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.
2017/04/05 20:46:27
Subject: preventing Ableism-Too much or not enough
If I may be so bold, I would have more respect for anyone in that situation with your same inflexibility who took the less craven path and just replaced "black" with "I don't give a gak about you."
"How do I want my coffee? I don't give a gak about you."
"I drive the I don't give a gak about you car."
"This job has hollowed out my body and soul to the point where I look ahead six months and all I see is I don't give a gak about you."
redleger wrote: 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 behaviouris exactly the kind of thing that I am talking about by expecting other people to control your emotions for you.
I've literally never heard of that. Here a jig is template form set up to better fabricate metal, or wood into a desired ship, often multiple times.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2017/04/05 20:47:31
Subject: Re:preventing Ableism-Too much or not enough
redleger wrote: 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 behaviouris exactly the kind of thing that I am talking about by expecting other people to control your emotions for you.
I've literally never heard of that. Here a jig is template form set up to better fabricate metal, or wood into a desired ship, often multiple times.
And this is why "being offended" to the point you get violent is lame.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BobtheInquisitor wrote: If I may be so bold, I would have more respect for anyone in that situation with your same inflexibility who took the less craven path and just replaced "black" with "I don't give a gak about you."
"How do I want my coffee? I don't give a gak about you."
"I drive the I don't give a gak about you car."
"This job has hollowed out my body and soul to the point where I look ahead six months and all I see is I don't give a gak about you."
So now using the descriptor black to describe something that is in fact black is the same thing as saying I don't give a gak about you. If someone took offense to me ordering my coffee black, which is how I drink it, then I would either no longer buy from them, or if not the vendor show them what it really means to be offended when I make them feel 1in tall. Then they can learn what truly offensive language is. Because the word black in and of it self is no more offensive than pink or purple.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/05 21:25:54
10k CSM
1.5k Thousand Sons
2k Death Guard
3k Tau
3k Daemons(Tzeentch and Nurgle)
2017/04/05 21:26:53
Subject: preventing Ableism-Too much or not enough
redleger wrote: 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 behaviouris exactly the kind of thing that I am talking about by expecting other people to control your emotions for you.
I've literally never heard of that. Here a jig is template form set up to better fabricate metal, or wood into a desired ship, often multiple times.
I've never been a fan of anyone telling me what I can or can't say. Why the sudden urge to control language? Was it always like this? Instead of trying to police language, why can't people just do what we always did in the past and throw some words back at the other side?
2017/04/05 21:41:56
Subject: Re:preventing Ableism-Too much or not enough
Future War Cultist wrote: I've never been a fan of anyone telling me what I can or can't say. Why the sudden urge to control language? Was it always like this?
Of course it was always like this.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
2017/04/05 23:13:03
Subject: preventing Ableism-Too much or not enough
Frazzled wrote:Cool then that person has the same free speech right to tell you to go yourself when you try to exert dominion on them.
And these people in turn are free to interpret your reply as you being an easily offended snowflake with anger issues if you interpret them asking for a slight change in word usage as "exert dominion" and use words like that. I can't be sure but my guess is that you probably adjust your language all the time to your target audience (friends, family, work, young kids). They why get so offended yourself when somebody is not comfortable with a given situation? You could just ignore it and keep talking like before instead of reacting like that. They don't have power over you :/
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.
Just for clarification, which is it? The special snowflake "free speech" crowd that throws around triggered all the time with more or less no context or reason, or the supposedly perpetually offended SJW crowd? Because at the moment the "free speech warriors" crowd seems to "liberally use the word" triggered more than all of the tumblr snowflakes combined (especially when they think it's some edgy retort).
Future War Cultist wrote:I've never been a fan of anyone telling me what I can or can't say. Why the sudden urge to control language? Was it always like this? Instead of trying to police language, why can't people just do what we always did in the past and throw some words back at the other side?
You know that when people ask you to adjust your vocabulary that's not an order. They are just uncomfortable with something and it's in your power to change that (or not, it's literary up to you). What would you do if you accidentally used "bad words" in front of somebody's kids and they asked you to stop. Would just just apologise and adjust or would you preach to them about free speech/safe spaces/thought police and people wanting to control language and double down on using offensive language to prove a point. This is similar, just for adults. For example, all over the world people manage to adjust when a friend asks them to not use a nickname because they don't like it (or similar situations). If you don't like to change then don't and these people might end up offended or not liking it and it might shade their perception of you (like thinking of you as insensitive or stubborn). And you are free to interpret that as them being oversensitive.
In the end there is no police going around shooting people for using "offensive language" and these days you can probably find more content with that type of language than at any other time in human history. If there's policing happening then it's doing a really bad job.
2017/04/05 23:21:20
Subject: Re:preventing Ableism-Too much or not enough
Oh yeah, of course I wouldn't swear in front of kids or call someone a disgusting slur to their face. That's just common sense and curtesy. I guess what I was talking about has more to do with opinions rather then words and is a separate issue.
2017/04/05 23:24:06
Subject: preventing Ableism-Too much or not enough
Frazzled wrote:Cool then that person has the same free speech right to tell you to go yourself when you try to exert dominion on them.
And these people in turn are free to interpret your reply as you being an easily offended snowflake with anger issues if you interpret them asking for a slight change in word usage as "exert dominion" and use words like that. I can't be sure but my guess is that you probably adjust your language all the time to your target audience (friends, family, work, young kids). They why get so offended yourself when somebody is not comfortable with a given situation? You could just ignore it and keep talking like before instead of reacting like that. They don't have power over you :/
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.
Just for clarification, which is it? The special snowflake "free speech" crowd that throws around triggered all the time with more or less no context or reason, or the supposedly perpetually offended SJW crowd? Because at the moment the "free speech warriors" crowd seems to "liberally use the word" triggered more than all of the tumblr snowflakes combined (especially when they think it's some edgy retort).
Future War Cultist wrote:I've never been a fan of anyone telling me what I can or can't say. Why the sudden urge to control language? Was it always like this? Instead of trying to police language, why can't people just do what we always did in the past and throw some words back at the other side?
You know that when people ask you to adjust your vocabulary that's not an order. They are just uncomfortable with something and it's in your power to change that (or not, it's literary up to you). What would you do if you accidentally used "bad words" in front of somebody's kids and they asked you to stop. Would just just apologise and adjust or would you preach to them about free speech/safe spaces/thought police and people wanting to control language and double down on using offensive language to prove a point. This is similar, just for adults. For example, all over the world people manage to adjust when a friend asks them to not use a nickname because they don't like it (or similar situations). If you don't like to change then don't and these people might end up offended or not liking it and it might shade their perception of you (like thinking of you as insensitive or stubborn). And you are free to interpret that as them being oversensitive.
In the end there is no police going around shooting people for using "offensive language" and these days you can probably find more content with that type of language than at any other time in human history. If there's policing happening then it's doing a really bad job.
To me, you have won this debate
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/05 23:29:00
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
2017/04/05 23:33:20
Subject: preventing Ableism-Too much or not enough
BobtheInquisitor wrote: If I may be so bold, I would have more respect for anyone in that situation with your same inflexibility who took the less craven path and just replaced "black" with "I don't give a gak about you."
"How do I want my coffee? I don't give a gak about you."
"I drive the I don't give a gak about you car."
"This job has hollowed out my body and soul to the point where I look ahead six months and all I see is I don't give a gak about you."
So now using the descriptor black to describe something that is in fact black is the same thing as saying I don't give a gak about you. If someone took offense to me ordering my coffee black, which is how I drink it, then I would either no longer buy from them, or if not the vendor show them what it really means to be offended when I make them feel 1in tall. Then they can learn what truly offensive language is. Because the word black in and of it self is no more offensive than pink or purple.
I feel like you misunderstand what I wrote because you didn't read all of the posts in the reply chain.
First of all, I thought we were talking about a coworker or someone 'you' have to deal with. If this is a vendor or total stranger, then walking away is an option. Second, the hypothetical was ridiculous enough assuming a coworker. A coffee vendor who is offended by the term black coffee is such a stupid, childish hypothetical that it warrants derision. If that is the hypothetical, then it simply wouldn't be worth my time to play that game.
If we are talking about a coworker (or someone you can't safely assume is an unmedicated vagrant) who asks you not to use word x because it offends them, and you decide that you will keep using the word because your desire not to have to think or modify your behavior is more important than their desire not to have hurt feelings, then when you use word X you are implicitly telling that person you don't give a gak about them. That is exactly what it means when you dismiss someone else's request not to offend them. You don't give a gak about them. In fact, from your post you are so offended (!) by that person who asked you to not say one specific word (possibly for good reasons, but you"ll never know) that you will enjoy excoriating them, inflicting misery on them for your satisfaction. You care more about being right on an abstract principle such as "black is a safe word" than you do about another human being getting along with you. Sun Tzu once said the efficient path to victory is not to be such a dick that you make enemies out of allies, or some SJW crap like that.
Besides, as the "jig" conversation demonstrated, there might be a regional dialect somewhere that sees the word as very offensive. Rather than admit the possibility of your ignorance causing some accidental offense, you would make sure to cause offense on purpose to remove any doubt those around you might have of your character.
I wonder if this is part of a bigger political problem. Some people hear that they have hurt someone's feelings and their response is to lash out at a perceived attempt to abrogate their freedoms and verbally punish those who disagree in the name of freedom. Some people respond by taking the positive step to find out how to avoid such unpleasantness so everyone can exit the situation happier. Man, which one do I think leads to better outcomes...
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/04/05 23:56:20
Oh yeah, of course I wouldn't swear in front of kids or call someone a disgusting slur to their face. That's just common sense and curtesy. I guess what I was talking about has more to do with opinions rather then words and is a separate issue.
This whole issue is that one person said, "I consider that word a slur." Common sense and courtesy are a plot by the secret police.
No. Regardless of what comes next, you shouldn't be triggered. If you are triggered it means you had a traumatic experience and it's pretty sad. PTSD is seriously terrible.
Spoiler:
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 didn't miss the point, you did. The fact they use the word wrong is no reason to do the same yourself, further stripping it of meaning.
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
2017/04/06 00:55:58
Subject: preventing Ableism-Too much or not enough
BobtheInquisitor wrote: If I may be so bold, I would have more respect for anyone in that situation with your same inflexibility who took the less craven path and just replaced "black" with "I don't give a gak about you."
"How do I want my coffee? I don't give a gak about you."
"I drive the I don't give a gak about you car."
"This job has hollowed out my body and soul to the point where I look ahead six months and all I see is I don't give a gak about you."
So now using the descriptor black to describe something that is in fact black is the same thing as saying I don't give a gak about you. If someone took offense to me ordering my coffee black, which is how I drink it, then I would either no longer buy from them, or if not the vendor show them what it really means to be offended when I make them feel 1in tall. Then they can learn what truly offensive language is. Because the word black in and of it self is no more offensive than pink or purple.
I feel like you misunderstand what I wrote because you didn't read all of the posts in the reply chain.
First of all, I thought we were talking about a coworker or someone 'you' have to deal with. If this is a vendor or total stranger, then walking away is an option. Second, the hypothetical was ridiculous enough assuming a coworker. A coffee vendor who is offended by the term black coffee is such a stupid, childish hypothetical that it warrants derision. If that is the hypothetical, then it simply wouldn't be worth my time to play that game.
If we are talking about a coworker (or someone you can't safely assume is an unmedicated vagrant) who asks you not to use word x because it offends them, and you decide that you will keep using the word because your desire not to have to think or modify your behavior is more important than their desire not to have hurt feelings, then when you use word X you are implicitly telling that person you don't give a gak about them. That is exactly what it means when you dismiss someone else's request not to offend them. You don't give a gak about them. In fact, from your post you are so offended (!) by that person who asked you to not say one specific word (possibly for good reasons, but you"ll never know) that you will enjoy excoriating them, inflicting misery on them for your satisfaction. You care more about being right on an abstract principle such as "black is a safe word" than you do about another human being getting along with you. Sun Tzu once said the efficient path to victory is not to be such a dick that you make enemies out of allies, or some SJW crap like that.
Besides, as the "jig" conversation demonstrated, there might be a regional dialect somewhere that sees the word as very offensive. Rather than admit the possibility of your ignorance causing some accidental offense, you would make sure to cause offense on purpose to remove any doubt those around you might have of your character.
I wonder if this is part of a bigger political problem. Some people hear that they have hurt someone's feelings and their response is to lash out at a perceived attempt to abrogate their freedoms and verbally punish those who disagree in the name of freedom. Some people respond by taking the positive step to find out how to avoid such unpleasantness so everyone can exit the situation happier. Man, which one do I think leads to better outcomes...
I see the point you are making, and for most scenarios it rings true. However in the scenario of being expected to modify normal behavior every time someone asks you too where is the line. Innuendo can be drawn from literally almost anything from sex to race. At what point is it ok to say, no sir, that was not the context, you are reaching and please exit my personal space?
10k CSM
1.5k Thousand Sons
2k Death Guard
3k Tau
3k Daemons(Tzeentch and Nurgle)
2017/04/06 01:28:39
Subject: preventing Ableism-Too much or not enough
I see the point you are making, and for most scenarios it rings true. However in the scenario of being expected to modify normal behavior every time someone asks you too where is the line. Innuendo can be drawn from literally almost anything from sex to race. At what point is it ok to say, no sir, that was not the context, you are reaching and please exit my personal space?
You don't have to every time someone asks you to. You don't have to at all. I'm not even saying you should the first time if you are comfortable with the social blowback. I'm saying, ideally one should have a conversation and listen to the other person. They have their own feelings and perspective and want to be treated with as much respect as you want to be treated with. Usually that is enough to mollify them. The whole issue is about respect.
For the coffee example, unless they have a really compelling reason I would expect it to be enough just to be contrite. "Oh. I didn't realize that was offensive. I'll try not to say it again but I might forget and slip up since I haven't had my coffee yet. Please excuse me if I do."
For the "lame" discussion, it sounds like someone influential in that Facebook group has an issue with the word and avoiding using it is just the price of posting there drama free (freer?). You won't be locked up, but I assume they can kick you out if they want? If so, it's up to you whether to stay there and deal with their rules or not. The word might actually hurt their feelings, too, which I would consider a good reason to avoid using it.
In some place like a work environment, it really depends on your personal tolerance. Some people thrive when all their coworkers hate them. I sure don't. So, unless the request is truly onerous I find it is usually easier just to go along with what makes the least amount of office conflict. Also, I like being nice to people and dislike causing unnecessary pain, emotional or physical. If their request is onerous, I'd try my best to figure out a way to let them know I do care about their perspective while at the same time I am unable to comply with their request. I honestly can't think of a single time when this wasn't enough of an attempt at conciliation to satisfy the offended party.
redleger wrote: 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 behaviouris exactly the kind of thing that I am talking about by expecting other people to control your emotions for you.
I've literally never heard of that. Here a jig is template form set up to better fabricate metal, or wood into a desired ship, often multiple times.
And this is why "being offended" to the point you get violent is lame.
well in 1927 it was a different case all together,
Origin and Etymology of jig
short for jigaboo black person
First Known Use: 1927
but I do agree, violence is not the answer.
Or maybe, from Meriam Webster's Dictionary:
'perhaps from Medieval French giguer to frolic, from gigue fiddle, of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German gīga fiddle; akin to Old Norse geiga to turn aside
First Known Use: circa 1560'
2017/04/06 02:18:25
Subject: preventing Ableism-Too much or not enough
redleger wrote: So follow question, as this continues to kind of eat at me. At what point do we end up whittling down the English language to one word for each meaning? Vocabulary would become unnecessary, and descriptive words useless. Retardant is a perfect example. So now we saw fire resistant. Now somehow resistant becomes offensive to people fighting oppressive governments. I mean there needs to be a point where people learn to control their own emotions themselves without censoring everyone so they don't have to.
There's a really amazing irony in someone complaining about the loss of words in one sentence, and then in the next treating two words as synonyms when they have distinct meanings.
As to the use of words like 'lame'... I guess it all comes down to context. Saying the ending of a show was lame while there is a guy missing two legs sitting right next to you just isn't very thoughtful or smart. But on the other hand, if a person said that under a certain interpretation a law might be rendered lame... then it'd be contrived for some random third party to come in lecturing you about saying the word 'lame'.
Unfortunately, it looks like this will end up yet another proxy in the great culture war. The right wants to show their ideological cred by declaring people can say any word at any time because freedom. The left wants to show how much more enlightened they are by lecturing everyone about everything. Both sides are utterly insufferable.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/06 02:27:52
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2017/04/06 02:37:37
Subject: preventing Ableism-Too much or not enough
redleger wrote: So follow question, as this continues to kind of eat at me. At what point do we end up whittling down the English language to one word for each meaning? Vocabulary would become unnecessary, and descriptive words useless. Retardant is a perfect example. So now we saw fire resistant. Now somehow resistant becomes offensive to people fighting oppressive governments. I mean there needs to be a point where people learn to control their own emotions themselves without censoring everyone so they don't have to.
There's a really amazing irony in someone complaining about the loss of words in one sentence, and then in the next treating two words as synonyms when they have distinct meanings.
As to the use of words like 'lame'... I guess it all comes down to context. Saying the ending of a show was lame while there is a guy missing two legs sitting right next to you just isn't very thoughtful or smart. But on the other hand, if a person said that under a certain interpretation a law might be rendered lame... then it'd be contrived for some random third party to come in lecturing you about saying the word 'lame'.
Unfortunately, it looks like this will end up yet another proxy in the great culture war. The right wants to show their ideological cred by declaring people can say any word at any time because freedom. The left wants to show how much more enlightened they are by lecturing everyone about everything. Both sides are utterly insufferable.
I actually love that, because its so true.
To your other point quick synonym check shows I used a very bad example. I concede that was a poor choice.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/04/06 02:42:01
10k CSM
1.5k Thousand Sons
2k Death Guard
3k Tau
3k Daemons(Tzeentch and Nurgle)
2017/04/06 03:34:08
Subject: preventing Ableism-Too much or not enough
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I believe it's a contraction of 'Jigaboo', which is a derogatory term for people of colour.
Perhaps not a widely used one, but derogatory all the same.
Its also a widely used term in metal and wood shops across the US. Thats just crazy stupid.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2017/04/06 13:18:48
Subject: preventing Ableism-Too much or not enough
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I believe it's a contraction of 'Jigaboo', which is a derogatory term for people of colour.
Perhaps not a widely used one, but derogatory all the same.
Its also a widely used term in metal and wood shops across the US. Thats just crazy stupid.
All I can say is the time I spent in Michigan in the Detroit (Dearborn) area, many people were not in their "happy place" and were pretty quick to offend.
Automotive industry is a rather intense environment but I had never seen so many people demanding respect yet showing precious little for the other person.
The company I was at was some "certified visible minority" establishment so I would figure it would not be a place people would be looking for problems.
BUT to be on topic, we all take some responsibility for what we choose to be offended by.
We also need to hold people accountable for ill manners and intentional hurtful language.
All this stems from our own prejudices which typically is from just lack of knowledge and some who genuinely just want to be controversial.
Easiest means to avoid the ableism issue is to sit down and talk with people who have these challenges.
I think too many of us tend to act like the person is not there if they make us uncomfortable.
A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.
Napoleon Bonaparte
2017/04/06 13:19:12
Subject: preventing Ableism-Too much or not enough
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I believe it's a contraction of 'Jigaboo', which is a derogatory term for people of colour.
Perhaps not a widely used one, but derogatory all the same.
Its also a widely used term in metal and wood shops across the US. Thats just crazy stupid.
No, it's not. A "Jig" is a commonly used term, "Jigaboo" is unabashedly a racial slur, albeit an older one.
Yeah I'm pretty sure Fraz was referring to "jig" with his comment rather than "jigaboo" for which it's supposedly a contraction.
Personally I use the term "jig" all the time (both in the context of metal working and also in the context of a dance) and have never even heard it used as a contraction for "jigaboo".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Again, who are you to say whether a given person should or should not be taking offence?
People can be offended by whatever they want. Just because someone is offended doesn't mean the other party was being offensive.
A tangentially related and somewhat funny video...
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/04/06 13:55:33
2017/04/06 13:55:01
Subject: preventing Ableism-Too much or not enough
I totally forgot about the Irish dance and evidently its also a term for a fishing lure.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/06 13:59:30
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2017/04/06 14:17:25
Subject: preventing Ableism-Too much or not enough
I totally forgot about the Irish dance and evidently its also a term for a fishing lure.
So if something has multiple meanings, one being a huge racial slur, then it's not a surprise for some to possibly be upset about it, making it not crazy stupid, numb nuts.
yourself when you try to exert dominion on them. 
~1.5k
