Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Galas wrote:
But when I encounter someone with a skin to thin and "You should don't say that because MAYBE someone that isn't here can be offended" I just tend to ignore him.

Sometime it can be justified though. Say, if you are making a rape joke, you never know if there are rape survivors around, and just because no-one tells you they are doesn't mean no-one is.

Yes. Thats the reason why I restrain myself and don't say in public spaces offensive jokes when its a plausible reality that people that have experience that can read them.

If I made a Joke of someone eating monkey hecces because one throw it to his mouth, its actually plausible that people exist that can be offended reading that (Just look at youtube, its full of examples ) but this its not an All or Nothing issue. Theres topic to joke about freely, and theres topics to don't do it.

 skyth wrote:


Most people wouldn't be offended by calling a horse lame when they were speaking of being unable to walk.

Granted, I could see mods of a forum being tired of arguments that the word was used 'correctly' and decide to ban all use of the word.

Indeed! Try to start a post on DakkaDakka with the word Kitchen in it! It cannot be done! Those monsters!

 skyth wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

The difference being that Frazzled can move out of Texas and shed his horrible texasness, but a lame person cannot choose to stop being lame.

Unfortunately for the 'lame' person, the word lame has too many legitimate uses. As a horse (and other critter) owner, the word lame is a term that gets used, because well, it is the correct term. If a person is lame and is offended by my use of the term in day to day conversations with the farrier or vet or any other person with whom I talking about my critters they can deal with it. Easier and cheaper to deal with hurt feelings than a lame horse...

Actually, one of our goats, Moonshine, is currently lame after having foundered. I have to trim her hooves every 2 weeks or so and inject her with Banamine every other day or so. Hope to heck we can get it under control soon.

Most people wouldn't be offended by calling a horse lame when they were speaking of being unable to walk.

Granted, I could see mods of a forum being tired of arguments that the word was used 'correctly' and decide to ban all use of the word.

My understanding of the issue is folks want the word to quit being used because it may be/is offensive to some. My point is there are very valid uses of the word. If I've misunderstood the point, well, I'm not always the sharpest knife in the drawer.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:


I am no stranger to PTSD. I used " "triggered" " in that sentence as a call to the special snowflake crowd and their liberal use of the word.

I always laught at the fact that the same people that has popularized the term "Special Snowflake" to refer to a group, its the same people that uses the term "Normie" to refer to the mayority of the people in the planet that don't understand what they understand, and are considered "inferior" from a social point of his view We are afterall our own Special Snowflakes.

Incongruences of the internet, always so lovely.

 CptJake wrote:

 skyth wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

The difference being that Frazzled can move out of Texas and shed his horrible texasness, but a lame person cannot choose to stop being lame.

Unfortunately for the 'lame' person, the word lame has too many legitimate uses. As a horse (and other critter) owner, the word lame is a term that gets used, because well, it is the correct term. If a person is lame and is offended by my use of the term in day to day conversations with the farrier or vet or any other person with whom I talking about my critters they can deal with it. Easier and cheaper to deal with hurt feelings than a lame horse...

Actually, one of our goats, Moonshine, is currently lame after having foundered. I have to trim her hooves every 2 weeks or so and inject her with Banamine every other day or so. Hope to heck we can get it under control soon.

Most people wouldn't be offended by calling a horse lame when they were speaking of being unable to walk.

Granted, I could see mods of a forum being tired of arguments that the word was used 'correctly' and decide to ban all use of the word.

My understanding of the issue is folks want the word to quit being used because it may be/is offensive to some. My point is there are very valid uses of the word. If I've misunderstood the point, well, I'm not always the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Nope, you understand the situation perfectly. That was the exact problem.

Need to look at the meaning: Ableism - a set of practices and beliefs that assign inferior value (worth) to people who have developmental, emotional, physical or psychiatric disabilities.

I agree that some words in certain contexts may need to be re-examined as something to not see much use.
A common expression in my childhood was to say things like "That is a slowed (ah! the rude word filter strikes!) way to do things.". Yes, I know. I think that use in the dictionary is labelled "informal offensive".
I still find it sneak into my language when sufficiently shocked.

The difficulty is trying to apply correction to a person depending on it's "casual'/thoughtless use vs hurtful use of the words.
I have "mild" dyslexia, my one kid has AD and is colour blind and one with AD/HD and Autism so any comment on mental function is a landmine state of affairs.

It all boils down to the same thing as any prejudice: it is not something we typically have experience with or knowledge so we treat it as uncommon or "foreign".

I tell you, Autism has been the hardest "mindset" for me to get straight in my head the thinking process or overall experience, my kid looks and usually behaves "normal" so he sees a reverse prejudice since most people think he is a "normal" person acting different. Even wording can be strange, he is normal to me but throws the odd person for a loop who have not interacted with an autistic person before.

I guess all that is important is people be practical about it.
Not to infer more challenges than there are with a given person.
A deaf person would have zero issue with mechanical design, but a deaf person would have significant challenges in being a sound engineer.

This language militant behavior can be helpful to remind but can quickly make people upset if the point is made too forcefully: all in moderation.
I have a serious issue with the fixation of gender in language especially with the French and Spanish language's obsession to assign gender to inanimate objects.
Political correctness at least appears to be dead if American politics are any indication.

My instant thoughts on reading the OP

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
So, we use a word that compares something to a class of people in order to express a negative opinion of that something, then tell the class of people used as a descriptor of negative value not to be offended by us using them as the standard of that which is terrible and substandard?


Like, if I said Frazz was a total Texas who texased up this thread until it was all Texas, a state of being I and all good people find distasteful, then it would be Frazzled's fault for being offended by the usage of the idea that being Texan in nature is a horrible, horrible thing that connotes all kinds of unpleasantness? We can count on Frazzled not to be offended when we use his very texasness as an insult for people we don't like.

The difference being that Frazzled can move out of Texas and shed his horrible texasness, but a lame person cannot choose to stop being lame. And that's just Texas for that poor person.*



*At first I was going to use the verb "to Jew", but I've heard people use it and then tell me to stop whining when I was offended. However, in the past that analogy has been less than successful on Dakka, so I went for phrasing that might actually communicate the idea to others.

Not disagreeing with you, but as a spin on this, someone says I have black hair. Or someone says the word "black", perhaps asking for their coffee, as a pure adjective. I get offended by the use of that adjective describing something completely unrelated to me, or get offended by someone pointing out I have black hair.

Am I permitted to censor them for using the term black to describe things? Or am I wrong for being offended when someone points out my physiology or a descriptive term/adjective?

I'm not talking about censoring. You would, however, have the right, perhaps even the obligation to say, "I find the use of the word 'black' offensive in this context, and here's why..." Most people don't want to be dicks. Sometimes they get defensive when they think you're calling them a dick for something they didn't feel was dickish. Explaining to them that sometimes that behavior comes across as dickish is doing them a favor, and it is up to them to decide to moderate their behavior or not. Typically, people seem to go through a period of "but I always say that" and later become more conscious of how they use language. However, sometimes people are just unrepentant dicks.

At the very least you would start a conversation. Who knows--it might change how the word 'black' affects you, too, without the blame-the-victim internalization implied by 'growing a thicker skin'.

So what about words that offend people but not for the reasons some might think?

Say, "niggardly" for example? Which means miserly. Just throwing it out there! Any other words like that come to mind?

 amanita wrote:
So what about words that offend people but not for the reasons some might think?

Say, "niggardly" for example? Which means miserly. Just throwing it out there! Any other words like that come to mind?

I would not use that term. Ever.

Having spent a lot of time in urban and rural South (Louisiana), just don't.

 kronk wrote:

 amanita wrote:
So what about words that offend people but not for the reasons some might think?

Say, "niggardly" for example? Which means miserly. Just throwing it out there! Any other words like that come to mind?

I would not use that term. Ever.

Having spent a lot of time in urban and rural South (Louisiana), just don't.

Indeed. Yes, I understand there is a word for a bundle of wood, but I also understand words come to mean different things over time and some aren't really acceptable in casual usage.

Anyway, back to the OP, I've found the actual number of people who are offended by minor stuff to be pretty small - easily dwarfed by the outrage farmers who actively seek out such people to work themselves up into a lather about.

 CptJake wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

The difference being that Frazzled can move out of Texas and shed his horrible texasness, but a lame person cannot choose to stop being lame.

Unfortunately for the 'lame' person, the word lame has too many legitimate uses. As a horse (and other critter) owner, the word lame is a term that gets used, because well, it is the correct term. If a person is lame and is offended by my use of the term in day to day conversations with the farrier or vet or any other person with whom I talking about my critters they can deal with it. Easier and cheaper to deal with hurt feelings than a lame horse...

Actually, one of our goats, Moonshine, is currently lame after having foundered. I have to trim her hooves every 2 weeks or so and inject her with Banamine every other day or so. Hope to heck we can get it under control soon.

"Lame" is probably a border case word, at least, since it has legitimate uses as well as such a long history as a derogatory descriptor that it has been grandfathered in with words like cretin and moron. Honestly, I still use it to describe something uncool or embarrassing sometimes due to habit. However, I would be much more careful not to use it around anyone with a physical disability.

I also don't find the term "lame duck" to be an intended insult by proxy since lame is being used to describe the state of the duck. If someone told me he was offended by that usage, I would stop using it around him. (I may or may not roll my eyes depending on how he informs me.) I'd push back against anyone who requested I refrain from using it to describe a horse with a farrier, for example. Context makes a huge difference.

 Ouze wrote:

 kronk wrote:

 amanita wrote:
So what about words that offend people but not for the reasons some might think?

Say, "niggardly" for example? Which means miserly. Just throwing it out there! Any other words like that come to mind?

I would not use that term. Ever.

Having spent a lot of time in urban and rural South (Louisiana), just don't.

Indeed. Yes, I understand there is a word for a bundle of wood, but I also understand words come to mean different things over time and some aren't really acceptable in casual usage.

Anyway, back to the OP, I've found the actual number of people who are offended by minor stuff to be pretty small - easily dwarfed by the outrage farmers who actively seek out such people to work themselves up into a lather about.

Internet its full of hyperbole (And this its an hyperbole )

Exagerating the "enemy" its a basic strategy to further your points. Just create a problem to the solution you want to push.

 CptJake wrote:


My understanding of the issue is folks want the word to quit being used because it may be/is offensive to some. My point is there are very valid uses of the word. If I've misunderstood the point, well, I'm not always the sharpest knife in the drawer.

My understanding was different. I thought people wanted others to stop using the word specifically as a negative descriptor. Similarly, I know many people who are against calling someone "slowed" but have no problem with someone saying their progress or a fire was "slowed". Pretty soon I expect to see the same kind of debates over the word "special" because so many people use that as an insult that compares the insultee to a class of people diminishing both, whereas special will still be fine for sauce, blue lights and of-the-day.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 amanita wrote:
So what about words that offend people but not for the reasons some might think?

Say, "niggardly" for example? Which means miserly. Just throwing it out there! Any other words like that come to mind?

Use that as a teaching moment. If you want to be passive aggressive, buy that person a word of the day calendar.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 CptJake wrote:


My understanding of the issue is folks want the word to quit being used because it may be/is offensive to some. My point is there are very valid uses of the word. If I've misunderstood the point, well, I'm not always the sharpest knife in the drawer.

My understanding was different. I thought people wanted others to stop using the word specifically as a negative descriptor. Similarly, I know many people who are against calling someone "slowed" but have no problem with someone saying their progress or a fire was "slowed". Pretty soon I expect to see the same kind of debates over the word "special" because so many people use that as an insult that compares the insultee to a class of people diminishing both, whereas special will still be fine for sauce, blue lights and of-the-day.

From the first post (see below), I think CptJake's take on it is right, but we just have one side of the story, obviously.

I came back with the english dictionary definition to defend this poor person and was told context, logic, and definitions have no meaning, its listed on a website as a bad word, so don't use it.

The dictionary definition really isn't a defense if the poster was using the word as an insult rather than in its technical capacity. That would be like saying, "I called that shopkeeper a circumcised descendant of Judah who keeps the covenant with God; it's right here in the dictionary!" Without the context of how the word was used, we can't know whether the usage was legitimate or a slur.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
The dictionary definition really isn't a defense if the poster was using the word as an insult rather than in its technical capacity. That would be like saying, "I called that shopkeeper a circumcised descendant of Judah who keeps the covenant with God; it's right here in the dictionary!" Without the context of how the word was used, we can't know whether the usage was legitimate or a slur.

As I said, we only have the one side of the story.

I find "That's a lame excuse" is closer to "That excuse is slowed" than it is to "That excuse does not march."

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
"That's a lame excuse" is closer to "That excuse is slowed" than it is to "That excuse does not march."

In my head, I immediately translate "That's a lame excuse" for "That's a poor excuse" or, more accurately, "You're full of gak", so I wouldn't immediately see it as an insult to "lame" or handicapped people.

However, going back to only hearing one side of the story, maybe the guy had been told not to use that 20 times and they came down hard on him (baned!) on the 21st? I dunno, as I said.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
"That excuse does not march."

But holy feth I'm gonna use that when cussing out my kids now though. Love it.

I wouldn't have made an issue out of it, myself. I don't really feel like casual usage of such an old insult has any teeth any more. However, if someone told me he was offended by the usage, I would abide by his request since it is such an easy accomodation to make.


Having been a member of a few atheist groups in my time, I suspect the real culprit is a buildup of frustration and free-floating anger looking for expression. If it wasn't this, there would have been a crowd-halting screaming rant over one atheist unconsciously saying "bless you" to another atheist who sneezed.*

*Personal experience.

 amanita wrote:
So what about words that offend people but not for the reasons some might think?

Say, "niggardly" for example? Which means miserly. Just throwing it out there! Any other words like that come to mind?

I think you'd probably come off as the person trying to explain that no, it's a Charlie Chaplin mustache. I mean, yeah, maybe, but...

 kronk wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
"That's a lame excuse" is closer to "That excuse is slowed" than it is to "That excuse does not march."

In my head, I immediately translate "That's a lame excuse" for "That's a poor excuse" or, more accurately, "You're full of gak", so I wouldn't immediately see it as an insult to "lame" or handicapped people.

However, going back to only hearing one side of the story, maybe the guy had been told not to use that 20 times and they came down hard on him (baned!) on the 21st? I dunno, as I said.

That's a lame excuse = That's a poor excuse.

lame = poor

You are equating people who are lame with people who are substandard. That's the insult by proxy that's offending someone.

Since lame has been used that way for lifetimes already, it's not immediately obvious, nor does it have much in the way of teeth. Unless perhaps you have a disability best described with the same word, making it personal.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
The dictionary definition really isn't a defense if the poster was using the word as an insult rather than in its technical capacity. That would be like saying, "I called that shopkeeper a circumcised descendant of Judah who keeps the covenant with God; it's right here in the dictionary!" Without the context of how the word was used, we can't know whether the usage was legitimate or a slur.

As to whether this person was being censured for excessive use I do not know. I read entire thread and it was mostly based on whether or not the word lame was always inappropriate in civilized conversation. I attempted to converse with those who were overly aggressive in asserting it was always inappropriate and the rest of the story is in OP. For a few days I thought on it. I prefer to do moral inventory prior to making a stink of things but I also know most people here can use sense when discussing something not relating to religion or guns.
Truth is no matter how I look at it I see context as the only way to tell intent. There are many phrases and words no moral person would argue as fit for use. Many words have multiple meanings so assigning feeling to someone is the wrong answer in that situation, much like the example given.

Lame was the word in question.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I don't really feel like casual usage of such an old insult has any teeth any more. However, if someone told me he was offended by the usage, I would abide by his request since it is such an easy accomodation to make.

This at least shows me that you and I are on the same page. I would not intentionally continue to use the word lame knowing its use is offensive to an acquaintance, buddy, chum, or someone I just met.

Funny, I remember a weird moment where I almost had my head punched in by words I used I thought were "normal".

I was in a factory in Michigan and one of our assembly machines was just not working out, things were out of alignment.
I had said "That jig is garbage!"
That is when some rather large colored dude jumped off his fork lift and one-armed me into the wall with his fist cocked at me.
I then responded "What the heck is wrong?? What are you doing?? Why are you so angry about that jig??"
I guess from somewhere he came from a "jig" is some derogatory term for a colored person.
Ah, here in the "Urban Dictionary" "In the carnival industry, this is used as a derogatory word for black people. (Short for "Jigaboo")."

What is weird is that I never talked to this guy before, was not looking at him and yet he had enough offence to try to lay a beating on me in the workplace.
I was asked if I wanted to press charges or to have him fired, I just asked to talk with him alone.
We came away better and he was freaking out on how close he was to losing his job.
I just wanted to know what got him to that point... all that rage... it is not something I see where I live, ever.

I think like with anything you need to be in that person's shoes to truly understand.
Statements like "What, you cannot find it? Are ya blind?" like with anything can be terribly hurtful depending on the context and who is listening.

Jig is a bad slang word, but is very well known to apply to a !Achine or even fishing lures. So this is a perfect example. Personally I would have asked to talk to him and pressed charges. His behaviour​is exactly the kind of thing that I am talking about by expecting other people to control your emotions for you.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
So, we use a word that compares something to a class of people in order to express a negative opinion of that something, then tell the class of people used as a descriptor of negative value not to be offended by us using them as the standard of that which is terrible and substandard?


Like, if I said Frazz was a total Texas who texased up this thread until it was all Texas, a state of being I and all good people find distasteful, then it would be Frazzled's fault for being offended by the usage of the idea that being Texan in nature is a horrible, horrible thing that connotes all kinds of unpleasantness? We can count on Frazzled not to be offended when we use his very texasness as an insult for people we don't like.

The difference being that Frazzled can move out of Texas and shed his horrible texasness, but a lame person cannot choose to stop being lame. And that's just Texas for that poor person.*



*At first I was going to use the verb "to Jew", but I've heard people use it and then tell me to stop whining when I was offended. However, in the past that analogy has been less than successful on Dakka, so I went for phrasing that might actually communicate the idea to others.

Not disagreeing with you, but as a spin on this, someone says I have black hair. Or someone says the word "black", perhaps asking for their coffee, as a pure adjective. I get offended by the use of that adjective describing something completely unrelated to me, or get offended by someone pointing out I have black hair.

Am I permitted to censor them for using the term black to describe things? Or am I wrong for being offended when someone points out my physiology or a descriptive term/adjective?

I'm not talking about censoring. You would, however, have the right, perhaps even the obligation to say, "I find the use of the word 'black' offensive in this context, and here's why..." Most people don't want to be dicks. Sometimes they get defensive when they think you're calling them a dick for something they didn't feel was dickish. Explaining to them that sometimes that behavior comes across as dickish is doing them a favor, and it is up to them to decide to moderate their behavior or not. Typically, people seem to go through a period of "but I always say that" and later become more conscious of how they use language. However, sometimes people are just unrepentant dicks.

At the very least you would start a conversation. Who knows--it might change how the word 'black' affects you, too, without the blame-the-victim internalization implied by 'growing a thicker skin'.

But is the person I say "I find X word offensive in this context, etc etc" obliged/required to change their vocabulary? Even when asking for a hypothetical coffee? How else are they meant to do so, or refer to that particular colour, if not?

Either they are required to cease use of a perfectly innocuous word, in this context of not even directed at me, or I am overreacting.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:


I'm not talking about censoring. You would, however, have the right, perhaps even the obligation to say, "I find the use of the word 'black' offensive in this context, and here's why..." Most people don't want to be dicks. Sometimes they get defensive when they think you're calling them a dick for something they didn't feel was dickish. Explaining to them that sometimes that behavior comes across as dickish is doing them a favor, and it is up to them to decide to moderate their behavior or not. Typically, people seem to go through a period of "but I always say that" and later become more conscious of how they use language. However, sometimes people are just unrepentant dicks.

At the very least you would start a conversation. Who knows--it might change how the word 'black' affects you, too, without the blame-the-victim internalization implied by 'growing a thicker skin'.

But is the person I say "I find X word offensive in this context, etc etc" obliged/required to change their vocabulary?

No one is required to change vocabulary. We are not the police. However, they would be obliged at least to be careful with that word around you for politeness, unless they just plain want to antagonize you. If they don't care about being a jerk to you, then that's that. It also tends to lead to all kinds of drama and hostile work environments and stress, so that might be something to consider.

Even when asking for a hypothetical coffee? How else are they meant to do so, or refer to that particular colour, if not?

"My apologies. I didn't realize the word would offend you. How would you like me to describe plain coffee in the future?" (I suggest "unbemilked sugarless".)

You can even mention that you were surprised such an anodyne word hurt them and ask for any other words or topics they would like you to avoid. If you communicate genuine interest, usually people will respond well. If you ask with your sarcasm voice, not so much. Even if you find their request preposterous, starting a dialogue can go a long way to patch over further misunderstandings before they get serious.

If they see you as someone willing to listen, they might give you some warning about saying "jig" before they start punching you.

Either they are required to cease use of a perfectly innocuous word, in this context of not even directed at me, or I am overreacting.

Perfectly innocuous to you. Obviously it isn't perfectly innocuous if it bothers someone. And again, nothing is "required" on your part except to think for a moment about how you want all of your future interactions with this person to go. Is sticking a point on vocabulary worth potentially years of antagonism, random HR complaints, and general stink-eye to you? Does your coworker merit so little consideration that you're not even willing to entertain his personal issue with a single word to help make his days a little more bearable?

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I find "That's a lame excuse" is closer to "That excuse is slowed" than it is to "That excuse does not march."

Is an adjective even needed for that sentences though? how about "I don't need to hear your excuses"

or as excuses are always bad, so you can just go with, "that's a bad excuse"

“It is better to offer no excuse than a bad one.”
― George Washington