Backstage - OOC Forums
EVE-Online RP Discussion and Resources => EVE OOC Summit => Topic started by: Scherezad on 01 Jun 2013, 09:09
-
tl;dr : We need to choose more neutral words when referring to what we see as "bad behaviour" if we're interested in building a healthy RP Community.
I wanted to post a little bit about the language that we use when roleplaying and when talking to one another. This is wholly out of context and has nothing to do with how our characters talk to one another, just how we as players talk to one another.
The words we choose are important for two reasons. Firstly, because words themselves have many meanings, and if we aren't careful we can make a situation difficult by choosing them poorly. Secondly, because it's pretty much the only medium we all share here, so there's nothing else to go on. Our words comprise our body language and tone, so we've got to be really careful about which ones we decide to use.
It's a heavy subject, so I'm just going to pick one right now. "Circlejerk". I've been through a few RP communities before, but this is my first one from an MMO, and it's also my first time encountering the term. We use it as a derogatory term to describe little insular circles of people egging one another on, reinforcing negative things, and generally bad people behaving badly.
It's a very crass word - intentional, no doubt, meant to shock. I also think it's a destructive and derogatory word that only makes the situation worse, as it's a negative word used to describe perfectly normal and natural social processes. I'll explain what I mean by that.
In a large group of people such as our Community, there will no doubt be people who don't get along for some reason or another - people are going to get offended or hurt. This is normal and to be expected. People react to this in different ways depending on their nature. Some people don't tend to take offenses and slights personally, they just shrug it off and keep going. +1 to them.
Other people, however, are more empathic, and tend to take it more personally. This can be a great thing - these people tend to try to help others more readily, show more understanding and concern, and try to take criticism positively by incorporating the outside opinions into their worldview. +1 to them also.
When these people are hurt or offended, however, they have a harder time just ignoring it - that's not how they socialize. It has to come out. Ideally this would be returned to the offender somehow, but social situations and personal affectations can make this difficult or ill-advised. So, what do these people do? They turn to their friends for support and comfort. The "circle jerk" is nothing more than friends trying to help one another out. This is, as they say, what friends are for.
By calling it this derogatory term, we assign guilt to these people, who are just trying to cope with stress by talking to their friends. This makes them less apt to reach out from their group, making them feel more isolated and only exacerbating the problem. In this manner, the Community gets a little bit more fragmented, people become a little less inclined to want to talk outside of their circles, and we lose a little more sunshine.
I think we need to stop using so many negative terms to describe natural socialization. We need to describe things neutrally, *especially* when we're talking about behaviours we think are bad. This Community won't get any better until we start trying to strengthen the bridges between our little islands, and choosing our words more carefully seems a very reasonable first step.
And as an addendum, yes. I'm one of the latter types of people who tends to reach out to friends when under stress.
Opinions?
-
From a rose by any other name, to newspeak - this is all semantic and a not an issue.
-
From a rose by any other name, to newspeak - this is all semantic and a not an issue.
Uhh...
Newspeak is a reference to the reduction of meaning in language, the boiling-down of terms to their most basic elements, and ignorance of nuance. My post was all about paying respect to the nuance in language and choosing words more carefully, in order to facilitate community-building.
Maybe my thinking is just doubleplus ungood, I don't know. Thank you for your opinion.
-
Does calling it "natural socialization" instead of "circlejerk" make any functional difference? I agree with Jikk in that this is all semantic. Calling it "natural" does not excuse some of the things that social groups get away with. Many things are "natural", but it doesn't make it right. Whatever it is called, the issues remain the same.
-
I just heard this word for the first time :roll:
-
I'm completely in agreement with Schere on this.
Yes, it is semantic, but at the end of the day, semantics, and the words we use to describe complex events, matter. Chosing to use a certain word over another attaches all sorts of judgements and connotations that are associated with that word. Circlejerk is not objective language, its mocking, looking down the nose, and derisive, and its just one example. There's tons of this language in the Community. Like, Space Lesbian, or Dramalama, or Derp, etc etc. I use these terms too sometimes, so I know I can be just as guilty as the rest. The point is that using certain words either impedes communication and throws up barriers, or it aids in communication and helps bring about understanding. The current way people communicate within the Community is often fractous, divisive, and does a much better job of making someone just feel unwelcome then to actually help them solve problems others might have with them.
-
Here's the problem I'm seeing, Scherezad. What you're really objecting to is a judgmental streak that exists in a large percentage of humanity and reliably appears in pretty much any group, especially well-established ones with their own customs and mores. It's objectionable, I agree, but it's hard to control. Usually the most you can do is establish rules of civility for a given forum.
That's what this forum, Backstage OOC, is for. Outside of it, people will bristle at being told to tone down their language-- "circlejerk" has the unfortunate merit of describing the speaker's opinion of the subject with much better accuracy than, say, "clique." Preventing people from expressing themselves thus vividly is sort of a non-starter in internet culture. More to the point, preventing the use of the vulgarity, "circlejerk," will not change the speaker's opinion, which will continue to find expression through other means, since the speaker continues to think of the "circle" as a "mutual masturbation society" or "joint manual pleasuring group." Less vivid expression may lead to better clarity as to exactly what the issue is ("an incestuous clique that exists for no reason but to aid and abet its members' vapid RP"), but won't make the judgment any less harsh or unfair.
At an individual level, the two approaches I can see are (1) engagement, which means arguing against the opinion rather than the language, and (2) avoidance, which means just staying away from the whole nasty mess.
I'll apply (1) if I actually give a damn. Introduce nuance, suggest other perspectives, maybe very gently hint that the speaker's judgment is at least a bit unfair. If you're gentle, you can usually get them to back off at least a bit, but don't go for the vulgar language; go for the vulgar opinion behind it.
However, having been involved in internet RP for the last decade or so, I've long-since given up trying to fix communities as a whole. With immense effort, you can become a beacon of wisdom, a respected figure within the community, and still people will be horrible to one another. The only way to really avoid it is to engage in (2): to avoid it.
I like you guys, all of you, about as well as I've liked any group of roleplayers, but I don't play this game for the OOC social interaction. I don't care all that much whether you think X is a good roleplayer or Y is a drama whore. I can make those decisions for myself, and I grew sick years ago of trying to convince specific people that other specific people aren't wastes of air. Backstage OOC is substantive enough and low-drama enough to hold my interest and make me willing to actually engage, but otherwise?
For the most part, all I want is to play my role. Getting involved in the OOC drama on any real level gets in the way of that, and I always end up getting my fingers singed when I get involved. I'll mentor new players and offer the odd bit of advice, but as far as the OOC social conflicts go, I prefer to be Switzerland.
-
Are we sure semantics matter as much as actions? Particularly in the following example...
I witnessed something in an OOC channel where a player talked about their roleplayed interactions with another player, particularly in a negative light. The response of other participants in the conversation was to use the IC details to reinforce a negative image of the OOC player who was being discussed, who was incidentally absent from the channel in question. Because the character was being portrayed as misogynist and abusive, comments were made about the player, who was by extension also deemed misogynist and abusive. Scathing insults were made, making very potent remarks about the IRL personality of the player, down to forever single masturbation remarks and invoking tumblr social justice nonsense about male privilege.
In light of that outlined behaviour, discussion of terminology usage as outlined in the OP is secondary. I really don't see how defending that sort of behaviour as "natural socialization" fixes anything; by every right can that be called a "circlejerk" of the worst kind. If we want to see the term "circlejerk" stricken off the records, then these social circles should not be behaving as such in the first place.
Uhm yes, that is also something that I have witnessed, either myself about someone else's character (or someone else), and that I have been reported when it was about myself. It is not very sane. It gives the impression that players smile to the individual in question when he is here, and start to badmouth him/her at every other occasion.
However, it is not because circlejerks echo-chambers cause that kind of things that we have to use offensive terms as well, it only helps the situation to get worse, as Schere pointed out.
-
Hi Lyn;
At work right now so unable to reply deeply. However, thought you deserved a quick reply.
My post was actually prompted by a private mail, not by your post. Even so, I don't really like naming names when I write something like this - it isnt supposed to be an accusative post, and if it comes across as so, I apologize.
-
I'm not sure what prompted the creation of this thread, but I really don't recognize the word covering what you're talking about. Members of a community helping each other is not a circlejerk. Abusive, self-referential, self-reverential, judgmental, mocking, and exclusionary habits in a clique is what I consider to be a circlejerk.
The circlejerk is the dark side of the echo chamber, the isolated community endlessly reinforcing its own ideas. The circlejerk is the echo chamber's resistance to discordant ideas and opinions, and its treatment of people who express those discordant ideas and opinions.
The inherent nature of roleplaying communities makes them very prone to echo chamberism, because they are operating on principles of improv theatre where something doesn't exist if no-one reacts to it, and where consensus between the actors is both the foundation of a building and the building itself - standing on nothing but a cloud of fallible memory and emotion.
Roleplay communities not only exclude based on knowledge of 'lore' or 'prime fiction' ("you should read more, you're doing it wrong."), but also the knowledge of the history of the same (retcons, what's outdated, what conflicting PF trumps what), knowledge of fanon, and knowledge of in-community canon and history. And that is in addition to IC/OOC drama, factionalization, fractionalization, and an inability to integrate new actors well.
Because of all this, roleplay communities are extremely prone to descending into the darkest depths of circlejerkery.
What you're saying is basically that we shouldn't call it circlejerking because the people targeted would feel offended and thus maybe less inclined to changing their ways? It's a fair point, but trying to legislate about what terms can and cannot be used when talking about the community is just more echo chamberism.
[mod]Moderator's note for clarity : posts using the derogatory term 'circle-jerk' to refer to other players are in breach of Rule 3. This post speaks of RP communities in general and tendencies rather than actualities, which in this mod's opinion keeps it within the rules of the board. [/mod]
-
I think 'circle jerk' can be a useful word. Very accurate and on the nose. It's intentionally vulgar; it implies that a group of people are acting in a way with little thought or merit, and who merely desire to get themselves off by agreeing with one another.
However, along with 'sheeple,' I mostly find the term used by those who can't understand why so many other people disagree with their words or actions, and so decide it's because everyone is against them. Then you get the associated persecution complex and the implication that The Group is just a bunch of big meanies, which nicely sidesteps the matter of why so many people objected to your words or actions in the first place.
Does calling it "natural socialization" instead of "circlejerk" make any functional difference?
Yes.
Language is a method of communicating complex, abstract ideas. Association and nuance are part of a words meaning.
Edit: Let me try to rephrase that.
The function of language is to communicate meaning. The function of a sentence is to communicate a specific meaning. If different words alter the meaning of a sentence, then the sentence is functionally different.
As a simple example…
Tobin is intellectual disabled.
Tobin is retarded.
The first is a neutral statement about a disorder. The second is an insult that might have nothing to do with his mental capabilities – maybe I’m saying Tobin is retarded because he thinks Batman Begins wasn’t the greatest superhero movie ever.
Of course, there’s also tone, body language, and facial expression to take into account. Those also add meaning and can change the function of a sentence.
-
Does calling it "natural socialization" instead of "circlejerk" make any functional difference?
Yes.
Language is a method of communicating complex, abstract ideas. Association and nuance are part of a words meaning.
Makkal is very right here.
It makes a world of difference how you word things. If I say "ya'll a bunch pretentious cunts and I hate the majority of you motherfuckers." instead of "An interesting collection of individuals I have sometimes differing opinions with." Message is the same, but how I put it into words has a very different effect on the whole, the latter far less antagonizing.
-
I'm not sure what prompted the creation of this thread, but I really don't recognize the word covering what you're talking about. Members of a community helping each other is not a circlejerk. Abusive, self-referential, self-reverential, judgmental, mocking, and exclusionary habits in a clique is what I consider to be a circlejerk.
Definitely how I would define it.
The circlejerk is the dark side of the echo chamber, the isolated community endlessly reinforcing its own ideas. The circlejerk is the echo chamber's resistance to discordant ideas and opinions, and its treatment of people who express those discordant ideas and opinions.
This is so common to witness. I'm often at the other end of this, when I try to propose something against the most dominant opinion...it gets really venomous, even if I try to be as diplomatic as possible!
What you're saying is basically that we shouldn't call it circlejerking because the people targeted would feel offended and thus maybe less inclined to changing their ways? It's a fair point, but trying to legislate about what terms can and cannot be used when talking about the community is just more echo chamberism.
I think there has been a mistake made in the original post that assumes that all closed and/or compartmentalized social groups are inherently defined as or criticized to be circlejerks/echochambers. Closed and/or compartmentalized social groups that exhibit the behaviour I outlined in post #7 is, to me, a circlejerk/echochamber.
It is not very sane. It gives the impression that players smile to the individual in question when he is here, and start to badmouth him/her at every other occasion.
This was perhaps the most painful bit of what I read of the example in post #7.
-
I agree that language is important, and I would sometimes like to see more signs that other people agree with that.
[..]discussion of terminology usage as outlined in the OP is secondary.
So? Eating is secondary to breathing, and I can do both.[..] I don't play this game for the OOC social interaction. I don't care all that much whether you think X is a good roleplayer or Y is a drama whore. I can make those decisions for myself [..]Backstage OOC is substantive enough and low-drama enough to hold my interest and make me willing to actually engage, but otherwise?
For the most part, all I want is to play my role. Getting involved in the OOC drama on any real level gets in the way of that, and I always end up getting my fingers singed when I get involved. [..] as far as the OOC social conflicts go, I prefer to be Switzerland.
This. I wouldn't have joined Backstage if it didn't have the rules and moderation that it has.
I also prefer to be neutral, and I fear I might get my fingers singed when/if I write about certain matters. Ideally, I prefer my RP to be as OOC-free as possible, including opinions others might have about me, the player.
Yeah, these days make me feel a bit... uncomfortable. Uhm...what was this about again? Oh yeah...
[..]I chose to use the circle jerk term this precise, particular time instead of echo-chamber, which is a lot less derogatory. Usually, I use the latter, but it seems usually not to make my point across. Actually, I have noticed that on the internet, everything tends to be magnified to an extreme degree and prejudice where only very strong and offensive words have a real impact. Thus, most of the rest, especially polite wordings when trying to make a point, lose their meaning quite rapidly and become bland, which is a shame.
I actually feel that offensive words are pretty bad at stimulating responses from my side, I roll my eyes mentally when I see them, usually. When I see polarized comments and offensive words, I actually sometimes consider the opinion of the person not as much as I would have if it was written in a more civilized way (I guess this is not entirely objective of me, heheh), to the point of merely glossing over the post or outright ignoring it.
-
I think most people are like that.
If your intent is to insult or upset, those are good words and terms to use. If your intent is to have a productive discussion, they aren't useful.
The problem is that many want to have a productive discussion while aiming verbal jabs at people who disagree with them. What helps one goal hurts the other.
And I am hardly immune to doing this myself.
-
If your intent is to insult or upset, those are good words and terms to use. If your intent is to have a productive discussion, they aren't useful.
Thank you, Makkal. Far more succinctly than I put it.
-
I don't actually agree with Schere on the suggestion that we should use more neutral terms when we actually mean to be derisive. (Edit: Though if you are using derisive language and don't intend insult... that's a much bigger problem) That said, the example of "circle-jerk" is a problematic in its own right and really defies any defense. Using the word pejoratively is just one more example of the massive overuse of sexist and homophobic language that pervades EVE.
I don't think we need to be neutal when we don't intend to be, but surely you all can find a term for "dark side of echo-chamber" that doesn't carry homophobic baggage.
-
Since you directly requested that I call a spade a spade, Lyn, I'll take you at your word.
When you used the word 'circlejerk' in the context you used it I perceived it immediately as, first, an attack on my corporation and then, when you later clarified your position, as a personal attack against me. This was puzzling, since I don't really know you either IC or OOC. We don't really interact outside the IGS and these forums.
I do understand the intended semantics of your use of the word, however you really should consider the unintended consequences - which is that it paints you as an embittered social outlier and immediately reduces the signal to noise ratio of the rest of your opinion. Whilst the word is wonderfully evocative and clearly communicates your precise opinion in a forceful way, it also serves to squelch the amount of specific communication about the situation beyond this. In short, the shock value contributes to the initial impact only at the expense of the message itself.
More than this, it further marginalises you, in fact, contributing to the problem as you perceive it and pushing you even further out, since most people's reaction to an unwarranted personal attack from a stranger is to shrug and file them under 'unreasonable and hostile'.
I'll also leave you with the following thought. Popularity can't make a bad idea into a good one or a good idea into a bad one. Sometimes there are reasons other than the personalities involved - always consider the rationale before moving onto the personalities.
Take AXLVP's war declaration. With full command of the facts - that AXLVP wanted to spark some activity and RP for their members outside the wormhole and Pyre is always looking for fights - the war dec makes a lot more sense.
If you examine it wearing your best "CNN Military Expert" hat it's basically pants-on-head crazy. I'm guessing that a lot of people on the IGS were channeling Wolf Blitzer - everybody wants to be a military expert.
-
So, what about things like "prepare your anus"? And using "rape" in a joking sense? If you're going to go all the way, go all the way.
[mod]For clarity, this post was not modified by me, I accidentally clicked it to lock the thread.[/mod]
-
[mod]Thread unlocked.Please do not take this (or any other) discussion of 'the community' or 'Eve RP culture' as an opportunity to launch attacks on other players. The Rules do not cease to apply when the topic is meta. 'It's okay for me to be insulting because I'm totally right' is not an excuse, as is specifically discussed in the FAQ, which some people could stand reading again. Also, once again, sorry Lasairiona for accidentally giving your post a 'modified by Ciarente' tag. [/mod]
-
You are forgiven :cube:
-
I'm in general agreement with Schere here. How we say things is important beyond the actual substance of the message. At the same time I think there is also another factor to keep in mind. That being that whenever something is written or said, it always has at least three potential meanings. The meaning intended by the speaker, the meaning taken by the intended party, and the meaning taken by third party observers. These three different perspectives can radically shift what the meaning of a statement is for people. For example, I can call Degen the Brave Little Toaster or Ava an Illiterate Heathen. In both cases the statement is part term of endearment and part inside joke. In either case both could be seen as rather insulting statements to anyone that doesn't quite have a grasp on the context for them. This is of course a rather IC example, but the principle applies to both IC and OOC statements.
And going over some of the most recent posts before my own, I'm going to go ahead and say this on a personal note. In my opinion, yes we can be as offensive as we want to be, toward any target person or group of people. I hold that belief, in this instance, for two reasons. In no particular order, firstly, because I'm an American. The whole "freedom of speech" ideal is something I believe in, but I also believe that it goes hand-in-hand with a capacity to be offended without taking radical action. Secondly, I whole-heartedly believe in the following quote;
"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." -Eleanor Roosevelt
To me, what that means is very simple. Offense is taken, not given. Even in the completely overt cases of hate speech such as racism and other forms of derogatory comments directly aimed at people in heated arguments. But it is in the end just speech, and in the instances where it is just a random comment here or there that could offend it isn't worth getting worked up over, in my opinion. The times action can be justified is when it isn't just a few random comments. When it is a pattern of harassment or taken into action rather than just words over the internet.
Also...what the heck? If you actually look at the term Circlejerk...why is that even offensive? A couple (a bunch) of people mutually satisfying each other. Isn't that like...every group activity people do for fun? Group RP events...people RPing for fun and to provide other people something to RP with and have fun. Sounds like mutual satisfaction seeking to me. *Begins campaign to reclaim the term and make it positive.*
-
So, what about things like "prepare your anus"? And using "rape" in a joking sense? If you're going to go all the way, go all the way.
In fact the mod team has discussed both the 'prepare your anus' meme and the use of 'rape' in other contexts than sexual assault (ie. 'I totally raped that Falcon').
In re: the first, the ultimate decision was that anal sex is not, ipso facto, non-consensual, and (outside the limits in the rules, specifically rule six) we do not consider references to sexual activity grounds for catacombing without other factors.
In re: the second, there was in fact a seven or eight page thread caused by me, as a poster not a mod, taking issue with the misuse of the word rape. Many accusations of thought-policing and censorship made (note: no moderator action had been taken against the post or poster in question; I had expressed an opinion on the language in it). The moderator team has recently revisited the topic, with a view to including it within Rule 3 as 'sexist' or 'other slurs'. I remain strongly of the view that the casual use of the word 'rape' to mean 'defeated' perpetuates misogynist attitudes and rape culture, and acts as 'gatekeeper' language to let women and non-sexist men know they are not welcome - just as the use of racist language acts to let non-whites and non-racists know they are not welcome - and should be against the rules of this board for the same reasons.
-
So, what about things like "prepare your anus"? And using "rape" in a joking sense? If you're going to go all the way, go all the way.
In fact the mod team has discussed both the 'prepare your anus' meme and the use of 'rape' in other contexts than sexual assault (ie. 'I totally raped that Falcon').
In re: the first, the ultimate decision was that anal sex is not, ipso facto, non-consensual, and (outside the limits in the rules, specifically rule six) we do not consider references to sexual activity grounds for catacombing without other factors.
In re: the second, there was in fact a seven or eight page thread caused by me, as a poster not a mod, taking issue with the misuse of the word rape. Many accusations of thought-policing and censorship made (note: no moderator action had been taken against the post or poster in question; I had expressed an opinion on the language in it). The moderator team has recently revisited the topic, with a view to including it within Rule 3 as 'sexist' or 'other slurs'. I remain strongly of the view that the casual use of the word 'rape' to mean 'defeated' perpetuates misogynist attitudes and rape culture, and acts as 'gatekeeper' language to let women and non-sexist men know they are not welcome - just as the use of racist language acts to let non-whites and non-racists know they are not welcome - and should be against the rules of this board for the same reasons.
I agree that it should not be used in that way. It sickens me when people do.
-
So, what about things like "prepare your anus"? And using "rape" in a joking sense? If you're going to go all the way, go all the way.
In fact the mod team has discussed both the 'prepare your anus' meme and the use of 'rape' in other contexts than sexual assault (ie. 'I totally raped that Falcon').
In re: the first, the ultimate decision was that anal sex is not, ipso facto, non-consensual, and (outside the limits in the rules, specifically rule six) we do not consider references to sexual activity grounds for catacombing without other factors.
In re: the second, there was in fact a seven or eight page thread caused by me, as a poster not a mod, taking issue with the misuse of the word rape. Many accusations of thought-policing and censorship made (note: no moderator action had been taken against the post or poster in question; I had expressed an opinion on the language in it). The moderator team has recently revisited the topic, with a view to including it within Rule 3 as 'sexist' or 'other slurs'. I remain strongly of the view that the casual use of the word 'rape' to mean 'defeated' perpetuates misogynist attitudes and rape culture, and acts as 'gatekeeper' language to let women and non-sexist men know they are not welcome - just as the use of racist language acts to let non-whites and non-racists know they are not welcome - and should be against the rules of this board for the same reasons.
"No man has ever been raped, and no 'white' person has ever been the victim of racism."
This is nit-picking and besides the point your making, but it is terribly annoying to be effectively told the above. It happens often when this topic rears it's head. In the context of language use, this is something you will want to improve on.
-
It's not nitpicking to dislike the usage of a term that means forcible sexual contact without consent.
-
It's not nitpicking to dislike the usage of a term that means forcible sexual contact without consent.
I was referring to my own post related to a small part of the post Ciarente made, not Ciarente's post in general. Was it really that easy to misunderstand that?
Well, I'm not sure how to make it any clearer without spelling it out.
-
I think the gist of the message here is: be careful with the words you use. Some might have unwanted (negative) meaning to others.
But people being people, everyone is always trying to create ingroups and outgroups and maneuvre themselves in the social circles. And subtly (or not so subtly) using words for that will always remain. I'm just glad the moderators have a fairly restrictive policy here.
While circlejerk sounds negatively to me, because I've only seen it mostly used in such contexts, it is not homophobic at all to me. I don't have that association.
This is also an issue in international communities like this, even through English translations there can be a lot of differences in interpretation and don't make assumption to early. For example: in my own language, 'nigger' is not very emotionally loaded, 'black people' is much more so.
-
So, what about things like "prepare your anus"? And using "rape" in a joking sense? If you're going to go all the way, go all the way.
In re: the first, the ultimate decision was that anal sex is not, ipso facto, non-consensual, and (outside the limits in the rules, specifically rule six) we do not consider references to sexual activity grounds for catacombing without other factors.
Right.
In regards to the image Kat posted to the Foley's thread, I believe he added the 'prepare your anus' after I saw the original, textless image and made a crude sexual remark about anal. There was certainly nothing non-consensual implied.
-
So, what about things like "prepare your anus"? And using "rape" in a joking sense? If you're going to go all the way, go all the way.
In fact the mod team has discussed both the 'prepare your anus' meme and the use of 'rape' in other contexts than sexual assault (ie. 'I totally raped that Falcon').
In re: the first, the ultimate decision was that anal sex is not, ipso facto, non-consensual, and (outside the limits in the rules, specifically rule six) we do not consider references to sexual activity grounds for catacombing without other factors.
With nothing but love and respect for the mod team in my heart, I must say that this line of defense is completely insane. Did someone really argue that it could and should be read as something like "PREPARE YOUR ANUS on the off chance you want to, uh, experiment a bit with the fine gentlemen over here, no pressure?"
The problem isn't that it references a sex act, the problem is that it tells you to prepare for one in the imperative mood.
-
So, what about things like "prepare your anus"? And using "rape" in a joking sense? If you're going to go all the way, go all the way.
In fact the mod team has discussed both the 'prepare your anus' meme and the use of 'rape' in other contexts than sexual assault (ie. 'I totally raped that Falcon').
In re: the first, the ultimate decision was that anal sex is not, ipso facto, non-consensual, and (outside the limits in the rules, specifically rule six) we do not consider references to sexual activity grounds for catacombing without other factors.
With nothing but love and respect for the mod team in my heart, I must say that this line of defense is completely insane. Did someone really argue that it could and should be read as something like "PREPARE YOUR ANUS on the off chance you want to, uh, experiment a bit with the fine gentlemen over here, no pressure?"
The problem isn't that it references a sex act, the problem is that it tells you to prepare for one in the imperative mood.
I am sorry, but I think it is a bit of misconception, since it references not a sex act, but rather a perversion, because, uh, you know, you do sex with other organs biologically :oops: And it implies violence rather than just imperative mood.
-
Also, heed the Scriptures!
"When the ears hear only
The mouth shouting
And the eyes see only
The fingers broken
The world has turned
And God has gone
Left us with fond memories
Of sweet life without pain."
## The Scriptures. Apocalypse Verses 8:18.
-
[..]I chose to use the circle jerk term this precise, particular time instead of echo-chamber, which is a lot less derogatory. Usually, I use the latter, but it seems usually not to make my point across. Actually, I have noticed that on the internet, everything tends to be magnified to an extreme degree and prejudice where only very strong and offensive words have a real impact. Thus, most of the rest, especially polite wordings when trying to make a point, lose their meaning quite rapidly and become bland, which is a shame.
I actually feel that offensive words are pretty bad at stimulating responses from my side, I roll my eyes mentally when I see them, usually. When I see polarized comments and offensive words, I actually sometimes consider the opinion of the person not as much as I would have if it was written in a more civilized way (I guess this is not entirely objective of me, heheh), to the point of merely glossing over the post or outright ignoring it.
Exactly, thus why I was maybe wrong - or not, who knows. I am pretty certain not to use a lot of derogatory wordings in most of my posts for that precise reason.
At times though, it just feels like battling against a wall.
So, what about things like "prepare your anus"? And using "rape" in a joking sense? If you're going to go all the way, go all the way.
In fact the mod team has discussed both the 'prepare your anus' meme and the use of 'rape' in other contexts than sexual assault (ie. 'I totally raped that Falcon').
In re: the first, the ultimate decision was that anal sex is not, ipso facto, non-consensual, and (outside the limits in the rules, specifically rule six) we do not consider references to sexual activity grounds for catacombing without other factors.
With nothing but love and respect for the mod team in my heart, I must say that this line of defense is completely insane. Did someone really argue that it could and should be read as something like "PREPARE YOUR ANUS on the off chance you want to, uh, experiment a bit with the fine gentlemen over here, no pressure?"
The problem isn't that it references a sex act, the problem is that it tells you to prepare for one in the imperative mood.
That.
It's precisely the crux of the matter brought up by Schere here - and again, I completely agree with the OP. Maybe the mod team took it as a reference to a consensual act, but I never did, and always took it as a blatantly obvious reference to anal rape, in a similar vein of how the rape word is used so commonly in Eve.
Was it the intended meaning ? Maybe not, but it was ambiguous enough that I understood it that way, and I am pretty sure that reading Lasa's comment about it, I was not the only one. And as I said, it's the crux of the matter. The words, terms, or connotations you use can carry a whole difference message for different people.
Also, even in the consensual aspect of the anal act in itself, if that is the real meaning of the pic ( :roll: ), it refers to sexually explicit things. I am not sure, but is that tolerated on this forum ? While we are at explicit depictions, I personally loathe anal penetration by personal sexual taste in any kind of way, male or female, and find that utterly disgusting, the same way that heterosexuals might find homosexuality disgusting, or homosexuals might find heterosexuality disgusting, or the same way a lot of people will find some kinds of BDSM or even hentai disgusting.
I find the image explicit enough to bring a lot of unwanted mental images every time I see it. It's tiring.
-
So, what about things like "prepare your anus"? And using "rape" in a joking sense? If you're going to go all the way, go all the way.
In fact the mod team has discussed both the 'prepare your anus' meme and the use of 'rape' in other contexts than sexual assault (ie. 'I totally raped that Falcon').
In re: the first, the ultimate decision was that anal sex is not, ipso facto, non-consensual, and (outside the limits in the rules, specifically rule six) we do not consider references to sexual activity grounds for catacombing without other factors.
With nothing but love and respect for the mod team in my heart, I must say that this line of defense is completely insane. Did someone really argue that it could and should be read as something like "PREPARE YOUR ANUS on the off chance you want to, uh, experiment a bit with the fine gentlemen over here, no pressure?"
The problem isn't that it references a sex act, the problem is that it tells you to prepare for one in the imperative mood.
I am sorry, but I think it is a bit of misconception, since it references not a sex act, but rather a perversion, because, uh, you know, you do sex with other organs biologically :oops: And it implies violence rather than just imperative mood.
Uhh...
Could you explain what you mean by this?
-
"No man has ever been raped, and no 'white' person has ever been the victim of racism."
This is nit-picking and besides the point your making, but it is terribly annoying to be effectively told the above. It happens often when this topic rears it's head.
If anyone tries pulling that shit on Backstage, you can rest assured the response from the moderator team will be an immediate "enjoy your warning/ban".
-
"No man has ever been raped, and no 'white' person has ever been the victim of racism."
This is nit-picking and besides the point your making, but it is terribly annoying to be effectively told the above. It happens often when this topic rears it's head.
If anyone tries pulling that shit on Backstage, you can rest assured the response from the moderator team will be an immediate "enjoy your warning/ban".
But then Team Tumblr Social Justice (http://www.reddit.com/r/TumblrInAction/) will get all up in your grill Morlax :D
-
So, what about things like "prepare your anus"? And using "rape" in a joking sense? If you're going to go all the way, go all the way.
In fact the mod team has discussed both the 'prepare your anus' meme and the use of 'rape' in other contexts than sexual assault (ie. 'I totally raped that Falcon').
In re: the first, the ultimate decision was that anal sex is not, ipso facto, non-consensual, and (outside the limits in the rules, specifically rule six) we do not consider references to sexual activity grounds for catacombing without other factors.
With nothing but love and respect for the mod team in my heart, I must say that this line of defense is completely insane. Did someone really argue that it could and should be read as something like "PREPARE YOUR ANUS on the off chance you want to, uh, experiment a bit with the fine gentlemen over here, no pressure?"
The problem isn't that it references a sex act, the problem is that it tells you to prepare for one in the imperative mood.
I am sorry, but I think it is a bit of misconception, since it references not a sex act, but rather a perversion, because, uh, you know, you do sex with other organs biologically :oops: And it implies violence rather than just imperative mood.
Uhh...
Could you explain what you mean by this?
That it is a threat with violence and humiliation.
-
If somebody dislikes my use of the image, they should consider messaging me in private and requesting I take it down. Alternately, you can simply report it. I've replaced the image in question in Foley's thread, and would like to apologize for using it. I will not make excuses or try to rationalize its use. It's gone.
“Prepare Your Anus” is an expression often used to caption image macros featuring photographs of intimidating-looking characters. The image macros are meant to illicit a disturbing or creepy reaction, similar to the “You Gonna Get Raped” series.
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/prepare-your-anus
I will point out the original meme is indeed a rape meme, not a consensual act meme. Yes, I am admitting to using a rape joke. If the moderation team feel that must revise their previous decisions about my use of the image and determine it is something worthy of being catacombed, I will understand. I'm not sure where the remaining images in question are located though, so if anybody finds them they could report them or let me know so I can remove them.
-
it references not a sex act, but rather a perversion, because, uh, you know, you do sex with other organs biologically :oops: And it implies violence rather than just imperative mood.
Uhh...
Could you explain what you mean by this?
That it is a threat with violence and humiliation.
I really meant the Bolded bits. Not sure if I'm reading into this wrong, but are you suggesting that buttsex is perverse and not real sex?
-
it references not a sex act, but rather a perversion, because, uh, you know, you do sex with other organs biologically :oops: And it implies violence rather than just imperative mood.
Uhh...
Could you explain what you mean by this?
That it is a threat with violence and humiliation.
I really meant the Bolded bits. Not sure if I'm reading into this wrong, but are you suggesting that buttsex is perverse and not real sex?
Yes, but I think she means two things:
1.) That anal sex is a perversion using incorrect organs. This is a fairly common opinion, and one that while I strongly disagree with is something she is entitled to as an opinion. That's your bolded bits there.
2.) That the image implied an impending violent act, not an imperative mood.
Keep in mind that her opinion that anal sex is a perversion may color the perception that "prepare your anus" suggests an impending violent act, possibly because anal sex cannot be considered as anything other than that.
-
For some people, 'sex' doesn't even involve intercourse in any fashion.
I don't think Lithium is suggesting it is perverse in a flat-out context, but that if one looks at it from a biological standpoint, yes, in fact, it is a perversion of natural animal urges/functions - in the sense that you aren't really meant to go in through the "out" door, and that using it that way doesn't satisfy the so-called "biological imperative" of reproduction.
(What Kat said.)
-
Then most of the animal reign is completely perverted.
( btw the use of the word "perverted" is yet again another illustration of what the OP is complaining about )
-
I think we should really drop this deviation of discussion, since I don't think you would really want to hear my opinion about this, neither I want to talk about it here.
-
I think we should really drop this deviation of discussion, since I don't think you would really want to hear my opinion about this, neither I want to talk about it here.
Excellent idea. I still :cube: you though!
-
I care very little about the exact classification of anal sex, and not very much more about what is or isn't acceptable speech. What got me going is that of the mentioned examples, the one phrase which might actually get you arrested or get you a face-full of Mace if you say it to a random person in the street apparently passed as "harmless" on a "technicality."
-
I care very little about the exact classification of anal sex, and not very much more about what is or isn't acceptable speech. What got me going is that of the mentioned examples, the one phrase which might actually get you arrested or get you a face-full of Mace if you say it to a random person in the street apparently passed as "harmless" on a "technicality."
I could not stop laughing at the slapstick images of someone trying to say that meme to random people on the street. :lol:
-
Kat, it wasn't you I was referencing. I've seen it used by other people in OOC before and in other memes.
-
Kat, it wasn't you I was referencing. I've seen it used by other people in OOC before and in other memes.
Perhaps you were not, but others were referring to me by name in this thread. :)
-
Kat, it wasn't you I was referencing. I've seen it used by other people in OOC before and in other memes.
Perhaps you were not, but others were referring to me by name in this thread. :)
Oh, okay good :) Just wanted to clarify.
-
Anal sex != Anal penetration
Geeze people.
-
The last 2 pages of this thread are the perfect illustration of why a word may cause impact/harm that the speaker might not intend.
In other words, be careful what you say. If you feel that you should not have to police what you say, because you may offend those around you, please, step from behind your computer, visit the near East Side of Cleveland, and scream racial slurs to your heart's content. Context matters, doesn't it?
Video games have, through the constant use of words many of us know better than to casually toss around, caused some people to just use these words without thinking... or they do think, and, due to the anonymity of the internet, dont care/think its funny/do it for lulz/whatever.
It isnt funny. It isnt cute.
I think the moral of the thread is "even though its the internet, what you say has an impact. Have a teensy care about what you say and how you say it, please"
-
The last 2 pages of this thread are the perfect illustration of why a word may cause impact/harm that the speaker might not intend.
In other words, be careful what you say. If you feel that you should not have to police what you say, because you may offend those around you, please, step from behind your computer, visit the near East Side of Cleveland, and scream racial slurs to your heart's content. Context matters, doesn't it?
Video games have, through the constant use of words many of us know better than to casually toss around, caused some people to just use these words without thinking... or they do think, and, due to the anonymity of the internet, dont care/think its funny/do it for lulz/whatever.
It isnt funny. It isnt cute.
I think the moral of the thread is "even though its the internet, what you say has an impact. Have a teensy care about what you say and how you say it, please"
+1
-
While I am personally not offended by terms such as "circlejerk", it's important to note that I grew up in an environment where I was surrounded by a lot of swearing and cursing anyway. Not everyone is so accustomed to those types of words, however, so I generally agree that more neutral wording is good to strive for. Even if the potentially more offensive term is more accurate and succinct, replacing a single word with a full sentence doesn't take much more time to type and can keep emotions and drama toned down.
But not everyone is me, and that's just my 0.02 ISK.
-
As someone who has more or less grown up on the internet (and Eve in particular) I bately even notice this kind of thing any more. It's just part of the jargon. The only thing that I actively look out for and make a fuss about are direct references to rape (e.g. "We totally raped them", "The station was rapecaged").
-
As someone who has more or less grown up on the internet (and Eve in particular) I bately even notice this kind of thing any more. It's just part of the jargon. The only thing that I actively look out for and make a fuss about are direct references to rape (e.g. "We totally raped them", "The station was rapecaged").
I know this thread is more about how people communicate IG and whatnot, but if I might put on my mod hat for a moment, and make sure something is entirely clear:
[mod]Don't use rape this way on Backstage or you will get modded.[/mod]
-
Better idea would be not to use the word at all to reference something other than the actual meaning.
-
Yeah. A clarification of the rules is being discussed along those lines. Anyway, that is more for Backstage, and I didn't want to derail, so please carry on.
-
For some people, 'sex' doesn't even involve intercourse in any fashion.
I don't think Lithium is suggesting it is perverse in a flat-out context, but that if one looks at it from a biological standpoint, yes, in fact, it is a perversion of natural animal urges/functions - in the sense that you aren't really meant to go in through the "out" door, and that using it that way doesn't satisfy the so-called "biological imperative" of reproduction.
(What Kat said.)
Speaking as a biologist here, reproduction is only one of the functions of sexual behavior in the animal kingdom. 'Perversion' as a normative rather than a descriptive term has no place in natural science, which is descriptive by nature. So, no, from a biological standpoint anal sex, whether it involves penetration or not, isn't a "perversion from the biological standpoint". That it is, is a myth.
Other than that, I find myself to be in full alignment with Ava's opinion.
-
For some people, 'sex' doesn't even involve intercourse in any fashion.
I don't think Lithium is suggesting it is perverse in a flat-out context, but that if one looks at it from a biological standpoint, yes, in fact, it is a perversion of natural animal urges/functions - in the sense that you aren't really meant to go in through the "out" door, and that using it that way doesn't satisfy the so-called "biological imperative" of reproduction.
(What Kat said.)
Speaking as a biologist here, reproduction is only one of the functions of sexual behavior in the animal kingdom. 'Perversion' as a normative rather than a descriptive term has no place in natural science, which is descriptive by nature. So, no, from a biological standpoint anal sex, whether it involves penetration or not, isn't a "perversion from the biological standpoint". That it is, is a myth.
Other than that, I find myself to be in full alignment with Ava's opinion.
Thank you for that. Being fond of said legitimate sex act myself, it's good to know that I and my partners are not perverse manbeasts.
-
Ava put it really well there.
To go back a bit, my point in pointing out how much baggage there is in a term like circle-jerk wasn't exclusive to that term.
My point is that basically any time you use a term that describes an activity or group as a negative term you are implicitly insulting that activity or group. Another similar example that I have seen recently is the constant use of "Jew" as a verb for stealing LP in Militia chat.
The same goes for the inverse. In the rape example, using the term positively as the standard EVE usage basically does is implicitly putting positive features onto the concept of rape. This is pretty gross.
The easy way to avoid unintended insult is to go out of your way to avoid using metaphors that have that kind of baggage. Its worthwhile to go through vocab for such things and ask "why is this term insulting?" If you don't like the answer, then that term should probably quit being used.
-
Creep, Nico: In case it wasn't clear from the "I don't think..." at the beginning of that statement, I'd like to point out that I was stating my interpretation of what Lithium was saying, not my personal perspective on the matter. (See? We found another 'loaded' word - perversion.)
I personally do not give a flying fuck (hurr) about who puts what in/on who or where they put it, as long as everyone involved is consenting to it.
-
Regarding the OP: language and who I associate with...
I don't tolerate racist/sexist/homophobic slurs, or actual RL threats. Other than that, if someone is rude or crude, whatever. Either I can harden up and deal with it or I ignore them. It's just words. If the goal isn't meant to deliberately inflame, I don't care. I work for the state, I have to deal with sensitivity and anti-harassment in the workplace. While these aren't bad things, they are certainly something I associate with work. Eve is recreation, it's my chance to be a little immature, to argue, to spaceship violence, and to have a relaxed time. I don't think terms like "circlejerk" are "bad" enough to warrant a response. It's vulgar, but it's not harmful in my opinion.
*Caveat: I'm ex-military, I'm very accustomed to vulgar conversation*
-
I am of two minds about the original post (I understand that OP is accepted, but I am clarifying to make a point).
I agree that we should be more aware of the words we use when we communicate solely through the use of text. There is no tone to hear, no body language to see. All we have are the words that are before us and without context or careful consideration, what might have been meant as a 'harmless' joke or sarcastic comment is in turn interpreted as an insult. Another part of the issue is language...the fact that the internet lets everyone from all corners of the world communicate in real-time with each other causes more issues as colloquialisms and slang have different meanings even among English-as-a-first-language cultures, let alone places where English is not the default language.
Because of spelling (and spelling mistakes) and the grasp of grammar can vary greatly, we again run into another problem of communicating intent. I make mistakes all the time, even if spell-check doesn't show an error doesn't mean I used the wrong iteration of the word (their, there, they're for example). So, in the sake of clear communication with a look towards using words that hold negative connotations and evoke negative feelings, our words do need to be chosen carefully.
Another issue I have with communication and the internet is the use of acronyms and purposely misspelling of words. Yes, I use Twitter, and do make use of acronyms and I understand the intent in their use. Where I have an issue with it is the assumption that everyone knows what you mean. Maybe it is is laziness on my part, but if I am reading something, I don't want to have to stop and look up what a specific acronym means.
Now, the part of me that I find might be in disagreement with the OP; I am a writer (not published...working on it, but have a ways to go) and I studied English in university. Without boring you all with the history of the English language, it does pain me somewhat to see how words have been debased over the years because we have decided to replace the original definition or meaning of the word with, in most cases, derogatory definitions. This has been especially true with the homophobic element of society. Once there was a time that if you were going to get the fire going in the fireplace, you'd throw in a couple of faggots to get the fire started. However, that word has been debased to mean something else entirely and because of such cannot be properly used unless you happen to be writing a historic paper (fiction or non-fiction) or are purposefully being an insensitive jerk to someone's sexual orientation.
I understand the need to be sensitive...I am an empathetic person and am very much of a 'can't we all just get along' mindset and I do get very wound up when there are arguments and fights. My only concern with using a more neutral approach to a situation might cause more problems than it helps, but I could also be wrong.
Things would be better if we could 'see' the meaning behind the words that are written. And no, I don't want us to all have telepathy...I really don't want to know what most people might be thinking and I doubt most people would want to hear my thoughts.
Ultimately, I understand where Schere is coming from and am supportive of the concept. I try to be respectful and thoughtful when I reply (both in a forum setting and in-game channels). I would also venture to say that we also need to understand that there might be other things going on with another person when they reply in a certain way. Guess all I'm trying to say is: respect each other :D .
I could go on, but I think I have gone past the point of rambling and will cut myself off at this point.
-
Creep, Nico: In case it wasn't clear from the "I don't think..." at the beginning of that statement, I'd like to point out that I was stating my interpretation of what Lithium was saying, not my personal perspective on the matter. (See? We found another 'loaded' word - perversion.)
I personally do not give a flying fuck (hurr) about who puts what in/on who or where they put it, as long as everyone involved is consenting to it.
Didn't understand it to be your opinion, Morwen, don't worry. :cube:
I didn't meant to aim at you, if it came across like that, I'm sorry.
-
Thanks for everyones' opinions - I'm glad there are a number of comments on this, from all points of view. A clarification and expansion, then.
First a clarification. I wasn't suggesting we police language, at all. People will speak as they will speak, and that's a good thing. The post was more to raise awareness of how our speech affects the group as a whole, and the fragmenting nature of this sort of language. Even if we, personally, are used to the vulgarity of some of the words we use, those words will have an effect, especially on those who are less used to them. You can say HTFU all you like to those who are made uncomfortable by it, but that won't change the isolating nature of the terms.
Second, an expansion. Just because I don't think the term "circle jerk" should be used doesn't mean I am denying the harsher realities of social groups. Bad things can and do happen when groups isolate themselves from one another - I've been on both sides of this formula, receiving and causing, and neither is much fun. I apologize for the latter, and forgive for the former.
The vitriolic nature of these groups activities are a function of why the group exists - a social release valve for people who feel marginalized or isolated, or a "safe space" where people can let their guard down a little and say what they feel. This is how we form lasting friendships and how we maintain them, by creating these "in-groups" where we feel most at home. An unpleasant side effect is the tendency of these groups to complain to one another about what bothers them.
I find it interesting that using terms such as "circle jerk" only reinforces the tendency of people to fragment into their in-groups instead of bringing up issues to the Community as a whole. It seems to be self-reinforcing. I've got no studies on that, though, but that's how it seems at first glance to me.
-
My point is that basically any time you use a term that describes an activity or group as a negative term you are implicitly insulting that activity or group. Another similar example that I have seen recently is the constant use of "Jew" as a verb for stealing LP in Militia chat.
Agreed. So frickin' agreed.
As an aside, I have been known to blow the crap out of blues in the past as a reaction to these sorts of things. It's good to react strongly to this sort of hateful speech. And in Eve, we have the opportunity to back up our reactions with missiles!
-
Speaking of sexist language: what's with all the fluffling in OOC chat channels? :cube:
Sometimes there is a real outbreak of circle-fluffling....
-
Don't like it? Go fluffle yourself. :twisted:
-
My point is that basically any time you use a term that describes an activity or group as a negative term you are implicitly insulting that activity or group. Another similar example that I have seen recently is the constant use of "Jew" as a verb for stealing LP in Militia chat.
This is one of the reasons why I left the Army Cadets and didn't pursue a career in the military. The default insult for messing up was to be called "Jew" and the scary thing was, I found myself starting to respond in kind. That's when I knew I had to step away. I also know that, in the heat of the moment, I have said things that I later regretted. If I say something offensive, call me on it. I rather address the issue sooner than later.
-
I find it interesting that using terms such as "circle jerk" only reinforces the tendency of people to fragment into their in-groups instead of bringing up issues to the Community as a whole. It seems to be self-reinforcing. I've got no studies on that, though, but that's how it seems at first glance to me.
That's certainly how I interpret it. I know it was used as a means of calling attention to a behaviour that the user found distressing and anti-social, but by defining it that way it simply made me want to close ranks in a way that I hadn't been feeling at all in the first place - quite the opposite result of the original intention.
-
You might want to dig into Chatsubo and find out the when, the why and the who of the term circlejerk when it originally surfaced in the RP circles of EVE.
-
(http://beforeitsnews.com/contributor/upload/10624/images/thought_police_01.jpg)
-
For the sake of curiosity, would any of you consider purely in-game slurs (as in, slurs that don't make sense outside of an IC context) to be offensive language in an OOC sense?
As an example, back when AST-F was still going strong-ish, some of us (all right, mostly I) used to toss around the expressions "dirtlings" (meaning planetsiders) and "dirtling proxies" (meaning spacers acting on behalf of planetsiders) around a lot. These expressions were clearly slurs, and absolutely designed to be. I counted on some negative reactions to it IC, but pretty much assumed it would be okay from an OOC point of view, since we players are all "dirtlings" anyway. Would any of you consider it offensive simply on grounds of it being a slur, though?
-
In terms of IC slurs...for the most part I tend to be a little more lenient than others so long as I know the insults are purely IC. There are some terms that I would still take offence to; the way in which I would handle the situation would be to send the person a private message OOC stating my feelings about the comment and try to work it out.
-
Unfortunately, many race based slurs that would fit EVE races would also likely be offensive OOC too, even if we made them up from scratch. Like, anti-Brutor comments, or anti-JinMei comments.
-
Unfortunately, many race based slurs that would fit EVE races would also likely be offensive OOC too, even if we made them up from scratch. Like, anti-Brutor comments, or anti-JinMei comments.
In our unfortunate reality, race based slurs are always themed around the difference between the one issuing the slur, and their observation of the target. Thus, to a fat white Republican redneck, blacks are "niggers" because of that whole "niger, neger, it means black in french LOL ur skin is darker than mine" thing they so adorably cling to; Asians are "chinks" or "slants" because their last name might be Chang, or because their eyes are slanted.
So, what would an Amarr racist observe about the Minmatar? He can't just call them niggers, because most of them aren't black. But they are all tribal, and their spirituality differs vastly from that Amarr racist's. So let's run with that instead. "Wretched inbred savages," that Amarr would say. "Faithless, godless reprobates." "Flea-bitten cattle."
What would a Caldari observe in a Gallentean that disgusts him? "Self-centered perversion-monger." "Entitled meddler." "Egomaniac."
What would a Gallente who hates Caldari observe? "Statist authoritarian scum. Do you have a single thought in your head that wasn't issued by your parent corporation, you drone?"
What would a Minmatar who hates Amarr observe? "Wrinkled old wretch bowing to a false god that gives you permission to conduct any atrocity."
Etc etc etc. Remember. When a racist insults another race that is not his own... he will always list the things that race is worse at, than his own. This is because the racist is insecure. The racist has been brought up believing that he is superior... but as he encounters more and more evidence that his beliefs are not only wrong, but offensive to civilized people around him... he grows hateful. More desperate to reinforce the perceived dominance of his race, his people, his group. And he invariably does this by pointing out what's wrong with the other group.
I would suggest that we not rely on any racist traditions from modern day, but invent new ones.
And here's the kicker. They have to make sense. Because even in the real world, they do. That fat white Republican redneck? He tosses around terms like "nigger" because he is, in fact, and undeniably... terrified of black people. Any slurs you come up with for New Eden's diverse populace to employ, have to be rooted in this. Racism is not just hate. It is also fear. It is in fact, mostly fear.
-
Yeah, that's pretty good examples.
Unfortunately, many race based slurs that would fit EVE races would also likely be offensive OOC too, even if we made them up from scratch. Like, anti-Brutor comments, or anti-JinMei comments.
Unfortunately yes. Like homophobic slurs, which can't really be bypassed by Istvaan idea above since it's more or less basically the same in New Eden than it is IRL.
I may sound weird but I am all for these ICly, for always more diversity of creepy/grim ways to fit to New Eden. Of course, the first one to deal with such things would literally get lambasted and get biomassed before reaching 24 hours of existence.
There was a PIE member like that, who made slight - very slight - reference to machist comments, and he got literally stomped by a bandwagon.
-
So, what would an Amarr racist observe about the Minmatar?
Migga, please. I'm sure it's right there for the picking.
-
There's a "squid" slur getting tossed around for Caldari already, isn't there? What's the story behind that, again?
-
There's a "squid" slur getting tossed around for Caldari already, isn't there? What's the story behind that, again?
I assumed that was just a pun on the word "Caldari". Caldari/Calamari. Like the food, you know?
-
I assumed that was just a pun on the word "Caldari". Caldari/Calamari. Like the food, you know?
Ah yeah, I think that was it. I'm not actually familiar with the meal, which is why it was easy to forget I am sure.
-
My understanding is that originally grew out of a reference to some joint Caldari-Amarr operations groups in the earlier days of FW: Caldari-Amarr -> Cal-Amarr -> Calamari -> Squids.
Somehow it ended up sticking harder to the Caldari guys than the Amarr, though, likely due to the greater name similarity to begin with.
-
What about "frogs"?
-
What about "frogs"?
French connection. I do not know exactly where the term "frog" for Frenchmen comes from.
-
The same reason why Germans are called krauts.
Because French people eat frogs.
-
During the peninsular war the French troops were often referred to as Crapauds by their English counterparts, which is not exactly a term of endearment. I don't believe it was due to their eating of frogs legs - but have to admit I can't locate any other solid etymology.
-
My understanding is that originally grew out of a reference to some joint Caldari-Amarr operations groups in the earlier days of FW: Caldari-Amarr -> Cal-Amarr -> Calamari -> Squids.
Somehow it ended up sticking harder to the Caldari guys than the Amarr, though, likely due to the greater name similarity to begin with.
Nope, it's purely out of Caldari resembling the word calamari. Hence squids. I was in Gallente FW when the dudes coined the pharase. There was no crossfaction co-op when this term for cladari came into being, it appearaed during the first month of FW accompanied with hilarious gifs anc pictures on the now defunct gallente FW forums.
edit:clarification
-
During the peninsular war the French troops were often referred to as Crapauds by their English counterparts, which is not exactly a term of endearment. I don't believe it was due to their eating of frogs legs - but have to admit I can't locate any other solid etymology.
I think it comes from frog food yes. I don't think a lot of people eat those, and even less regularly, but the prejudice remained. Not that both countries have not come with very creative slurs toward each other over the centuries anyway...
For the use of Crapauds, I don't know though (I was only aware of the use of the word Jacobins). A crapaud is a toad in any case.
It's really funny reading the english, then the french wikipedia articles on Napoleonic wars usually. Radically opposed underlying tones for the same "factual" statements.
-
The only slur against Norwegians I'm aware of is "squarehead", and it's a really obscure 19th century American one that I think actually applied to all Scandinavians.
-
There is no slur against the swedish among the Nordic, but we all know they are a tad odd. :D
-
There is no slur against the swedish among the Nordic, but we all know they are a tad odd. :D
Fun or sad fact: In Scandinavia, different countries have different ways of speaking down towards other Scandinavians.
For instance, in Norway the word "Svenske." is basically just the Norwegian version of "Swede" - however for all the people that use the term for what it is, there are some who would use it in a negative way - transforming the word into a slur against swedes, on the basis that being swedes, no other word will suffice to degrade them. I'm confident this holds true for other members as well.
The reason I don't consider this to be to big a problem ofc is it's relatively low usage in this manner. Most Norwegians and Swedes get along just fine, but on occasion you get those that don't. Still, from what I've experienced "Søta bror" is the most common opinion on the matter.
Regardless, the point I'm making here is that you can also get widely different meanings out of words based on how you phrase them or the tone utilized. It's harder to do in text-based messages, but that's where attention to detail can help you. "Hello Stitcher. Is there something you want?" VS "Hello Caldari. Was there something you wanted?"
Works for names too, ofc.
-
There is no slur against the swedish among the Nordic, but we all know they are a tad odd. :D
I would really like to think this is sarcasm and/or you are being facetious.
But just in case The Community proves it's uniqueness again, I would like to point out that, yes, yes there are many slurs against the swedes. In Finnish alone there are several.
-
The Finnish people aren't Nordic peoples, though. ;P