the word "black" was because it was offensive.

The point of this thread is that people are too fragile and easily offended. They need to lighten up.

The point of this thread seems to actually be that YOU are too fragile and easily offended. You need to lighten up.

At an atheist's funeral, injection of religion unwanted by the family members could be seen as offensive, as it would be a slap in the face to the person who died.

However, gendered language, if used properly - no, nothing comes to mind.

Failure of imagination on your part =/= a fact.

You really are unable to see how the differentiation between "Mrs." and "Miss" can be offensive? Or how the use of terms that imply members of an occupation are male is more offensive than the use of terms that don't?

Equality of the sexes != butchering of language and form.


Um. You've already admitted in the other thread that THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE LANGUAGE BEING SUGGESTED. No butchering of language occurs when one uses "police officer" or "firefighter." To the contrary, it is an improvement.

This EU commission or whatever they are. They're telling people (politicians) not to use the Titles that have been around for centuries because they're gendered. They are telling them also not to use words that are not offensive, were not designed to be offensive, and are technically correct to use. It's not like "bitch", "****", "******", "kike", "dick", or whatever other profanity that's designed and accepted to be meant as an offense.


*sigh*

After all that time in the other thread, you still don't get that the EU Parliament has merely issued a pamplet advising STAFF (not politicians) on better language choices.

Any term of respect can be turned into a word of offense simply by applying stress in such a way to show that you don't think they deserve to get it. Mr. and Mrs and Miss and Ms are all titles that imply respect.

Mr., Mrs., Miss, and Ms. all unnecessarily make gender identifications and at least some of them treat women differently based on their marital status.

WTF is wrong with using other honorific titles that are gender-neutral and/or using people's frackin' names?

The point of this thread seems to actually be that YOU are too fragile and easily offended. You need to lighten up.

Why are you getting so excited? I'm not. I'm just pointing out ridiculousness.

Failure of imagination on your part =/= a fact.

You really are unable to see how the differentiation between "Mrs." and "Miss" can be offensive?

Nope, they're statements of fact. If the person is upset that they are married or unmarried, that's the only time it would be upsetting.

Or how the use of terms that imply members of an occupation are male is more offensive than the use of terms that don't?

As long as they're correct in usage, I don't see a problem.

Um. You've already admitted in the other thread that THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE LANGUAGE BEING SUGGESTED. No butchering of language occurs when one uses "police officer" or "firefighter." To the contrary, it is an improvement.

Nonsense. It's taking a language that is already limited in expression and making it more limited.

After all that time in the other thread, you still don't get that the EU Parliament has merely issued a pamplet advising STAFF (not politicians) on better language choices.

Staff? That's not what either of the two articles posted said. Even if so, it's still ridiculous.

Mr., Mrs., Miss, and Ms. all unnecessarily make gender identifications and at least some of them treat women differently based on their marital status.

Ok. It identifies the person as they stand. Not seeing a problem.

WTF is wrong with using other honorific titles that are gender-neutral and/or using people's frackin' names?

The only thing I can think of that a person would find a gender assignment honorific as offensive is if they are offended at being the gender they are identified as. If that's the case, language is the least logical thing to address.

Snip
I need to point something out for you.
All of NSG no, All of the internet hates you.
We are not never have been laughing with you, we have always been laughing at you.

I need to point something out for you.
All of NSG no, All of the internet hates you.
We are not never have been laughing with you, we have always been laughing at you.

Ok.

see cat tribes he isn't too fragile and easily offended

see cat tribes he isn't too fragile and easily offended

To be fair, that was pretty weak attempt to rile someone.

To be fair, that was pretty weak attempt to rile someone.

I haven't had alcohol in a week what do you expect ?

Staff? That's not what either of the two articles posted said.

Fine, stick with your assertion that gender-specific language is somehow superior to perfectly acceptable gender-neutral alternatives. That your position is ridiculous is self-evident and I'm not going to keep beating a dead horse.

But cease your lying about what the EU is doing:

A European Parliament spokesman defended the booklet, saying, "The information is a guideline only and it is intended for staff and not for MEPs. It is particularly useful for translators and interpreters, who are being asked to consider gender-neutral languages when they are translating documents or interpreting MEPs speaking in the chamber." (linky (http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/mar/09031806.html) (emphasis added))

A EUROPEAN Parliament guide to “gender neutral” language is a voluntary code intended for staff and not politicians, officials have said.

The booklet has been condemned as “political correctness gone mad” by Scottish Tory MEP Struan Stevenson.

The guidelines urge replacing all “gender-specific” terms such as “statesman” with gender-free alternatives, such as “political leader”.

“Mrs”, “Miss” and their equivalents in other languages should be avoided. Instead women’s full names should be used.

Now Tory MEPs have challenged the parliament to reveal the cost of a booklet which they say is “a waste of taxpayers’ money”.

A parliament spokesman – as opposed to spokeswoman – said: “The information is useful for translators and interpreters who are being asked to consider gender-neutral terms.”

In general, gender-specific descriptions are supposed to be avoided, including anything with “man” in the title, such as policeman, fireman or dustman. But, says the guide, “midwives” is acceptable – presumably as “midhusbands” are so rare.
(link (http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1125866?UserKey=) (emphasis added)

Even TAI admitted his OP in the other thread was based on lies and misinformation. For someone supposedly concerned about language, you appear to be deliberately misapplying the terms "politicians" and "banned."

Fine, stick with your assertion that gender-specific language is somehow superior to perfectly acceptable gender-neutral alternatives. That your position is ridiculous is self-evident and I'm not going to keep beating a dead horse.

I don't think it's superior, never thought it was superior, and never said it was superior. You will have a hard time finding any post where I said gender-specific language was superior, because unless I was drunk off my rocker or made a typo somewhere and changed the meaning of the sentence, I never said it.

However, its functionally equal to gender-neutral language, there is nothing reasonably offensive about it, and no one should go into a hissy fit about it and start spending money on combating it.

<snippy the article>

Ah, I stand corrected. It's still ridiculous, though.

However, its functionally equal to gender-neutral language...
It's quite clearly not.

Gender-neutral language has the functional ability to cover multiple genders; gendered language doesn't.

...there is nothing reasonably offensive about it, and no one should go into a hissy fit about it and start spending money on combating it.
You keep on stating things like this as if you are stating fact.

If there are acceptable gender-neutral alternatives available, what good reason is there for sticking with gendered language?

"College student" is offensive, because it implies that I am dumb and poor.

Ah, I stand corrected. It's still ridiculous, though.
Why is a voluntary guideline intended for staff (like translators and interpreters translating documents or interpreting MEPs speaking in the chamber) encouraging gender neutral language ridiculous?

Especially considering the documents translated are international regulations that could have the strength of laws and bind all of the member states of the EU?

I'm guessing that you're unaware of the history of the women's rights movement, particularly pertaining to the opposition to that movement that has come in the forms of legal arguments: For example the claim that the French Déclaration des droits de l'Homme et du citoyen only applied to males (hommes), and that females (femme) were excluded. That can be the results when you have a legal document that deals with "The rights of Man".
(It only took 157 years for women to get the same rights guaranteed.)

Nonsense. It's taking a language that is already limited in expression and making it more limited.


How limited is the language? :confused:

Strangely Im having a problem finding words that I find "offensive" per-say...

like, I know a few words I find insulting...But, not to the point that I would demand the person no longer say them, just be prepared to be called something equally nasty back...

It's quite clearly not.

Gender-neutral language has the functional ability to cover multiple genders; gendered language doesn't.

Like waitress and waiter? Like Mr. and Ms.? Where there's something for both genders?

You keep on stating things like this as if you are stating fact.

If there are acceptable gender-neutral alternatives available, what good reason is there for sticking with gendered language?

You don't have to if you don't want to. I'm not forcing you. See?

How limited is the language? :confused:

Very limited. There are literally hundreds of feelings, effects, sights that cannot be described. There are no words available. There's no reason to make our language even more limited.

I also, got to thinking this afternoon, wouldn't the omission of Mr and Mrs/Miss/Ms. also be viewed as offensive when the person deserves it?

I.E.

Mr. President
Mr. Speaker
Mr. Secretary
Mrs. Obama

Also, when a stranger comes to visit you on your property, it would be supremely disrespectful to simply address them by their full name as opposed to addressing them as Mr. and Mrs. The same goes for when you call a person you don't know on the phone. It would be very disrespectful to call someone and say "Hello Mick Jagger, I'm trying to sell you XYZ" as opposed to "Hello Mr. Jagger, I'm trying to sell you XYZ."

EDIT: Same goes for Mrs/Ms. Jagger.

Very limited. There are literally hundreds of feelings, effects, sights that cannot be described. There are no words available. There's no reason to make our language even more limited.
Really? I for one have never encountered that problem, as far as I can recall. I don't find language to be as limited as you seem to be claiming, and could point to several thousand novels, poems and other types of writing that seem to back up my claim.

In my experience, language doesn't set the limits, only the mind and imagination of the (would-be) author.

I also, got to thinking this afternoon, wouldn't the omission of Mr and Mrs/Miss/Ms. also be viewed as offensive when the person deserves it?

I.E.

Mr. President
Mr. Speaker
Mr. Secretary
Mrs. Obama

Also, when a stranger comes to visit you on your property, it would be supremely disrespectful to simply address them by their full name as opposed to addressing them as Mr. and Mrs. The same goes for when you call a person you don't know on the phone. It would be very disrespectful to call someone and say "Hello Mick Jagger, I'm trying to sell you XYZ" as opposed to "Hello Mr. Jagger, I'm trying to sell you XYZ."

EDIT: Same goes for Mrs/Ms. Jagger.

Nah, not really. I never use Mr./Ms./Mrs. in daily life, and I get by fine without being seen as disrespectful (I hope). One of the reasons is that I tend to not use names when speaking to people. Nor in writing.

Really? I for one have never encountered that problem, as far as I can recall. I don't find language to be as limited as you seem to be claiming, and could point to several thousand novels, poems and other types of writing that seem to back up my claim.

In my experience, language doesn't set the limits, only the mind and imagination of the (would-be) author.

I fail anytime I attempt to describe an orgasm in detail. However, I won't ask you to describe your experience. That would probably kill the PG-13 that we dance back and forth across.

Nah, not really. I never use Mr./Ms./Mrs. in daily life, and I get by fine without being seen as disrespectful (I hope). One of the reasons is that I tend to not use names when speaking to people. Nor in writing.

That's awfully impersonal. Here in my neck of the woods of the US, unless you're talking with friends, you always use Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms./Sir/Madam(Ma'am), especially to superiors and strangers when you're on their land or calling them at home.

Really? I for one have never encountered that problem, as far as I can recall. I don't find language to be as limited as you seem to be claiming, and could point to several thousand novels, poems and other types of writing that seem to back up my claim.

In my experience, language doesn't set the limits, only the mind and imagination of the (would-be) author.



Nah, not really. I never use Mr./Ms./Mrs. in daily life, and I get by fine without being seen as disrespectful (I hope). One of the reasons is that I tend to not use names when speaking to people. Nor in writing.

I'm beginning to think that the approach to this subject has too much to do with up-bringing. My mother taught me that when addressing my betters, I should do so with respect. Therefore, Mr., Mrs. or Miss are important. In my culture to address your elders or people you do not know with familiarity is a slight, a breach of manners.