In response to the recent drama

[A less presumptuous name.]

It took a while before I realized that it was Dikiyoba's real preference, as well. I gave up my preference for pronouns over nouns to keep things civil.

 

I also think that we should take Slarty's advice and give Trenton, and everyone involved, the benefit of the doubt. The issue seems to be dealt with, so I think that we should cool down and let it go rest. There is a lot that we can learn about it, but debating past motives isn't the greatest way to improve the future.

[Actaeon]

We already have a perfectly good, common gender neutral pronoun. It just happens to have an impersonal connotation. Surely getting over that would be easier than introducing an entirely new term.

 

I'm not sure I'm willing to give up pronouns altogether. Certain types of writing and speech (a newspaper interview, a description, quotations) would be less stilted in E-Prime than pronoun free.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Actaeon

We already have a perfectly good, common gender neutral pronoun. It just happens to have an impersonal connotation. Surely getting over that would be easier than introducing an entirely new term.

no we are not calling people on these forums "it". absolutely not. not gonna happen. for one thing, there's a history in society of people calling trans people "it" as a deliberate insult -- you can't "get over" a connotation when other people are invoking it on purpose

use singular they if you really insist on avoiding novel pronouns. i would much rather avoid offending dikiyoba than avoid offending prescriptivist grammarians, who are offended at everything anyway

[Harehunter]

I concur with Lilith. As difficult as it may be for me to adapt a new word, I think that it should be more appropriate than 'it'.

[keira]

singular they is fine, but if you are going to talk to someone for more than a few times, just politely ask what pronoun(s) they would prefer and go with that. That would seem to be the most logical and inoffensive solution to the pronoun problem.

[nikki.]

It took to quoting Actaeon to see that "it" was in bold; before then I assumed he'd just made a poor choice of his words. Yeah, "it" is unacceptable. Completely.

 

And can't we just carry on using Dikiyoba's name? Dikiyoba is a person, not an exercise in which pronouns we should/should not use; if in doubt, asking is always better.

 

Edit: sniped.

[VCH]

Originally Posted By: Sylae

Originally Posted By: VCH

Just because someone says something hurtful about you in the "heat of the moment" doesn't mean they necessarily believe what they said. Gender and homophobic slurs are common missiles to sling because they are good pointy projectiles no matter who you aim them at. I may smash you in the face with a rock during a fight, but that doesn't mean I want to continue smashing you afterwards.

So that means it's okay to drop racial slurs if I ever get in an argument with a black person?

No matter what way you cut it, the metaphorical face has been smashed, whether or not you would continue smashing is irrelevant. A rock thrown is a rock thrown.

Trenton said something very insulting. We can give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he didn't know it was insulting (which, let's be honest, he obviously did know), but after he was informed that it was insulting, he went and did it again.

No, it's not OK, but it will happen. The natural reaction when hurt is to hurt back. People on the outside need to think about things they've said at one time or another to get back at someone; maybe they were crude remarks maybe more calculated, the point is, this [censored] happens. It's only a problem if its persistent and from the same person.

For the slurs or hurtful phrases to change, and I am adamant that they will only change from one thing to another, we need to focus on accepting people and their choices. However, I doubt this change will come from "banning" words/thoughts/expressions. That only makes them stronger and more hurtful.

Disclaimer: Of course these boards should be a place that everyone feels safe. Thus, the mods have the responsibility to judge things on a case by case basis and make appropriate actions.

[Actaeon]

No, I meant "it". I didn't mean on this forum. On the forum, I call Dikiyoba Dikiyoba and Sylae "she". It simply frustrates me that the English language has ruined a perfectly good pronoun by creating an implicit hierarchy which relies on gender.

 

Edit: To clarify, I will happily address people according to their preferences (within reason). There is, however, an inherent bias in our entire language that doesn't have an easy fix, largely because we've dehumanized "it".

[keira]

English isn't that bad when you compare it to other languages, such as Spanish, where everything has a gender.

 

Also, some of those made up gender-neutral pronouns are ridiculous. I think I would be more offended if someone called me "shklee" than "it".

[Actaeon]

If you watch the movie, you'll discover that "shklim" can also be "sckler". It completely defeats the point.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Actaeon

Edit: To clarify, I will happily address people according to their preferences (within reason). There is, however, an inherent bias in our entire language that doesn't have an easy fix, largely because we've dehumanized "it".

that's kind of a misleading way to put it. in fact, grammatical gender as an animate/inanimate distinction is believed to have preceded grammatical gender as a male/female distinction, so the problem is not so much that we've dehumanised "it" as that we came up with separate pronouns for male non-its and female non-its in the first place

of course talking about what "we" have done in the context of a process of linguistic evolution that happened over the course of centuries is silly to begin with

[keira]

Originally Posted By: VCH

For the slurs or hurtful phrases to change, and I am adamant that they will only change from one thing to another, we need to focus on accepting people and their choices. However, I doubt this change will come from "banning" words/thoughts/expressions. That only makes them stronger and more hurtful.

There's a difference between "banning" words/thoughts/expressions and using said words/thoughts/expressions in a non-offensive fashion. I have no problem with having an intelligent, informed discussion on matters like this. In fact, I think it's a good thing. However, when this exact same issue is turned on it's head and used as an insult, it is unacceptable.

I mean, I don't think anyone has a problem with talking about the issue of racism as long as the conversation remains civil. Most people will have problems if you use racial slurs.

[Dikiyoba]

Originally Posted By: Actaeon

There is, however, an inherent bias in our entire language that doesn't have an easy fix, largely because we've dehumanized "it".

An easy fix would be to adopt singular they or some recently invented GNP. People just don't want to do it. Besides, singular they can be confusing at times; is it one person or a group of people? Imagine how confusing it could be to use "it" for people, inanimate objects, and abstract subjects.

Originally Posted By: Sylae

English isn't that bad when you compare it to other languages, such as Spanish, where everything has a gender.

Since in Spanish most adjectives and nouns end in O or A to indicate whether they are masculine or feminine, I've seen people use @ to end words to make them gender neutral--Latin@, for instance. I've only ever seen it done when the writing is in English and the Spanish term has been borrowed into the English language (whatever the technical term for that is), but it could be done in Spanish, in theory.

Dikiyoba also has no idea how you would pronounce a word ending in @, because Dikiyoba has only seen it written down.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Dikiyoba

Dikiyoba also has no idea how you would pronounce a word ending in @, because Dikiyoba has only seen it written down.

"uhhh" would seem appropriate, as an approximation of an unprepared reader's response to their first encounter with that convention

[Actaeon]

... I probably would just end up tacking an "at" suffix on to the end. Thank you for history lesson, Lilith. I deeply regret not taking more linguistics in college.

 

(That comes across as sarcastic, but isn't.)

[Dintiradan]

I'd be wondering what the domain name was.

[Erebus the Black]

I rather thought that s-he and hmrrr (him*her) would fit here.

(and its not hrmmm because it sounds like someone trying to clear ones throat and hmrrr sounds like a cat purring)

I also know that androgens are relatively rare, and I have maybe ever met one, and I didn't confirm it because I figured it wasn't any of my business and I should just treat hmrrr as a person.

Another thing is that, (and please correct me if I'm wrong) genetically one is either male (XY chromosomes) or female (XX chromosomes) unless down syndrome is involved.

But even with that, the gender we present to the world is not predetermined by our genes as the woman olympics taught us (if I remember correctly, a few women (in the full sense) which were suspected of taking steroids were disqualified because of it, shenanigans ensued, until it was shown that the reason for them looking so butch was in fact that they had an XY chromosome, which severely shocked the entire sports and medicine community).

[Alorael at Large]

Oh, no. There are many, many alternatives: Klinefelter (XXY), Turner (a single X chromosome) Triple X (or more!). (These are changes in chromosome 23 number, although it's not really thought of as chromosome 23 very much; X and Y are mostly called the sex chromosomes. Other chromosomes can also have abnormalities, but they tend to have more severe phenotypes: Down syndrome is trisomy of chromosome 21. Trisomy 18 and 13 are also survivable, but with more severe defects; the latter tends to be lethal in infancy.)

 

Maleness is determined by the SRY gene on the Y chromosome, but then there are things like androgen insensitivity, which leads to XY females because there is no receptor to respond to SRY. Or another XY female, Swyer syndrome, in which gonads fail to form and thus fail to secrete androgens. Or XX male, when a mutation places the SRY gene on an X chromosome.

 

So how do you judge? By chromosomes? By gonads? Genitalia? Even sex isn't a binary thing. It shouldn't be surprising that gender has a range as well.

 

—Alorael, who has trouble with the neologisms and verbal gymnastics around gender rejection and continuum. The people he knows in person who fall into non-traditional genders accept traditional pronouns, which makes things easier.

[Balladeer]

Personally I find it pretty peculiar that a petite pronoun can perturb a person so pointedly.

 

Joking aside, its a thought I had from reading the wiki article. Up until the pretty recently, it was common practice to use the male gender pronoun 'he' to talk about someone with an unknown gender or a whole group of people with mixed genders. I am personally not offended in the slightest to be considered part of MANkind and I am baffled by the sentiment of those who insist it should be HUMANkind. It's just a word, it means everyone, I just don't understand why some people think its a big deal. The political correctness of firefighter over fireman and police officer over policeman is similarly unnecessary in my mind. I hear the arguments but the word usage just doesn't seem worth arguing over to me when the terms were always meant to include everyone. With the way things are going I'm surprised that there hasn't been a demanded name change for the sport of Golf.

 

What I DO take offense to, though, are the increasing tendencies to portray men as blundering idiots in prime time entertainment. Homer, George Lopez, Tim the Tool Man Taylor, Al Bundy, Phil Dunphy, Spencer Shay... the list goes on and on; the male psyche is being endlessly bombarded with the message that 'guys are clueless' and its not a good thing.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Jewels in Black

Ted Bundy

do... do you mean al bundy. i hope so

if you do, it's worth knowing that Married with Children was specifically designed to pull in a larger male audience than traditional sitcoms, because the network felt that competing against shows like Roseanne for female watchers was a losing battle. it succeeded fairly well in its goal: al bundy, apparently, was exactly the kind of guy that men wanted to see on tv. i don't know what that says about men but it sure says something

i wonder if a big part of the appeal of that kind of character might be in providing comforting excuses to men: hey, nobody can reasonably expect you to do anything productive outside of work, so you've got a ready-made reason to let your wife take care of everything at home

[Randomizer]

Married with Children was considered by Fox to be Not the Cosbys. So instead of a smart successful doctor husband you had a somewhat dumb unsuccessful shoe store salesman trapped in a marriage instead of going on to a possibly successful football career. If you kept to sports, Al Bundy was knowledgeable.

 

The show wasn't expected to last more than a season until they could find a better show for the time slot. That pretty much was Fox's plan since they had to get a certain number of hours of programming to keep their license.

 

The X-Files was aired because they had no decent shows, but since it was produced by Fox Studios they would lose less money than a show from another company by keeping it in the Fox family of companies.

 

The Simpsons was Matt Groenig not wanting to risk his A material, Life in Hell on a Fox show. It was quickly created and how many of you have ever read his other work?

[Erebus the Black]

Homer Simpson is in fact a genius, he's just have a crayon shoved up his nose, touching his brain and interfering with its electrical signals rendering him into a blumbering idiot.

In the Simpson universe it is in fact known that god doesn't exist because Homer gave mathematical irrefutable proof that s-h-it doesn't exist.

[Aran]

Originally Posted By: Jewels in Black

Ted Bundy

Best or worst typo ever.

[Randomizer]

Originally Posted By: Y? Bcaus, I dnt knw he's on 3rd

In the Simpson universe it is in fact known that god doesn't exist because Homer gave mathematical irrefutable proof that s-h-it doesn't exist.

But God has appeared in several episodes, as the only being in that universe with 5 fingers. Homer has met him on a few occassions especially the one where he ascended to heavan because he figured out the correct date and location of the Rapture and wasn't left behind.

[Erebus the Black]

Originally Posted By: Randomizer

But God has appeared in several episodes, as the only being in that universe with 5 fingers. Homer has met him on a few occassions especially the one where he ascended to heavan because he figured out the correct date and location of the Rapture and wasn't left behind.

Well, if you believe god trumps mathematics then obviously god created mathematics wrong.
If, on the other hand, you believe mathematics trumps god, then whomever Homer met, s-h-it wasn't god but some kind of anthropomorphic personification of the christian god or otherwise an imposter.

Oh, and thanks alorel.

[Harehunter]

I think Sylae has a rational point, which in some fashion is echoed by Jewels in Black. Banning a word does not eradicate the emotion that may be tied to it. And trying to replace words that sound gender specific with words that attempt to de-genderize them (yuckk that tastes bad) neuter those words propagates a sort of negative feedback. Rather than solving the original problem, it just aggravates it. Do we stop being the huMAN race, and become the huPERSON race? This sort of transmogrification of the language does not solve the problem, it exaggerates it, with the net effect of making it worse.

I sincerely believe it is wrong to willfully use language with the intent to cause hurt. What I have difficulty with are people who actively seek out being offended by what another says, even though what the speaker said has been in common usage for centuries, and there was no intent to cause insult or injury. I am willing to conform to whatever terminology is tactful and considerate of another persons situation. But can't we all be reasonable about it?

I have said this before, I may not agree with a person with regard to his or her beliefs, but I served this country for the purpose of defending the right of those people to believe as they choose. I believe just as strongly that all people should be treated with respect. Nothing good can be gained by animosity or bigotry.

 

edit: I couldn't help noticing from the preceding discussion, that others here recognized and respect Jeff's intent that his games and, by association, this forum should be a comfortable place for all people, regardless of political, religious, ethnic, or other characteristic that defines us. This intent is laudable.

[Actaeon]

Originally Posted By: Jewels in Black

What I DO take offense to, though, are the increasing tendencies to portray men as blundering idiots in prime time entertainment. Homer, George Lopez, Tim the Tool Man Taylor, Al Bundy, Phil Dunphy, Spencer Shay... the list goes on and on; the male psyche is being endlessly bombarded with the message that 'guys are clueless' and its not a good thing.

Outside the original serial killer reference, I agree wholeheartedly with this statement. We talk a lot about how the media influences women, but not so much about the messages it sends men. It teaches us that men are beer drinking, sports watching bums and women are long suffering, naggy and cater to their whims. I don't like it one bit.

This thread is starting to become the old one somewhat, in subject rather than tone. Is that an acceptable eventuality?

[Harehunter]

As long as we seek to understand each other with respect and courtesy, it can prove to be a healthy discussion. I myself have several biases, but I am able to put them aside in pursuit of keeping this forum as open as it is intended to be. This is, in fact, the pursuit of liberty for All that I seek to defend.

[Kreador]

Originally Posted By: Actaeon

Originally Posted By: Jewels in Black

What I DO take offense to, though, are the increasing tendencies to portray men as blundering idiots in prime time entertainment. Homer, George Lopez, Tim the Tool Man Taylor, Al Bundy, Phil Dunphy, Spencer Shay... the list goes on and on; the male psyche is being endlessly bombarded with the message that 'guys are clueless' and its not a good thing.

Outside the original serial killer reference, I agree wholeheartedly with this statement. We talk a lot about how the media influences women, but not so much about the messages it sends men. It teaches us that men are beer drinking, sports watching bums and women are long suffering, naggy and cater to their whims. I don't like it one bit.

This thread is starting to become the old one somewhat, in subject rather than tone. Is that an acceptable eventuality?

This suffers the logical fallacy of cherry picking data points. Yes, there have ALWAYS been examples of incompetent or barely competent men used for comedic entertainments. Think back to Polonius in Hamlet, portrayed as an idiot spouting cliches and calling them wisdom. That doesn't mean that every male character in entertainment is a knock on the male psyche, or that there's a pattern of denigrating men throughout popular entertainment. The bumbling guy who somehow still manages to get by and be lovable is a staple, yes, in large part because a lot of men do wonder why the people in their lives love them when they're clearly not the supermen they think they're supposed to be.

[Actaeon]

Noted. In general, I try not to get too out of balance by what's shown on television. I'm less frustrated by the media and more by the people who act out what's shown them and then can't understand how things turned out that way (which, less face it, is all of us at some point).

[Enraged Slith]

Originally Posted By: Actaeon

Originally Posted By: Jewels in Black

What I DO take offense to, though, are the increasing tendencies to portray men as blundering idiots in prime time entertainment. Homer, George Lopez, Tim the Tool Man Taylor, Al Bundy, Phil Dunphy, Spencer Shay... the list goes on and on; the male psyche is being endlessly bombarded with the message that 'guys are clueless' and its not a good thing.

Outside the original serial killer reference, I agree wholeheartedly with this statement. We talk a lot about how the media influences women, but not so much about the messages it sends men. It teaches us that men are beer drinking, sports watching bums and women are long suffering, naggy and cater to their whims. I don't like it one bit.

Me neither, but it does give me the excuse to post one of my favorite

.

[Swimmin' Salmon]

It's odd to me that people register on this site with false names, and ostensibly engage in ROLE playing games, and then spend so much time establishing the bona fides of their true identity. I've been aware of Diki's gender questions for years now, but since it doesn't impact my life I just chose to accept her as Diki. Here to talk about some silly games, Diki has also chosen to share some aspects/issues in Diki's personal milieu. More recently another member decided to intrude their real and personal life into their online persona. I can't pretend to understand the internal turmoil that such a confusion might create, but I also don't know that this particular website is the best vehicle for change. This is a website primarily in existence to facilitate the fan base fawning over Jeff's latest remake of a decade old game.

 

And for what it's worth, getting upset because a person uses the word "it" to pronounize a person who doesn't relate to she or he is only permissible if they are attempting to be insulting. For example, I had no idea that people used it to dehumanize transgenders. Because I've never used it that way, and it is transcendently unfair to expect all people with whom you come into contact to have the same knowledge base as you. Certainly don't expect it from me.

 

But, to get back to my original premise. This site is about role-playing games. It's probably easy for folks to conflate things unless you demand they read the history of all that has come before prior to posting. And it's disheartening to me that Jeff may have suffered because the conversation has taken place. Because the kid who made those comments (to my untrained eye) hasn't responded in this thread.

 

This post was sponsored by the Simpsons episode in which Bart (briefly) owns an elephant named Stampy, and the moral of that story.

[Dintiradan]

Originally Posted By: Salmon

It's odd to me that people register on this site with false names,

You're not a fish in Real Life?

:-(

[Actaeon]

I seem to remember you posting on the risks of being fast and loose with your real identity before, Salmon. I think it was on Shadow Vale, which was more personal than the official boards but not quite so TMI filled as Calamity Refuge.

 

For most people I know, there's no solid line between true identity and online identity. Our persona comes into play any time we want to interact, and if we're not intentionally playing a role, that persona is probably more or less our normal one (perhaps with a gimmick or two thrown in). Some people are closer with people online than their real friends. Spiderwebbers might interact on Facebook, or CalRef's chat, in any number of other, non-Jeff related ways.

 

General is an interesting phenomenon in that, while it's a far cry from Misc of old, it deals with the games only rarely. It occupies an awkward middle ground, and is bound to be the center point for conflict in the community. Overall, it's loose knit, but there are some tight bonds within it.

[Student of Trinity]

Hey, welcome back, Salmon. Returning to the old stream, to spam.

 

But this is also a good point. Jeff isn't actually paying us, and there are limits to what we'd have to put up with even if he were; but I think we do owe it to the guy who pays the hosting fees to exercise a certain amount of extra patience.

[Randomizer]

Welcome back Salmon, fishing season over?

[Brocktree]

Man, the flame wars sure suck around here.

[nikki.]

Originally Posted By: Randomizer

Welcome back Salmon, fishing season over?

Salmon has posted once or twice (once recently!) in his absence. Until he's making a few posts a week, I'll hold off the welcoming committee.

(Which is sad. We love you Salmon!)

Edit: Of course I post this before seeing Salmon's other posts. Bah!

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Slart of Glass

Originally Posted By: Randomizer

Welcome back Salmon, fishing season over?

Salmon has posted once or twice (once recently!) in his absence. Until he's making a few posts a week, I'll hold off the welcoming committee.

(Which is sad. We love you Salmon!)

Edit: Of course I post this before seeing Salmon's other posts. Bah!

On a totally unrelated note, Nikki, I love your new avatar. It's just brilliant.

[Dikiyoba]

Originally Posted By: Salmon

It's odd to me that people register on this site with false names, and ostensibly engage in ROLE playing games, and then spend so much time establishing the bona fides of their true identity.

...you mean you role-played becoming a daddy?

Dikiyoba has no words to describe the horror, so that emoticon will have to do.

[nikki.]

 

You're missing something if you think that my avatar/PDN has anything to do with the recent drama.

[Ceiling Durkheim]

Alorael: because you're worth it.

[Swimmin' Salmon]

I was the only person online, and E said he couldn't access the forums. That seemed occasion enough for me to start firing away.

 

@Diki - there might be an entire online community who role play the "Who's your daddy" game... But, yeah. I've never played that role here. I've always been more of the 12 year old menace.

[Dikiyoba]

Originally Posted By: Salmon

Because the kid who made those comments (to my untrained eye) hasn't responded in this thread.

Trenton only posts sporadically, so his absence in this thread isn't evidence of anything. (But for the record, I apologized, he apologized, everything is cool.)

Quote:

@Diki - there might be an entire online community who role play the "Who's your daddy" game... But, yeah. I've never played that role here. I've always been more of the 12 year old menace.

So you're saying it's okay for you to incorporate major details of your personal life (and your kid's personal life, such as it is) into your online presence, but it's not okay for Dikiyoba to do so? Because that's what is sounds like.

[Swimmin' Salmon]

Nope, that's not what I was saying at all. It's hardly roleplaying to announce RL details. And it's hardly unthinkable that roleplaying would be expected on a web forum for RPGs. So, if a thing is unknown to a fellow member, such as gender identity of a different member, it wouldn't be crazy to assume it was traditional m/f. And given the crazy nature of this meme laden microcosm, it might be very tempting to assume that the gender identity correction was part of some RP meme, and to respond in kind.

 

For all the trolling that happens here, I would have thought thickened skin would have become the standard.

[MM*]

Everybody hurts... sometimes...

[Student of Trinity]

I think we may be overthinking this stuff.

 

This is the internet. Nobody can really know who anyone else really is, so it can't matter who anyone else really is. If Barack Obama and Lady Gaga wanted to share an account here and pretend to be an intelligent mutant eggplant, then board member Ogamagaba would have the right to be referred to as a purple vegetable. Anyone who doesn't want to go along with that has the option of not mentioning that member at all.

 

Obviously, anyone's personal decision to identify as male or female or neither or both is a much more profound thing than any absurd celebrity whim. My point is that if even such an absurdity as the Obama-Gaga eggplant is entitled to be referred to however it wishes, then you certainly are, whoever you are. It does not have to explain or argue, so you certainly don't.

[Kelandon]

Originally Posted By: Student of Trinity

If Barack Obama and Lady Gaga wanted to share an account here and pretend to be an intelligent mutant eggplant, then board member Ogamagaba would have the right to be referred to as a purple vegetable.

I disagree. I may not have any idea who anyone here actually is in real life, but if you choose to share a backstory, it should it at least be plausible. If you want to tell me that you're in a barbershop quartet in Skokie, Illinois, or that you like to pick coffee beans in Guatemala, or whatever, then I can't verify that and I'm likely to believe you. If you tell me that you're an eggplant, then I'm going to take your story as a stupid Internet identity and 1) think you're an idiot and 2) not believe you. You don't have the "right" to claim any identity you want; you have the ability to claim any identity that no one will bother to disbelieve.

Originally Posted By: Student of Trinity

Anyone who doesn't want to go along with that has the option of not mentioning that member at all.

This has generally been my solution for members who I will continue not to mention.

[Tyranicus]

Didn't either TM or Alec pretend to be a cabbage farmer from Nova Scotia or something like that?

[Dintiradan]

We might as well pack it in. No matter what online identity any of us forges, it will never be as great as Ogamagaba.

 

Also, this is probably a good time to mention a certain New Yorker cartoon, as well as a certain Kurt Vonnegut quote.