Willow: Yes. Hi. You must be Angel's handsome, yet androgynous, son. Connor: It's Connor. Willow: And the sneer's genetic. Who knew?

'A Hole in the World'


Spike's Bitches 47: Someone Dangerous Could Get In  

[NAFDA] Spike-centric discussion. Lusty, lewd (only occasionally crude), risqué (and frisqué), bawdy (Oh, lawdy!), flirty ('cuz we're purty), raunchy talk inside. Caveat lector.


Amy - Nov 23, 2011 6:00:08 pm PST #3342 of 30001
Because books.

The only person whose feelings we know seem to have been hurt was erica.

My feelings weren't hurt, but my brother is in Naval intelligence as a linguist and a cryptologist, and has spent months in Afghanistan and other parts of the Middle East, as well as Africa. It does hurt sometimes to hear the military derided when I know how much he's risked to do his job.

That said, he's also the first person to admit that the military can be a huge, ridiculous machine of stupidity and backward thinking, so.

Reasonable politeness isn't the same thing as having to censor every sentence.

I pointed out that Maria originally, and very politely, mentioned that some people might be hurt by the remark. If I recall correctly, erika was the one to take offense to that, and the discussion grew from there.

I just think it's a little ridiculous that someone simply mentioned how words can potentially hurt, and it started a daylong discussion arguing the right to be snarky.


§ ita § - Nov 23, 2011 6:00:46 pm PST #3343 of 30001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.

If someone had responded with "hey, I'm a Republican over here!

Historically, Republican Buffistas have said they feel cowed about speaking out. Sue me, I spoke out for people who may not even exist anymore because we may already have driven them away. BUT THAT SHOULDN'T MATTER. It shouldn't take the existence of a Republican Buffista to be respectful. We've hurt people in the past with statements very like that one, and it stings me to see it potentially happening again.

I don't apologise for that.

If someone had said that "Democratic intellectual" was an oxymoron, either the response would have been a) very different or b) pretty much nothing, because of the position of privilege Buffista Democrats post from.


Connie Neil - Nov 23, 2011 6:17:43 pm PST #3344 of 30001
brillig

I pointed out that Maria originally, and very politely, mentioned that some people might be hurt by the remark. If I recall correctly, erika was the one to take offense to that, and the discussion grew from there.

and

But lately it seems like the board is going to police itself so that nothing that might offend anyone anywhere can be said without a scolding,

Which is the core of the discussion. And the crux of the problem. Because debating against having to speak on egg shells to avoid the potential of hurting potential someones puts you in the position of having others say "So you're arguing you have the right to hurt people just because you don't want to watch what you say." And then adding the disclaimer that you're engaging in hyperbole so you don't have to fight against literal interpretations of every thing you say.

I'm also leaning towards Typo's position--I love this place. The debate may not be worth the angst. I shall not argue further on this point.


billytea - Nov 23, 2011 6:21:07 pm PST #3345 of 30001
You were a wrong baby who grew up wrong. The wrong kind of wrong. It's better you hear it from a friend.

Sue me, I spoke out for people who may not even exist anymore because we may already have driven them away. BUT THAT SHOULDN'T MATTER. It shouldn't take the existence of a Republican Buffista to be respectful. We've hurt people in the past with statements very like that one, and it stings me to see it potentially happening again.

I don't disagree, though I do recall fairly heated exchanges in Bureaucracy that hinged on what lurkers may or may not be thinking.

I don't really know when and whether this kind of issue makes a difference. If someone, say, posted a racial slur, I think anyone would be on solid footing to point out its offensiveness, whether or not they identify with it. Conversely, the military intelligence comment seems to have been intended, and by a number of people taken, as a comment on the organisation's structure and process, not on any individuals therein. Does it matter in such a case, a distinction between "I think there are people who might be offended" and "I personally am offended"?


billytea - Nov 23, 2011 6:21:08 pm PST #3346 of 30001
You were a wrong baby who grew up wrong. The wrong kind of wrong. It's better you hear it from a friend.

billytea - Nov 23, 2011 6:21:08 pm PST #3347 of 30001
You were a wrong baby who grew up wrong. The wrong kind of wrong. It's better you hear it from a friend.

billytea - Nov 23, 2011 6:21:08 pm PST #3348 of 30001
You were a wrong baby who grew up wrong. The wrong kind of wrong. It's better you hear it from a friend.

Dana - Nov 23, 2011 6:21:37 pm PST #3349 of 30001
I'm terrifically busy with my ennui.

Are you sure you don't disagree?


billytea - Nov 23, 2011 6:24:40 pm PST #3350 of 30001
You were a wrong baby who grew up wrong. The wrong kind of wrong. It's better you hear it from a friend.

Are you sure you don't disagree?

Hee. Apologies for the unanticipated post splooge.


§ ita § - Nov 23, 2011 6:24:42 pm PST #3351 of 30001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.

on what lurkers may or may not be thinking

I am not talking about lurkers, actually.

And, you know what? I don't *have* to be a Republican to be offended. But, face it, you don't know if I'm a Republican or not. Not that you care, but you don't know. I've never said.

So you want me to stand up and say it? You can't see the statement for what it is? You need me to be offended for it to be offensive? Well, there you go. I'm offended. Put it on the record.