HEY, READ THIS ANNOUNCEMENT

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

Krakkles: May 5, 2003

I particularly appreciate how consistent this is with what you've said previously - Don't. Be. An. rear end~~hole~~hat.

# ¿ Jun 8, 2020 21:52

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 11:01

Krakkles: May 5, 2003

ili posted:

Will these be actively looked for by the mods or just enforced when some thin-skinned seppo cracks the shits and reports people for not speakin' murrcan?

Are you trying to trick someone into calling you a ... ooooooh, oooooh, almost. Almost, buddy.

# ¿ Jun 9, 2020 02:37

Krakkles: May 5, 2003

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

InitialDave posted:

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.

fridge corn posted:

This is insanely not true. Like lol even in America I dont think this is true.

It actually is true. The N-word is still worse, but the c-word is the only other word I'm aware of that meets John Mulaney's criteria.

I don't disagree with angryrobots' point (about not changing use because it empowers), but I see this as entirely separate, because this word has always been offensive here. That word is one of two words I'm aware of in American English that will almost absolutely result in a fight. You can call someone a retard* and they might get mad. You can even call someone a wetback* or a zipperhead* and they'll probably get mad. If you say "bitch" in front of your parents, you might get warned not to.

If you call a woman a [c-word], you absolutely will get punched. If you call a black person a [n-word]**, you absolutely will get punched. Rightfully so.

*: Please don't, it's offensive and dickish. And you still stand a decent chance of getting punched.
**: 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)

e: added a "not" and an "almost".

Krakkles fucked around with this message at 18:33 on Jun 11, 2020

# ¿ Jun 11, 2020 18:21

Krakkles: May 5, 2003

InitialDave posted:

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

That�s what I was alluding to, absolutely. The n-word is unquestionably worse, but people in the south think it�s fine.

InitialDave posted:

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.

Right - I think Louis Black said that by saying �the n-word� (as in, that specific phrase, NOT the actual word) you�re making ME think it. That being said, I�m white. I don�t get to use that word. And I�m 100% ok with that. We (as white people) attached too many horrible things to it to be able to turn around and now demand to say it, even under the pretense of academic discussions.

The point I think you may have missed (or I misunderstood) is that the c-word the only other word that I�m aware of that is also referenced this way. Literally the only American people I�ve ever met who will say the word (instead of �the c-word�) are insufferable assholes.

I get that it�s different for you guys, and that�s fine, but it�s A Really Bad Word here, CI wasn�t exaggerating, and all the points about inclusion are exactly right. There is a substantial part of the world where use of that word will strongly discourage men AND women from wanting to post here.

I get that being told what to do sucks, but this is a weird hill to die on. I know you WANT to say it. When I first learned that it wasn�t cool to refer to things as �gay�, I bristled too. That�s not how I use it.

I�ve since dropped it from my vocab and my life has not revolved around that once since.

# ¿ Jun 11, 2020 19:37

Krakkles: May 5, 2003

InitialDave posted:

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.

I mean, I have zero control over this forum. I do think it's hilarious that you guys don't seem to be aware that SA has a pretty long history of the admin team stepping in and saying "fine, you want to argue, it's now entirely bannable with no grace period to ever say this word, gently caress Australia in particular".

Which, at this point, I'd vote for. fridge corn is pretty much the king of bad takes (see above comments about incels) and that other guy isn't exactly selling his case arguing for his already secured ability to use a slur for women by pointedly using an Australian word that's apparently a slur for Americans.

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.

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.

This. Don't be this. (To be clear, InitialDave, I don't think you are, but some of the arguments here do largely seem to amount to "i'll call you cunts cunts if I cunting well want to, Cunnnnnnnts.")

_{there, I said it}

# ¿ Jun 11, 2020 20:09

Krakkles: May 5, 2003

InitialDave posted:

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.

I've been getting excessively irritated about work and other bullshit because of, you know, the impending race war. So I understand.

Personally, I'd fall on the other side of that (I.e., don't use it at all, because of Elmnt's point about "would you know [poster] is australian without prior knowledge"), but would accept that as a reasonable compromise.

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

I'm not a huge fan of that word, but I don't think it has the same offensiveness, at least in the US. It's not a good word, for sure, but it's more vulgar than insulting.

# ¿ Jun 11, 2020 20:25

Krakkles: May 5, 2003

InitialDave posted:

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

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

CAT INTERCEPTOR posted:

I'm more referring to Fridge Corn who frankly isnt worth replying to ~~anymore~~

FTFY

# ¿ Jun 11, 2020 22:14

Krakkles: May 5, 2003

angryrobots posted:

Fridge corn is an rear end in a top hat with a sense of humor who likes pushing buttons. Even if I disagree with him he's a hell of a lot more interesting than half the white noise and in here.

I'd love to see an example of this sense of humor because he's always seemed like a tryhard edgelord to me.

angryrobots posted:

I'm sure that any of the posters here arguing against (or about) the AI rule change are all for the NASCAR rule. That's a completely separate thing that you're stretching just to try and zing someone who is actually participating in this discussion.

Why are you sure of this? I mean, limiting down to the posters in this thread, sure, maybe. I have doubts about a couple, but sure. But in AI in general? There are at least two people who openly and proudly support Trump, there's one who was banned for a long history of open racism recently, and a LOT who "well I'm just asking like you know why I'm not gonna be racist I'm just asking why".

# ¿ Jun 11, 2020 23:18

Krakkles: May 5, 2003

angryrobots posted:

I did limit it to those I have seen arguing so far in this thread, and their right to do so in this thread. I think it's bullshit for someone to pop in and accuse them of 'whining'. I don't even necessarily disagree with the rule change, but I do disagree with someone demeaning them for doing so.

As to fridge corn, why is it necessary for me to explain why sometimes I think he's funny? Do you decide when someone is allowed to post here? If he breaks a rule he gets to take a break. Yeah I do find humor in his ability to make some of y'all froth at the mouth.

It's pretty disingenuous to say that HJL "popped in and accused them of 'whining'". He's posted just as much in here as you have, and constructively.

I was genuinely asking what I'm missing about fridge corn's posts, but it seems like it's his edgelord stuff that you find amusing. That's an answer, so thanks.

I find it really interesting that you attack me asking a genuine question ("why is it necessary for me to explain why sometimes I think he's funny? Do you decide when someone is allowed to post here?") while simultaneously defending the people fighting against the rule put down by the people who actually do decide things like that. It's very confused libertarian ... Like, your question is invalid because you don't have authority, but also, how dare those in authority exercise that authority?

angryrobots posted:

This thread is for discussion about the rule change, per the person who posted it. You're making GBS threads on the posters here discussing it and attempting to silence them by comparing them to racists.

He equated inconsiderate outrage about limiting terrible means of expression, which makes perfect sense to me. He didn't say anything that implied or denoted that any of the edgelords who just have to say the c-word is a racist.

# ¿ Jun 12, 2020 00:07

Krakkles: May 5, 2003

angryrobots posted:

I did not refer to any of HJL's previous posts, just that one? I think you are reading too far into what I posted - I'm saying that accusing the persons posting in this thread of whining is not cool. Comparing them to NASCAR racists was just some extra flair.

The fact that you agree with his sentiment doesn't make it not lovely, here.

As to the corn thing, I'M asking "why do I need to defend who I find amusing or not", here or anywhere else? As if you're the arbiter of AI posting? From previous experience, my personal opinion is that yeah you do think that, so admittedly it was a leading question that has no place in this thread. I won't bring it up again and doubt I have anything else to say about anything here.

Perhaps I misunderstood your usage of "popped in". Judging by the rest of what you say (i.e. "admittedly it was a leading question that has no place in this thread"), I guess you didn't mean it literally, but as a weird negging thing - "your opinion is invalid because you haven't contributed".

I don't see the invalidity that you seem to - people ARE whining (elsewhere) about not being able to fly the traitor flag. People ARE whining about not being able to use the c-word here. Worth saying: Not all of what's being said in dissent is whining. Some of it definitely is. If the comparison was genuinely intended as "anyone who says the c-word is racist", then yeah, it's dumb as hell. But nothing about what he said reads that way, whether I agree with it or not.

:lol:

Oh, you're referring to the (three?) incidents where someone was blatantly and obviously racist, and I called them on their poo poo, and mods/admins ended up taking action on it. Got it. Snitches get stitches, right? Between that and your sensitivity over HJL's comment above, golly, that racism thing seems to be a touchy subject for you.

I think it's fun that you think some random person on the internet asking a question is obviously trying to control things. How insecure do you have to be that someone asking a genuine question seems like a threat?

# ¿ Jun 12, 2020 01:07

Krakkles: May 5, 2003

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.

But even if I was, what of it? Use of the c-word as a derogatory word for women is not at all a new niche thing for incels like some people seem to believe. I�ve heard it used and I�ve heard a handful of women get really upset about it before the internet garbage people were even a thing. Unintentional misogyny is still misogyny, same as unintentional racism is still racism. I grew up in the south with the confederate flag everywhere. Seeing it equated with racism didn�t happen till I was in my 20s, but that doesn�t change the connection. I�m pretty sure I had one on a shirt and owned a handful of Lynyrd Skynyrd albums. So when reasonable people say �Hey, that symbol/word is associated with some terrible beliefs,� other reasonable people way �Ok, it�s probably best to not cling to it even if it doesn�t mean that to me.�

And again, since it really seems to be the sticking point for you, I am hereby acknowledging that systemic racism and the confederate flag and the history associated with it are a much larger and worse problem than a crude gendered insult that doesn�t carry the same connotation to entire countries. Getting petulant about a request to bring a progressive idea into a community still has the same tone regardless though.

At the same time, nobody is here screeching about evil misogynists calling women c*nts, it was pretty rationally stated.

I wouldn't bother anymore. He's obviously arguing in super bad faith. He's trying to neg us :lol:

# ¿ Jun 12, 2020 03:48

Krakkles: May 5, 2003

STR posted:

I did jokingly call one of my coworkers a cracker one day in a moment of total stupidity (in a joking manner), he turned around and said "hey, not cool, that's just one step below you calling me "a loving <n word>". I apologized and never said it again.

How palpably did your blood pressure rise?

Olympic Mathlete posted:

oval office to me and the men and women I know is just a body part swear like cock and arsehole. oval office is the upgraded version of fanny when you want to express more intense dislike.

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".

Let's just word filter it to "gnat", that's a fridge corn post I can agree with.

Krakkles fucked around with this message at 17:52 on Jun 12, 2020

# ¿ Jun 12, 2020 17:50

Krakkles: May 5, 2003

InitialDave posted:

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?

This works only if you completely ignore that someone might read what you write. I didn't think "gay" (meaning "stupid", "bad", or the like) was offensive when I was younger, because that isn't how I meant it. I was also pretty self-centered when I was younger.

"Hysterical" is a word that I don't think I've ever actually used outside of a discussion of the word. I'm aware of it's origins, however.

Olympic Mathlete posted:

It's a body part a particular sex has. What I said was that in the US it definitely seems to be a word used primarily to put women down. It's different here for sure, my best friend (a woman) will happily call me and everyone else a oval office when the mood takes her. A couple of my exes hated the word pussy and used oval office instead...

I read your reply and asked another lady friend of mine how she feels about it:

It's definitely a cultural thing.

*edit: as if to prove a point another lady friend of mine has literally just posted this on Facebook:

https://twitter.com/thomas_violence/status/1002373759167107073?s=19

And again to prove my point the Dave Chappelle covid comedy thing has him calling Laura Ingraham a oval office... America uses it as a gendered insult. America is and has the problem.

https://twitter.com/Irv_Do/status/1271330112093356036?s=19

No, I definitely agree that it's considered much more offensive in the US than anywhere else. It's a stronger insult in the US, but it's definitely gendered regardless of how you mean it. You're literally referring to female anatomy. It's more harmful than you think, then, in the same way that "gay" was harmful to homosexual people, regardless of what I meant by it.

This whole time I thought you guys genuinely didn't use it to mean that. That changes everything from my point of view ... ban it. This is the same goddamn thing and it's dumb as hell.

# ¿ Jun 12, 2020 18:39

Krakkles: May 5, 2003

Olympic Mathlete posted:

I mean the same friend I quoted also said that anything she stubs her toe on is a oval office. I'm not 100% sure how that one is gendered. It's now a general word that depending on context means different things, that's why it's used so much.

For context, stick oval office into the search bar on twitter and see how the word is used. You'll see it aimed mostly at terrible men. It is quite literally only the USA, land of the free, home of the brave that actually use it in a misogynistic manner. It's not like it's the first time you lot have misunderstood English words...

This isn�t anyone misunderstanding words. It�s the exact same bad faith argument I made when I was, like, 14, about why �gay� is totally fine to use in the way I was using it.

# ¿ Jun 12, 2020 18:59

Krakkles: May 5, 2003

fridge corn posted:

Gay refers to a group of people and when used pejoratively it demeans that group of people. oval office just refers to a body part and I dont really see how a non-sentient object can be demeaned in such a way

A particular group of people solely possess that body part, and used pejoratively, it demeans that group of people.

# ¿ Jun 12, 2020 20:38

Krakkles: May 5, 2003

fridge corn posted:

Why?

You�re joking, right?

# ¿ Jun 13, 2020 07:19

Krakkles: May 5, 2003

fridge corn posted:

No, please explain

oh, man, comedy classic. angryrobots must be rotflmao

# ¿ Jun 13, 2020 17:32

Krakkles: May 5, 2003

rdb posted:

wow.... Made this thread worth reading.

You�re right, and i should be better than that. I assumed that fridge corn was doing his bit where �he makes some of y�all froth at the mouth�, but maybe he actually is totally unaware of British imperialism.

# ¿ Jun 13, 2020 18:41

Krakkles: May 5, 2003

fridge corn posted:

I am quite aware of british imperialism however I was not aware that every british person is apparently responsible for it

But every US citizen is responsible for that thing that started this?

NumbersMatching320 posted:

Has anyone ever said it on MCM? I think Al may have once way back but I might be misemembering. Sure makes a difference in approachability for them.

Or Top Gear?

I agree.

# ¿ Jun 13, 2020 19:02

Krakkles: May 5, 2003

fridge corn posted:

No, I was under the assumption that angryrobots original comment was referring to Americans tendency to be aggressively ignorant of everything that goes on outside of america

And KYOON�s comment was about the British tendency to force their culture on other cultures, yes.

# ¿ Jun 13, 2020 21:02

Krakkles: May 5, 2003

KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:

not saying americans don't do that either mind you

100%. This, basically:

stevobob posted:

every culture is equally worthless

# ¿ Jun 14, 2020 00:05

Krakkles: May 5, 2003

Raluek posted:

...
The second is that using a word that refers to women and their anatomy to mean "bad" isn't a very feminist/progressive tack, as it associates femininity with whatever bad thing. This association holds even if you're not using it to attack a woman. It's like how people (myself included, unfortunately) used to use "f-gg-t" to mean "person I don't like" 15 years ago. It's not being used to refer to gay people, so it's OK, right? Well, no. It's using a word that is a pejorative term for a disadvantaged group to just mean "bad," and anyone who's had the word hurled at them in anger before will bristle at its use in any context. We don't say this anymore, regardless of context, so why hold onto the c-word so tightly? Even if you ignore the American baggage that comes with it, it still carries some negative gender-based connotations.

Excellently said.

This is 100% true whether the person saying it believes it or not.

Which is why this:

InitialDave posted:

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.

... 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.

Krakkles fucked around with this message at 08:03 on Jun 15, 2020

# ¿ Jun 15, 2020 07:57

Krakkles: May 5, 2003

InitialDave posted:

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.

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

fridge corn posted:

Nobody has told me yet why we aren't banning twat pussy gash minge et al

Ban �em.

# ¿ Jun 15, 2020 08:35

Krakkles: May 5, 2003

tithin posted:

People are arguing in good faith, you simply disagree with their arguments.

People aren't arguing in good faith, you simply agree with their arguments.

# ¿ Jun 15, 2020 10:11

Krakkles: May 5, 2003

I suspect not, but by way of illustration: it took 3 pages to get to the fact that the word does actually hold the same technical definition elsewhere, and 3 later, people are still arguing (as they were before) that it has absolutely nothing to do with women. This isn't just disparate views.

"nah, it doesn't have anything to do with women"
...
"well yeah I mean a [c-word] is a vagina, yeah"
...
"nah, still doesn't have anything to do with women"

Unless you just mean the pro-c-word contingent has been very clear that they have no intention of reaching an agreement, and thereby are not negotiating in bad faith because they're certainly not pretending that they do.

# ¿ Jun 15, 2020 10:36

Krakkles: May 5, 2003

Jestery posted:

I mean, the point of argument is not to dominate or win

it is to find the fundamental point of disagreement

To which lots of people have ceded that yes is is gendered, but no more than the many insults that pepper the English language.

The point of disagreement seems to be that the largely american posters believe it to be more insulting than those other words which are deemed accepted for a so far arbitrary reason

Clearly the discourse has devolved somewhat but this is where is got to before name calling started

I mean, I�m 100% on board with get rid of all of them. I suspect the reason for this one (instead of all of them) is that it�s the one directed at a particular oppressed group, and yes, it�s particularly offensive in some regions.

Cock and dick aren�t issues because men haven�t spent all of history being oppressed. Tits probably isn�t because it�s not really negative? (I mean, I�m not a fan of subbing it for �good�, but whatever, it�s not a hill to die on.) Incomplete but I hope the point is clear.

fridge corn posted:

Just because the word can refer to a female body part doesn't necessarily make it misogynistic as a matter of course. Unless you are offended by the mere idea of a vagina which I am beginning to think you are

Oh no, fridge corn thinks I�m gay!

# ¿ Jun 15, 2020 10:58

Krakkles: May 5, 2003

angryrobots posted:

I think the auto-replace thing has come up in other threads, and iirc the forums are too broken for it.

I don't disagree with this in reference to the gendered "dirty" words in most contexts. I've always thought that describing something as "tits" was gross.

But I don't think "saving their culture, but online" is what most of the posters arguing to keep the c-word are really concerned about. They do mention how commonly the word is used (in a non hate speech way), but it's to demonstrate how grating it is to be sorta unapologetically called misogynists by Americans of all groups. I believe that most of the posters arguing FOR banning the word think that it's implicit that they don't think this, and are incredulous that these c-word posters don't appreciate how their speech can affect someone unintentionally.

Tl;Dr - I'd also be ok with probations for all lame gendered curse words and dirty expressions, because you can do better. There should be exceptions for anything genuinely clever.

My recollection is the same - the forums were really broken by the word filters.

I can�t speak for everyone, but I didn�t say anyone was a misogynist. I said people are using a word which is misogynistic. And I fully support the idea of probations for usage of gendered curse words that aren�t genuinely clever.

Olympic Mathlete posted:

Men in UK/Aus: "the use of the word has evolved past being a misogynistic term"

And before you say it (again), no, having a ~~black~~ female friend doesn�t suddenly make it ok to say the ~~n-word~~ c-word.

# ¿ Jun 16, 2020 01:49

Krakkles: May 5, 2003

Misogyny and oppression through language aren�t unique to the US.

# ¿ Jun 16, 2020 02:14

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 11:01

Krakkles: May 5, 2003

Korgan posted:

That's the root of the problem, right there. The language. In English, the word has no issues. When speaking in the American-English subdialect it becomes a horrible misogynistic attack on all women, which is an interesting study.

Yeah, no, lots of men and non-feminists think it�s fine here too.

# ¿ Jun 16, 2020 03:08

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