HEY, READ THIS ANNOUNCEMENT

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Automotive Insanity > HEY, READ THIS ANNOUNCEMENT

InitialDave: Jun 14, 2007; I Want To Believe.

CAT INTERCEPTOR posted:

As said elsewhere, yes UK / Aussies don't like the language police and we bristle at it... but this is a US based site with the majority of the posters left leaning USA residents. And this is being handled in a way that even the Aussies are shrugging, asked for exemptions within their own threads because it just isn't worth climbing up on a hill and dying for otherwise. So loving what, we dont get to call people cunts outright? There's other ways to to suggest someone is being a dumb oval office that also can be more satisfying, especially when they trip over their own feet and prove your point.

Yeah, I think it's utterly pathetic, but I'll tolerate the nonsense because I like it here.

Edit: Also, all of this:

ili posted:

That's kinda the way I see it, but not so much about the dreaded free speech police and more just the seppos asserting their language and culture as the default for anyone anywhere in the world. It's honestly pretty sad that people from other countries are just expected to give up their own culture because some Americans get upset words have different meanings in different countries. But it's probably not worth fighting a pitched battle over the right to talk on the internet the same way I would as in person.

Still sucks that even regional speech now needs to be boiled down to a fine paste and mixed with enough high fructose corn syrup to suit the north american palette, there's a certain depth in things like "The fucken dealership cross threaded my bash plate bolts and hit em with the rattle gun, it was an absolute oval office of a job to get them off again" that you just don't get with other words.

InitialDave fucked around with this message at 22:48 on Jun 10, 2020

# ¿ Jun 10, 2020 22:23

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 15:42

InitialDave: Jun 14, 2007; I Want To Believe.

Yeah, the more I think about this, the worse a decision it is.

Dropping "retard" from the general vernacular is fine, but there's no reason why people shouldn't be able to use "oval office" as freely as they do "gently caress".

# ¿ Jun 11, 2020 08:57

InitialDave: Jun 14, 2007; I Want To Believe.

CAT INTERCEPTOR posted:

Calling people cunts is seen as bad as calling POC a bunch of of names I dont believe I need to say here

It isn't, though. It really, really isn't, and if anyone genuinely believes that, then this is a very good opportunity to correct that misunderstanding.

CAT INTERCEPTOR posted:

it's actually been kinda cool people have been willing to listen to foreigners explain that hey we don't see this like they do and get to have exemptions.

That's fine for you, as you're in the group offered an exemption.

The Brits weren't offered one, not because we don't say oval office pretty much just as vociferously as the Aussies, but because of an American limitation of the understanding of the word's use internationally.

# ¿ Jun 11, 2020 11:36

InitialDave: Jun 14, 2007; I Want To Believe.

KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:

why? sure, in much of the world, "retard" is pretty vile, but in New England everyone uses it and it's fine, they know it's not actually meant to be demeaning to people with disabilities.

I dont actually want it not to be used, but I'm ok with it not being used, as there is a direct correlation between its current meaning and as a term for someone being mentally deficient, it's not just a generic insult in that sense.

KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:

yeah if you're not aware, "oval office" has been heavily co-opted by incels and people who advocated for and perpetrate violence against women

Those are the kind of people I'd call cunts all day long though. gently caress their use of the term, it's not theirs to co-opt.

# ¿ Jun 11, 2020 14:05

InitialDave: Jun 14, 2007; I Want To Believe.

KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:

i struggle to understand how "oval office" isn't a gender based insult

Do you struggle with "dick", "knob", "tit", "bollocks" etc etc?

The point is, it's not used as a gender based insult. It's just an insult/curse word, you can use it in reference to anyone/anything, and in this use it's separate to its use as a slang term for vagina.

# ¿ Jun 11, 2020 14:45

InitialDave: Jun 14, 2007; I Want To Believe.

KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:

I don't get why y'all are so attached.

You dont have to get it to accept it. It's a word we use as a curse word, its use as such is not misogynistic.

For my part, I really hate the term "queer", it properly grates on me as a homophobic term, and the adoption of it by the LGBT community doesn't change that.

But it just means I don't use it myself, other people using it in the context it has for them isn't for me to worry about.

# ¿ Jun 11, 2020 15:49

InitialDave: Jun 14, 2007; I Want To Believe.

KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:

"retard" as a word is a curse word we use and its use as such is not ableist

Take that up with the person telling you it's use is probatable.

I'm not bothered.

# ¿ Jun 11, 2020 15:55

InitialDave: Jun 14, 2007; I Want To Believe.

KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:

orrrrrr you could just be an adult and stop using it? why is that such a horrific outcome?

I generally don't use "retard". If you wish to use it or not use it, go right ahead.

If you mean I could stop using "oval office", there's no reason for me to, any more than any other curse word.

# ¿ Jun 11, 2020 16:56

InitialDave: Jun 14, 2007; I Want To Believe.

Krakkles posted:

**: Unless you're in the South, but that's a whole separate issue. The c-word might actually be worse, there. (Not that it's actually worse, just people in the South will react to it more than they would the n-word)

That seems more a "racist shitheads" problem than one of "oval office" being worse than racist epiphets.

You reference the John Mulaney maxim yourself - the worse word is the one you don't even say. Though even that I've always seen as a little silly when it's extended to applying in the context of having what is effectively an academic discussion of the word, rather than "using" it.

Raluek posted:

Presumably, you would want to avoid being super lovely to Americans, particularly American women. If you had a word that was super insulting to you, but normal to me, I would try not to say it around you! Or in my living room, if it was said in a way where you might come across it, like if I said it on the internet.

It doesn't matter how you meant it. It matters how people will react to it, and if they will be hurt or put off by it. Assuming you're trying to build an inclusive community, which I'm not convinced you're on board with. That's why I started my previous post with a question.

Ok, that is a reasonable argument, and if you want to ask me not to use it, that will certainly be taken on board, and I'll try not to include it in posts. But what's happening here is an order that we do not use it, which grates particularly when coupled with it being ok for the Australians to use it in their domestic linguistic context, but other nationalities who do similar not getting that allowance.

# ¿ Jun 11, 2020 19:15

InitialDave: Jun 14, 2007; I Want To Believe.

Krakkles posted:

I get that being told what to do sucks, but this is a weird hill to die on.

I'm not dying on it. It is, however, my hill, and if you'll let the Aussies stay on theirs, you sure as poo poo can let everyone else do the same.

# ¿ Jun 11, 2020 19:44

InitialDave: Jun 14, 2007; I Want To Believe.

Safety Dance posted:

There are some people whose whole identities revolve around being obstinately lovely. They're the people who lined up to climb Uluru the day it was banned, and they're the people yelling about "heritage not hate" in the US. They can gently caress right off as far as I'm concerned.

You won't get any argument from me, but that's not what's being discussed.

# ¿ Jun 11, 2020 20:09

InitialDave: Jun 14, 2007; I Want To Believe.

Krakkles posted:

If you want to argue for UK goons in UK specific threads to be able to use it, I doubt anyone would fight you, but that's not the impression you've given me.

Tbh I'm letting myself get excessively irritated about it due to work bullshit etc today, but fundamentally - if the word is so bad that absolutely no-one should use it, that position does not allow for the Aussies using it because of the different context, and having established that such an allowance can exist, said different context applies universally.

I would argue for not calling other posters cunts, while accepting that it gets used as a curse world in other contexts, is reasonable.

I would turn the debate to "twat", but then I'd have to deal with Americans pronouncing it.

# ¿ Jun 11, 2020 20:19

InitialDave: Jun 14, 2007; I Want To Believe.

Krakkles posted:

"Tw-AH-t"?
"Tw@"?
Wait, I know you guys drop the "t" sound entirely ... "wah"?

At as in bat, so tw@.

Not "twot".

# ¿ Jun 11, 2020 20:27

InitialDave: Jun 14, 2007; I Want To Believe.

CAT INTERCEPTOR posted:

Im not going to be used by bad faith posters for their disingenuous arguments. I tried to point out that the Aussies didnt kick up a pathetic stink and get butthurt because this site doesnt like a word but some people are taking this too far. This is NOT a hill to die on for me

I am definitely not arguing in bad faith, and I don't regard anyone who has an opposing viewpoint to mine to be doing so either.

I genuinely do not feel the word is bad enough to need an outright ban, or that it is inherently misogynistic, and the only reason I single out Aussies as representative of the use of it "acceptably" is because Elmnt80 did so when he wrote this stuff up.

I will accept it if it's what ends up happening, but I'm still going to argue back against it first, because I dont agree with it. That doesn't mean I'm misogynistic or uncaring for the sensibilities of others, and I am perfectly capable of moderating my language use if I need to.

HenryJLittlefinger posted:

Ffs what is it that makes some people so whiney about being asked to maybe change their behavior a little to make others feel more welcome? Discussions on every news story about NASCAR today is full of the same attitudes.

The difference is the "it doesn't mean that here" argument is bollocks for the Confederate flag.

# ¿ Jun 11, 2020 21:31

InitialDave: Jun 14, 2007; I Want To Believe.

Krakkles posted:

Two different things can be offensive in two different ways which are both problematic, though.

Yes, I understand that, and I understand that "oval office" can be really offensive to some (lraving out the obvious "it's a swear word, it's kind of meant to be").

The difference I see is that the Confederate flag is, well, literally flying the flag for everything the Confederates stood for, warts and all, that meaning is inherent to it and cannot be divorced from it, plus also that entire situation is Americans making decisions regarding their own, internal, home-grown culture, and it's very much their prerogative to do so.

You could probably have the Confederate flag put up here (and occasionally you do see it) without people losing their poo poo, but an American seeing it would be perfectly within their rights to have an "excuse me, what the gently caress?" Moment about it.

I actually have the opposite problem here,in that the genuine, ok to use English flag, St George's Cross, is somewhat associated with thick racist fuckwits, and I really wish it weren't, but luckily the Union Flag is still untainted enough for us other, non-lovely people.

Also people co-opting the pride flag for the NHS, which currently pisses me off quite a lot but that's a whole other derail.

# ¿ Jun 11, 2020 22:40

InitialDave: Jun 14, 2007; I Want To Believe.

HenryJLittlefinger posted:

The fact remains that making a comparison between two separate groups of people bristling at a pretty minor request in a similar way is not in any way saying they�re the same.

If we were American, you'd have a point. We're not.

The difference is that the Nascar flag bitching is from people who are American, so American societal norms being asserted on them by other Americans is fine.

That is not a parallel to non-Americans not liking American societal norms being asserted on them.

# ¿ Jun 12, 2020 07:50

InitialDave: Jun 14, 2007; I Want To Believe.

They're a stupid unit of measurement anyway, the cross-section of pubic hairs is ovalised, so your R&R will be loving awful.

# ¿ Jun 12, 2020 14:13

InitialDave: Jun 14, 2007; I Want To Believe.

Krakkles posted:

Interesting. So it sounds like it DOES refer to the same body part that it does here - if that's the case, it kind of kicks the legs out of "it's not a gender thing".

Yes it does, and no it doesn't.

The use of it as a generic curse word has no gendered significance. It is not an insult against women when used as such, in the same way that tit, cock, knob, dick etc etc aren't. The relative severity of cursing it counts as has no bearing on that.

Do you consider "hysterical" to be gendered?

# ¿ Jun 12, 2020 18:10

InitialDave: Jun 14, 2007; I Want To Believe.

Tomarse posted:

I don't give a poo poo about what exact words people use to do this just ban the sentiments. It should be pretty obvious.

Apparently not.

# ¿ Jun 12, 2020 20:42

InitialDave: Jun 14, 2007; I Want To Believe.

Elmnt80 posted:

I do wanna ask though, would those of you in the UK/Straya/etc call someone a oval office in public if you were in america visiting? If not, why?

Depends on context. Someone I know, like an AI goon? Yeah, probably, they fall under the same RoE as my mates over here.

Total stranger? Not unless I really want to stick the verbal boot in. More in deference to being a guest in someone else's house than it being an issue for me.

But you wouldn't call a random stranger a oval office here either. It might be less charged, but it still fits into the category of "starting some poo poo". But that's because you're calling them something akin to a "loving bellend", not because of any interpreted misogyny.

I have referred to things/tasks as being "a right oval office [of a job etc]" around yanks, and not had them misunderstand the context.

If you were talking to a Brit, and they hit you with "hahaha, ya silly oval office...", how would you take it?

# ¿ Jun 12, 2020 22:21

InitialDave: Jun 14, 2007; I Want To Believe.

Elmnt80 posted:

But thats where the issue lies. In north america its a slur, in Australia/UK/NZ its generally not. Like I've said, sure, I'm usually going to be able to understand the context. But is a new poster? They don't know you're an aussie/brit/kiwi/etc, odds are they're american/canadian and get the wrong impression of the forum in general.

Honest answer?

Ask us to not use it in the "generic traffic" areas for the benefit of American sensibilities, and knock off any "this word is inherently misogynistic" bollocks, and I suspect we're all probably ok to go along with that for the good of the forum.

It's picking a direct fight over linguistics with us when it's our own language, and the undertone that we hate women for daring to use it that's effectively starting some poo poo here.

Plus accept that because it's relatively natural language for us, like a high-cut pair of shorts, occasionally something might slip out that you'd rather not see. We don't mean anything by it, and we expect you to be intelligent enough to disseminate "I've had a oval office of a day" from yelling "Oi! Cuntflaps!" across the room at the new girl.

# ¿ Jun 13, 2020 00:09

InitialDave: Jun 14, 2007; I Want To Believe.

angryrobots posted:

I also vote to change the rules thread title to "Don't be an arsehat"

We just say "arse", the "hat" only flows well with "asshat".

Or, per the line from Hot Fuzz, "don't go being a twat now".

And yes, from experience, you can instruct that as a baseline rule for behaviour to 1000+ people at an event in the UK and have the only reaction be them applaud you for it.

# ¿ Jun 13, 2020 00:26

InitialDave: Jun 14, 2007; I Want To Believe.

CainFortea posted:

How is that different than what I said?

You were trying to be clever and steer it into a zinger about the Confederate flag by using the same language used in defence of that to show an equivalence that doesn't exist.

Been thinking a bit before formulating a response to include more of what people have said here, but I will say that poo poo like this (or on the other side just being edgy and calling people cunts when we're having the debate) isn't particularly helpful.

As I said before, the argument that we not use it in the general areas to avoid scaring people off is a fair one, but any acceptance of the meaning and use of the word by one group must also extend to understanding that there are other groups for which that is also true.

The "it's misogynistic and that's the end of it" approach is incorrect and the wrong way to tackle this.

Elmnt80 posted:

I've spent the last 4+ years in retail management where I've had managers above me on my rear end for being too kind in a position of authority. To say its had an effect on how I handle authority positions is understating it a bit.

I have a manager like that, guess what word can be guaranteed to come up when asking people for their opinion of his attitude and behaviour?

I can generally get people to do what's needed by asking them to and explaining why. I have the capacity to enforce my will on others, but I very rarely need to exercise it. When people refuse to do what I'm asking, there's usually a reason I need to dig into, and often it stops me making a bad call.

Elmnt80 posted:

And I do hope that you all realize that if these positions were reversed and it was americans saying something that our aussie/uk posters found sexist/racist/etc, I'd being figuring out how to make it gently caress off out of this forum. As I've said, I want this to be a place that ANYONE can post about their unnatual urge to shove a big block into an opel gt or whatever other automotive bullshit makes them happy. Part of that to me is having us think about what we post and how it extends beyond our own cultures.

Part of the problem is the disparity in what can offend Americans vs the rest of the world, and the same disparity in being able to recognise differences in localised language.

I do already moderate my language here, as do others - the word Jap, for instance, genuinely is used as a contraction for Japanese here, and does not have the racist connotations it does in the states when applied in forms like "man, Jap stuff goes together like Lego, doesn't it?". Hell, some of the biggest Japanese car shows here are called Japfest, and there is absolutely zero problem with this. No one would consider this to be racist, and the American catch-all "asian" sounds like nonsense to us. That's like an entire loving continent, and to us "asian" is Indian/Pakistani.

Incidentally, "Paki" is most definitely not an acceptable contraction, and for similar reasons to Jap being unacceptable to American ears - historic use in a racist context.

tithin posted:

But I don't think that this is a conversation where you're actively seeking feedback, I think this is just you telling people how things are going to be so take my opinion in the spirit that it's offered.

That's pretty unfair, Elmnt80 is clearly willing to listen to points made reasonably.

CAT INTERCEPTOR posted:

TBH there was something a couple of weeks ago that really took me aback as it was somethign you would absolutly get decked for saying it here but yet wasnt remarked on by anyone else? I just kinda figured it's use elsewhere wasn't as vicious as it is here.

About the only thing I can think of offhand is calling First Australians Abbos. Thats loving truly vile.

I think you can blame Rolf Harris for that one. I know at least that I grew up hearing Tie Me Kangaroo Down as a fun song you'd get at school for singing lessons or whatever, and what "Let my Abbos go loose/they're of no further use" actually meant wasn't on the radar for anyone. If it had been, I suspect that would've been right out immediately.

But then, it appears Rolf was allowed to get away with other poo poo, so who knows.

ili posted:

I honestly find american cultural imperialism offensive.

I don't, especially. To quote The Man Who Fell To Earth, "we'd have probably treated you the same if you'd come over to our place".

BurgerQuest posted:

uh oh the seppos are awake

I can't help but feel that the lack of reaction to this (it really is a term I've not heard in a long time) more reflects the Americans not being aware of it than it being considered ok by them. Not gonna stop you, but I'm not sure it's helping.

# ¿ Jun 14, 2020 18:03

InitialDave: Jun 14, 2007; I Want To Believe.

Rewording the rule to recognise that it's not misogynistic, and that it does get used fairly regularly by non-Americans, is fine by me.

And yeah, I'm still going to try not to use it all over the shop, because it upsets the Americans here.

Not going to argue that any other language with potential gendered interpretations should be banned/restricted, as that's the exact opposite of what I'm about.

# ¿ Jun 15, 2020 07:46

InitialDave: Jun 14, 2007; I Want To Believe.

Krakkles posted:

Which is why this:
... is not fine. It is misogynistic, whether you think it is or not.

You�re using a word for female anatomy to mean bad. I know you think you�re not talking about women, but the language you�re using is absolutely still misogynistic.

We use lots of words for everyone's anatomy to mean bad, it's only this one that is a loaded term in your country.

# ¿ Jun 15, 2020 08:27

InitialDave: Jun 14, 2007; I Want To Believe.

Krakkles posted:

Ah, yes, Britain, the country where misogyny famously doesn�t exist.

"We" was globally inclusive, not just the UK.

# ¿ Jun 15, 2020 08:40

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 15:42

InitialDave: Jun 14, 2007; I Want To Believe.

We've always known it is a term for vagina, always has been, and will continue to have that meaning. Didn't think that even needed explaining.

But as with other words, there are other meanings and uses, and these are the ones that have been concentrated on because it seems that this is what people really weren't understanding.

We had reached an agreement as far as I can see, the adjustment Elmnt80 has made to the rule's wording seems like it reflects the intent of what he wants to achieve while still allowing for the reasons the original wording wasn't acceptable to many of us.

Trying to push even further with US-centric moral absolutism on the issue isn't going to advance matters, it's just going to result in you continuing to try and state that the word can only be taken in one way, while others continue to tell you you're wrong.

The issue is that your side of that is accusing people of being misogynistic when they genuinely aren't, and so of course you'll get pushback, because that is a far worse accusation than simply being unaware of global variances in language.

And yes, calling someone a tit is also negative, though in a very mild way, it's different to saying something is "the tits".

# ¿ Jun 15, 2020 11:05

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Automotive Insanity > HEY, READ THIS ANNOUNCEMENT