[P2TM Chat] The Restaurant at the End of the Multiverse II

[Alleniana]

I've never thought of it that way. I have no problem with saying that I am an ethnic Chinese, and many pro-LGBT+ publications and entities have used it in that context. To each their own, I suppose.

Well, I mean, people used to use rather a lot of words to refer to black people that they later came to recognize were words they ought to stop using. Basically, no one ever says, "Oh, straights are upset about marriage reform sweeping the nation", or "the whites are getting uppity" -- so why on earth would we say, "the gays are getting portrayed in media at last" or "gays tend to have sex with other gays"? Well, the reason is to paint gay people as being strange, as being abnormal, as being "other" than the default, which is white and straight. It says that the individuals' homosexuality is more important than their existence as people.

Yes, nobody does, because at least in the environment where English was developed, those have always been perceived as "normal", but frankly, I wouldn't see the issue even if they were used like that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjectival_noun in some cases, as in "the rich people" vs "the rich", it even sounds more normal, leaving aside bonuses to laziness and succinctness.

[Astrolinium]

Well, I mean, people used to use rather a lot of words to refer to black people that they later came to recognize were words they ought to stop using. Basically, no one ever says, "Oh, straights are upset about marriage reform sweeping the nation", or "the whites are getting uppity" -- so why on earth would we say, "the gays are getting portrayed in media at last" or "gays tend to have sex with other gays"? Well, the reason is to paint gay people as being strange, as being abnormal, as being "other" than the default, which is white and straight. It says that the individuals' homosexuality is more important than their existence as people.

Yes, nobody does, because at least in the environment where English was developed, those have always been perceived as "normal", but frankly, I wouldn't see the issue even if they were used like that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjectival_noun in some cases, as in "the rich people" vs "the rich", it even sounds more normal, leaving aside bonuses to laziness and succinctness.

I know what an adjectival noun is, I know all of that. It does not contradict what I said. Straight and white has indeed always been perceived as "normal" -- which is damaging to those people, particularly young people, who are not straight and white. It is a much less extreme version of why we do not use the n-word to refer to black people or the f-word to refer to gay people -- it paints them as something "other", as something "abnormal", and so as something "broken" and "incorrect". We should therefore seek to alter our usage of language to create a version of English in which people who are not straight, white, cisgender males can feel as safe expressing themselves as those who are.

[Alleniana]

Yes, nobody does, because at least in the environment where English was developed, those have always been perceived as "normal", but frankly, I wouldn't see the issue even if they were used like that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjectival_noun in some cases, as in "the rich people" vs "the rich", it even sounds more normal, leaving aside bonuses to laziness and succinctness.

I know what an adjectival noun is, I know all of that. It does not contradict what I said. Straight and white has indeed always been perceived as "normal" -- which is damaging to those people, particularly young people, who are not straight and white. It is a much less extreme version of why we do not use the n-word to refer to black people or the f-word to refer to gay people -- it paints them as something "other", as something "abnormal", and so as something "broken" and "incorrect". We should therefore seek to alter our usage of language to create a version of English in which people who are not straight, white, cisgender males can feel as safe expressing themselves as those who are.

I know, and I said that's why it's used as it is in popular usage; not that I'm condoning it, but that is the case. I think where we differ is that you would rather wipe out the adjectival nouns referring to people, whereas I would rather introduce them to all people equally.

[Nightkill the Emperor]

I think gays, blacks, whites, Indians, lesbians, Jews, etc are all fine as nouns.

Because fuck typing "gay people", "black people", "Indian people", "white people" or "Jewish people" every time.

[Alleniana]

I think gays, blacks, whites, Indians, lesbians, Jews, etc are all fine as nouns.

Because fuck typing "gay people", "black people", "Indian people" or "Jewish people" every time.

^
Why not be lazy when being lazy is free?

[The Tiger Kingdom]

I think gays, blacks, whites, Indians, lesbians, Jews, etc are all fine as nouns.

Because fuck typing "gay people", "black people", "Indian people", "white people" or "Jewish people" every time.

SEE
THIS WAS EXACTLY MY POINT

[Astrolinium]

I know what an adjectival noun is, I know all of that. It does not contradict what I said. Straight and white has indeed always been perceived as "normal" -- which is damaging to those people, particularly young people, who are not straight and white. It is a much less extreme version of why we do not use the n-word to refer to black people or the f-word to refer to gay people -- it paints them as something "other", as something "abnormal", and so as something "broken" and "incorrect". We should therefore seek to alter our usage of language to create a version of English in which people who are not straight, white, cisgender males can feel as safe expressing themselves as those who are.

I know, and I said that's why it's used as it is in popular usage; not that I'm condoning it, but that is the case. I think where we differ is that you would rather wipe out the adjectival nouns referring to people, whereas I would rather introduce them to all people equally.

Well, I feel it's likely easier to get people to do the one than the other; it's generally more effective to tell someone, "This is offensive, please stop it" than to tell someone, "This is offensive, so please start doing it to these people as well".

I think gays, blacks, whites, Indians, lesbians, Jews, etc are all fine as nouns.

Because fuck typing "gay people", "black people", "Indian people", "white people" or "Jewish people" every time.

SEE
THIS WAS EXACTLY MY POINT

"Soon we must all face the choice between what is right and what is easy." -- Albus Dumbledore

[Zarkenis Ultima]

Well, I feel it's likely easier to get people to do the one than the other; it's generally more effective to tell someone, "This is offensive, please stop it" than to tell someone, "This is offensive, so please start doing it to these people as well".

I disagree.

I intend to provide no reasoning whatsoever nor make any claims about the validity of the following statement, but I honestly believe that if you told someone "This is offensive, so plase start doing it to these people as well", they would likely oblige.

[Nightkill the Emperor]

I know, and I said that's why it's used as it is in popular usage; not that I'm condoning it, but that is the case. I think where we differ is that you would rather wipe out the adjectival nouns referring to people, whereas I would rather introduce them to all people equally.

Well, I feel it's likely easier to get people to do the one than the other; it's generally more effective to tell someone, "This is offensive, please stop it" than to tell someone, "This is offensive, so please start doing it to these people as well".

SEE
THIS WAS EXACTLY MY POINT

"Soon we must all face the choice between what is right and what is easy." -- Albus Dumbledore

“Differences of habit and language are nothing at all if our aims are identical and our hearts are open.” - Albus Dumbledore.

[Alleniana]

I know, and I said that's why it's used as it is in popular usage; not that I'm condoning it, but that is the case. I think where we differ is that you would rather wipe out the adjectival nouns referring to people, whereas I would rather introduce them to all people equally.

Well, I feel it's likely easier to get people to do the one than the other; it's generally more effective to tell someone, "This is offensive, please stop it" than to tell someone, "This is offensive, so please start doing it to these people as well".

SEE
THIS WAS EXACTLY MY POINT

"Soon we must all face the choice between what is right and what is easy." -- Albus Dumbledore

I get what you mean, then, but I stand by my usage. Also, mildly interesting, the juxtaposition between it being easier to tell people to not do rather than to do, and the quote.

[Astrolinium]

Well, I feel it's likely easier to get people to do the one than the other; it's generally more effective to tell someone, "This is offensive, please stop it" than to tell someone, "This is offensive, so please start doing it to these people as well".

I disagree.

I intend to provide no reasoning whatsoever nor make any claims about the validity of the following statement, but I honestly believe that if you told someone "This is offensive, so plase start doing it to these people as well", they would likely oblige.

I mean, I know most other gay people I know already do it to straight people -- the hard part would be convincing many straight people to get on board with doing it to themselves. That's where the difficulty lies.

Well, I feel it's likely easier to get people to do the one than the other; it's generally more effective to tell someone, "This is offensive, please stop it" than to tell someone, "This is offensive, so please start doing it to these people as well".



"Soon we must all face the choice between what is right and what is easy." -- Albus Dumbledore

I get what you mean, then, but I stand by my usage. Also, mildly interesting, the juxtaposition between it being easier to tell people to not do rather than to do, and the quote.

Which is why I changed my usage to "more effective", which is more accurate than "easier" anyway.

[Alleniana]

I disagree.

I intend to provide no reasoning whatsoever nor make any claims about the validity of the following statement, but I honestly believe that if you told someone "This is offensive, so plase start doing it to these people as well", they would likely oblige.

I mean, I know most other gay people I know already do it to straight people -- the hard part would be convincing many straight people to get on board with doing it to themselves. That's where the difficulty lies.

I would, if there was much of a context for me to do it in, but anyway, I'm off for a shower.

[Astrolinium]

I mean, I know most other gay people I know already do it to straight people -- the hard part would be convincing many straight people to get on board with doing it to themselves. That's where the difficulty lies.

I would, if there was much of a context for me to do it in, but anyway, I'm off for a shower.

And I'm off to bed, but I'll part with noting that, statistically speaking, you being a (presumably) teenaged/young adult person on not only the internet but this website in particular likely makes you more aware of and, specifically, more open to becoming aware of such social issues than the majority.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

Well, I feel it's likely easier to get people to do the one than the other; it's generally more effective to tell someone, "This is offensive, please stop it" than to tell someone, "This is offensive, so please start doing it to these people as well".



"Soon we must all face the choice between what is right and what is easy." -- Albus Dumbledore

“Differences of habit and language are nothing at all if our aims are identical and our hearts are open.” - Albus Dumbledore.

"Before I begin our banquet, I would like to say a few words. They are nitwit, blubber, oddment, and tweak. Thank you." - Al Double-D

[Nightkill the Emperor]

“Differences of habit and language are nothing at all if our aims are identical and our hearts are open.” - Albus Dumbledore.

"Before I begin our banquet, I would like to say a few words. They are nitwit, blubber, oddment, and tweak. Thank you." - Al Double-D

"One can never have enough socks."

[Swith Witherward]

I'm still trying to puzzle out the difference between "gays" and "gay people". My entire life, I've heard "Because we're Italians" rather than adding on the additional noun. Perhaps it's dependent on where we live?

[Zarkenis Ultima]

I'm still trying to puzzle out the difference between "gays" and "gay people". My entire life, I've heard "Because we're Italians" rather than adding on the additional noun. Perhaps it's dependent on where we live?

No, see, you've obviously been socially conditioned to de-humanize yourself and your kin. -Nods-

For a serious answer, I'd argue that the difference is a matter of removing the 'humanizing' component ("people") from the equation. Gays. Blacks. No different from pies or bricks, whereas gay people or black people are at least recognized as people (discussion regarding the nature and sensibilities of "pie people" will have to wait for another day). I disagree with the viewpoint that this actually detracts from someone's humanity in any meaningful manner (which some people might argue is any manner at all; I don't know, I'm a bit sleep deprived), but it is the difference I could detect in all of this mess.

Someone tell me if I made sense up there.

[Alleniana]

I'm still trying to puzzle out the difference between "gays" and "gay people". My entire life, I've heard "Because we're Italians" rather than adding on the additional noun. Perhaps it's dependent on where we live?

No, see, you've obviously been socially conditioned to de-humanize yourself and your kin. -Nods-

For a serious answer, I'd argue that the difference is a matter of removing the 'humanizing' component ("people") from the equation. Gays. Blacks. No different from pies or bricks, whereas gay people or black people are at least recognized as people (discussion regarding the nature and sensibilities of "pie people" will have to wait for another day). I disagree with the viewpoint that this actually detracts from someone's humanity in any meaningful manner (which some people might argue is any manner at all; I don't know, I'm a bit sleep deprived), but it is the difference I could detect in all of this mess.

Someone tell me if I made sense up there.

I think we've all agreed to disagree about agreeing while agreeing.

[Zarkenis Ultima]

No, see, you've obviously been socially conditioned to de-humanize yourself and your kin. -Nods-

For a serious answer, I'd argue that the difference is a matter of removing the 'humanizing' component ("people") from the equation. Gays. Blacks. No different from pies or bricks, whereas gay people or black people are at least recognized as people (discussion regarding the nature and sensibilities of "pie people" will have to wait for another day). I disagree with the viewpoint that this actually detracts from someone's humanity in any meaningful manner (which some people might argue is any manner at all; I don't know, I'm a bit sleep deprived), but it is the difference I could detect in all of this mess.

Someone tell me if I made sense up there.

I think we've all agreed to disagree about agreeing while agreeing.

Lovely.

Good night then.

[Nationstatelandsville]

I think gays, blacks, whites, Indians, lesbians, Jews, etc are all fine as nouns.

Because fuck typing "gay people", "black people", "Indian people", "white people" or "Jewish people" every time.

Economy of language is useful.

Hence why I propose we begin referring to people as "G"'s, "B"'s, "I"'s, "W"'s, etc. "Jew" can stay, because the "oo" sound is fun to make.

[Altito Asmoro]

If you want to know what a man’s like, take a good look at how he treats his inferiors, not his equals. Sirius Black.

[The Grey Wolf]

Truth be told, I have never had a gay person be offended at the use of "gays" in a sentence.

SEE
THIS WAS EXACTLY MY POINT

"Soon we must all face the choice between what is right and what is easy." -- Albus Dumbledore

So does this make Tigger Cornelius Fudge/Chamberlain?

"Before I begin our banquet, I would like to say a few words. They are nitwit, blubber, oddment, and tweak. Thank you." - Al Double-D

"One can never have enough socks."

Yes.

[Agritum]

Voice chat created.

TG me for link.

[The Armed Republic of Dutch Coolness]

Voice chat created.

TG me for link.

I'd only be able to talk when I'm on my Xbox. And when I'm on my Xbox, I play games.

[Agritum]

Voice chat created.

TG me for link.

I'd only be able to talk when I'm on my Xbox. And when I'm on my Xbox, I play games.

I linked a cheap computer headset by Logitech. It's like, twenty dollars.