The Quintessential 5th Conversation Thread

What can I say? It doesn't fit above, put it here. Also the location of board rules/info.
User avatar
KaiTheHomoSapien
greek
greek
Posts: 585
Joined: 15 Feb 2016 06:10
Location: Stanford, California

Re: The Quintessential 5th Conversation Thread

Post by KaiTheHomoSapien » 19 Nov 2017 18:17

ixals wrote:
19 Nov 2017 17:38
I do agree with you on that. There are some major problems in this society, but some SJWs put "micro-aggressions" on the same level which they just shouldn't, imho. And then there are also some that turn into real nasty people. Recently I saw someone denying male rape and saying that males can't feel any emotions beside apathy :wat:
I think ultimately the "SJW" types end up doing a disservice to the causes they so tout. Because of their preoccupation with non-issues or at most minor issues, they cause people to see it all as a non-issue and dismiss what we should be talking about; those real issues get obscured by the noise and outrage around the non-issues, the exaggerations, and the condescension. To connect "manspreading" with sexual harassment or to connect a white stoner guy's dreadlocks with racism turns people off the more serious problems. The lack of nuance in modern society is especially vexing to me. That's part of the problem with this recent flood of sexual harassment allegations against celebrities. They're being treated as if they're all the same, but we should be able to recognize that a rapist is worse than someone who made some unwanted comments. But SJWs (and their right-wing analogues) tend to see things as "all or nothing".
Don't live to conlang; conlang to live.

My conlang: Image Lihmelinyan

User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 3140
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 00:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: The Quintessential 5th Conversation Thread

Post by sangi39 » 20 Nov 2017 03:34

I thought I'd weigh in on the SJW thing discussion (which I hope we can keep as civil as possible), but what I'd consider typical of "Social Justice Warriors" is that in most instances what they're trying to "fight against" isn't their issue, but the issue of some other person or group. I only vaguely pay attention to the news, but I slightly recall something that came up a few months ago on TV here in the UK. I think it might have related to someone making fun of Jewish people or something like that. The interesting result was that a) basically nobody Jewish actually cared, b) a lot of Jewish people actually found it funny, and c) the majority of people participating in "not this stuff" backlash against the joke weren't Jewish.

It's sort of a misplaced "alliance" idea, like "SJWs" think they know what does and doesn't "trigger" a certain group they believe shouldn't be subject to "triggering" without considering the context. Hell, my brother calls me a faggot like every other day despite the fact I came out as bi six months ago (he stopped for maybe a month, which I honestly found freaky as hell), and I honestly couldn't care less if a) my friends and family, or b) some random comedian made fun of me. On the one hand, those people know who I am and on the other hand I just plain don't know those people. If you don't know me as a person and call me a faggot directly to my face? Well it hasn't happened yet so who knows?*

Again, though, context. From what I can tell, "SJWs" are the ones who aren't affected but jump in first. It's well meaning, I guess, but makes the people they're attempting to defend seem "keyboard happy" and entirely reactionary (it's hard to tell the difference between "SJWs" and the ones who have actually been offended).

* I did have a moment at a board-game club recently that was borderline. Someone said "are you calling my son a homo?" to his wife, while their kid was their playing a game with the wife, and a close friend of theirs said "hey, that's okay... apparently". I didn't know enough about their dynamic to say anything, so I just kept playing.
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.

User avatar
elemtilas
runic
runic
Posts: 3226
Joined: 22 Nov 2014 04:48

Re: The Quintessential 5th Conversation Thread

Post by elemtilas » 20 Nov 2017 04:42

sangi39 wrote:
20 Nov 2017 03:34
I thought I'd weigh in on the SJW thing discussion (which I hope we can keep as civil as possible), but what I'd consider typical of "Social Justice Warriors" is that in most instances what they're trying to "fight against" isn't their issue, but the issue of some other person or group.
Yes, this seems typical of SJWs. It's not a left or right thing, either. There are (false, really) SJWs on both side. There are also legit SJWs on both sides (folks who are engaged in a legitimate contest over an actual issue, and they have an actual stake in the issue).

Honestly, what I think this is more than anything else is social media has given to certain predisposed people a) a soapbox to stand on and b) an audience willing to cheer them on. The unfiltered and uncensored and ubiquitous nature of social media means that they can express their views without rational debate, without critical consideration of reasonable alternatives; they can declare the truth of their own cause without evidence or real support of any kind; they can seize control of the issue and twist it for their own gain. In doing so, they "win" without ever actually engaging their opponents, who in the court of public opinion must obviously be racists / homophobes / misogynists / insert your anti- term of choice. We see this frequently enough with all the so-called "protests" all around the US.

Not sure yet where this aspect of culture will lead, but I'm pretty sure it's nowhere good in the short term.
Image

If we stuff the whole chicken back into the egg, will all our problems go away? --- Wandalf of Angera

User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4494
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 18:32

Re: The Quintessential 5th Conversation Thread

Post by Creyeditor » 20 Nov 2017 10:11

I always wondered if SJW in anglophone politiocal discourse is similar to Gutmensch (Wiki) in German political discourse. Does anyone know?
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 :deu: 2 :eng: 3 :idn: 4 :fra: 4 :esp:
:con: Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
[<3] Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics [<3]

User avatar
ixals
sinic
sinic
Posts: 355
Joined: 28 Jul 2015 17:43

Re: The Quintessential 5th Conversation Thread

Post by ixals » 20 Nov 2017 11:29

KaiTheHomoSapien wrote:
19 Nov 2017 18:17
I think ultimately the "SJW" types end up doing a disservice to the causes they so tout. Because of their preoccupation with non-issues or at most minor issues, they cause people to see it all as a non-issue and dismiss what we should be talking about; those real issues get obscured by the noise and outrage around the non-issues, the exaggerations, and the condescension. To connect "manspreading" with sexual harassment or to connect a white stoner guy's dreadlocks with racism turns people off the more serious problems.
You're absolutely right. I've never seen anyone feel harassed by manspreading or offended by white people wearing dreadlocks. I spent a part of my life on Tumblr but in the end I quit because it was just too much and I was indirectly "shamed" for doing everyday thing or for being the person I am (being male and white). I always thought that this is their first principle, to not judge anyone based on how they're born or on things they can't change. They are actually destroying what they stand for themselves. Modern anti-feminism (I don't know about the existence of "anti-feminism" in the ages of first wave feminism but I suppose it exited) only began to rise after SJW went nuts. People calling themselves "egalitarians" instead of "feminists" probably rose as well because of that.
KaiTheHomoSapien wrote:
19 Nov 2017 18:17
The lack of nuance in modern society is especially vexing to me. That's part of the problem with this recent flood of sexual harassment allegations against celebrities. They're being treated as if they're all the same, but we should be able to recognize that a rapist is worse than someone who made some unwanted comments. But SJWs (and their right-wing analogues) tend to see things as "all or nothing".
I haven't followed the ongoing issue but I still think it's a big problem if it's still this common. Well, sexual harassment and rape are definitely not on the same level but they're both problems that need to addressed.
sangi39 wrote:
20 Nov 2017 03:34
I thought I'd weigh in on the SJW thing discussion (which I hope we can keep as civil as possible), but what I'd consider typical of "Social Justice Warriors" is that in most instances what they're trying to "fight against" isn't their issue, but the issue of some other person or group. I only vaguely pay attention to the news, but I slightly recall something that came up a few months ago on TV here in the UK. I think it might have related to someone making fun of Jewish people or something like that. The interesting result was that a) basically nobody Jewish actually cared, b) a lot of Jewish people actually found it funny, and c) the majority of people participating in "not this stuff" backlash against the joke weren't Jewish.

It's sort of a misplaced "alliance" idea, like "SJWs" think they know what does and doesn't "trigger" a certain group they believe shouldn't be subject to "triggering" without considering the context. Hell, my brother calls me a faggot like every other day despite the fact I came out as bi six months ago (he stopped for maybe a month, which I honestly found freaky as hell), and I honestly couldn't care less if a) my friends and family, or b) some random comedian made fun of me. On the one hand, those people know who I am and on the other hand I just plain don't know those people. If you don't know me as a person and call me a faggot directly to my face? Well it hasn't happened yet so who knows?*

Again, though, context. From what I can tell, "SJWs" are the ones who aren't affected but jump in first. It's well meaning, I guess, but makes the people they're attempting to defend seem "keyboard happy" and entirely reactionary (it's hard to tell the difference between "SJWs" and the ones who have actually been offended).
Yes, they often try to speak for others/minorities they aren't part of. I think in some cases that's okay, e.g. I - as a man - can definitely say that raping a woman is not okay, but then SJWs tend to take it too far. Your example concerning the word faggot is a good example. For me, it really depends on the situation. If my friends or I use it, I don't have a problem with it since we usually use it in a sarcastic way. But just a week ago, my grandfather suddenly said "Only gays and faggots on tv nowadays" and I wasn't okay with that at all because he used it in a negative way, as a slur. But for SJWs, both cases are considered to be the worst thing on earth and that's not the case.
elemtilas wrote:
20 Nov 2017 04:42
Yes, this seems typical of SJWs. It's not a left or right thing, either. There are (false, really) SJWs on both side. There are also legit SJWs on both sides (folks who are engaged in a legitimate contest over an actual issue, and they have an actual stake in the issue).
I do agree with you, that both sides are full of people that act like this, but I wouldn't consider right wing people to be SJWs. They don't seem to care about what I understand as "social justice".
elemtilas wrote:
20 Nov 2017 04:42
Honestly, what I think this is more than anything else is social media has given to certain predisposed people a) a soapbox to stand on and b) an audience willing to cheer them on. The unfiltered and uncensored and ubiquitous nature of social media means that they can express their views without rational debate, without critical consideration of reasonable alternatives; they can declare the truth of their own cause without evidence or real support of any kind; they can seize control of the issue and twist it for their own gain. In doing so, they "win" without ever actually engaging their opponents, who in the court of public opinion must obviously be racists / homophobes / misogynists / insert your anti- term of choice. We see this frequently enough with all the so-called "protests" all around the US.

Not sure yet where this aspect of culture will lead, but I'm pretty sure it's nowhere good in the short term.
I'm really interested on how this will develop as well. A famous quote by Merkel actually is "Das Internet ist für uns alle Neuland" ("The internet is new ground for all of us") for which she has been mocked for but I actually think she is right. We don't know enough about it and we can already see how much our society changed because of it in such a short time and I think it will definitely continue to do so.
Creyeditor wrote:
20 Nov 2017 10:11
I always wondered if SJW in anglophone politiocal discourse is similar to Gutmensch (Wiki) in German political discourse. Does anyone know?
Interesting question, but I don't have an answer to that. As I skimmed the article, I think there were some similarities but I'm not sure if I would say that they are the same. They do have the same negative connotation though, which is interesting.
Native: :deu:
Learning: :gbr:, :fra:, :por:, :tur:

Цiски a Central Slavic conlang
Noattȯč a future German conlang [on hold]
Tungōnis Vīdīnōs Proto-Germanic goes Romance [on hold]

User avatar
elemtilas
runic
runic
Posts: 3226
Joined: 22 Nov 2014 04:48

Re: The Quintessential 5th Conversation Thread

Post by elemtilas » 20 Nov 2017 12:54

ixals wrote:
20 Nov 2017 11:29
Yes, they often try to speak for others/minorities they aren't part of. I think in some cases that's okay, e.g. I - as a man - can definitely say that raping a woman is not okay, but then SJWs tend to take it too far. Your example concerning the word faggot is a good example. For me, it really depends on the situation. If my friends or I use it, I don't have a problem with it since we usually use it in a sarcastic way. But just a week ago, my grandfather suddenly said "Only gays and faggots on tv nowadays" and I wasn't okay with that at all because he used it in a negative way, as a slur. But for SJWs, both cases are considered to be the worst thing on earth and that's not the case.
Re you grandfather's outburst: obviously I can't speak for him, and you'd know him better than anyone here. On the face of it, was he really and truly expressing a deep seated anti-homosexuality? Or was he just expressing a generalised frustration over the gradual evolution of character portrayals on tele? After all, there áre more openly homosexual characters on tele now. As society has become generally more open about same sex attraction, and in particular as Hollywood society has become more open about it, it stands to reason that we've seen more homosexual characters. We've also seen more "nerds" more "handicapped" more this and that. The trend began decades ago when black characters broke away from the stereotypical roles (doorman, porter, entertainer) and came to have more central roles and even whole television shows.

Nothing new here.
ixals wrote:
20 Nov 2017 11:29
elemtilas wrote:
20 Nov 2017 04:42
Yes, this seems typical of SJWs. It's not a left or right thing, either. There are (false, really) SJWs on both side. There are also legit SJWs on both sides (folks who are engaged in a legitimate contest over an actual issue, and they have an actual stake in the issue).
I do agree with you, that both sides are full of people that act like this, but I wouldn't consider right wing people to be SJWs. They don't seem to care about what I understand as "social justice".
This bears some convo. What do you mean by social justice that you don't find it anywhere but the Left? Or am I misunderstanding? I wouldn't consider most people on the Right to be (pejorative-)SJWs either, but that's because they do actually care about issues that I'd consider to be social justice issues...

While there are those on the Right who fail at social justice --- and we really can't fault "big business" or "rich entrepreneurs" here, because there are many of them on the Left! --- I wonder what your basis for position is. I find that far more people on the Right (maybe those "silent majority" who we never hear from, but we see doing) have a stronger sense of actual social justice that is generally believed.

It should come as no surprise that in Christianity (be it Orthodox or Catholic), social justice is a huge part of doctrine & practice. From the earliest of times when God sought to unite the human and divine in a familial relationship right up through the Gospels where, quite literally, the foundation stones for Western civilisation are laid, so much of it is social justice. Even the positions of the most modern, most liberal, most Agnostic/Atheist of honest social justice seekers is rooted right there in the Gospel.

For us, social justice issues are those centered around the human person: the big concepts like dignity of the human being, the dignity of the family, the fraternity of all people, the common good, dignified employment and remuneration for work, human rights --- yep, life, liberty, all of that --- the smaller concepts like feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, ministering to the imprisoned, freeing the oppressed. Good basic stuff. So whether it's a basic soup kitchen or a prison-to-real-life ministry for ex-cons or support groups for women considering / going through / or having gone through abortion or reaching out to victims of natural disasters (be they hurricanes here in the US or earthquakes in Iran or famine in Africa or North Korea) there's always the one-two punch of feeding the man a fish, plus teaching him how to fish.

One reason, for me at least, why "SJW" is a pejorative term, apart from the "it's not really my issue, but whatever" attitude, is that there's nothing real or substantive underlying. For them (in my experience, sadly, many on Left fall for this), it just feels good to be part of something bigger than themselves. Often the problem is not their intentions --- they are often noble intentions! --- but there's just nothing there. No underlying substance, no real issue being fought for (or against).
ixals wrote:
20 Nov 2017 11:29

I'm really interested on how this will develop as well. A famous quote by Merkel actually is "Das Internet ist für uns alle Neuland" ("The internet is new ground for all of us") for which she has been mocked for but I actually think she is right. We don't know enough about it and we can already see how much our society changed because of it in such a short time and I think it will definitely continue to do so.
I've always kind of liked Mrs Merkel. What little we see & hear from her here in the US! For the most part, seems pretty no nonsense. She's got some wonky policies going on in Germany, but no one's perfect!
Image

If we stuff the whole chicken back into the egg, will all our problems go away? --- Wandalf of Angera

shimobaatar
darkness
darkness
Posts: 10938
Joined: 12 Jul 2013 22:09
Location: PA → IN

Re: The Quintessential 5th Conversation Thread

Post by shimobaatar » 20 Nov 2017 17:00

Whoa, I'm finally getting notifications again for this site! But what's up with the new layout? This'll take some time to get used to.

Anyway, school's been keeping me away from conlanging for a while now, and it probably still will be for the next month. Hope you've all been well.

User avatar
DesEsseintes
cleardarkness
cleardarkness
Posts: 4656
Joined: 31 Mar 2013 12:16

Re: The Quintessential 5th Conversation Thread

Post by DesEsseintes » 20 Nov 2017 17:24

shimobaatar wrote:
20 Nov 2017 17:00
Whoa, I'm finally getting notifications again for this site! But what's up with the new layout? This'll take some time to get used to.

Anyway, school's been keeping me away from conlanging for a while now, and it probably still will be for the next month. Hope you've all been well.
Welcome back, shimo! Good to see you. [:D]

I have 3.6 trillion possible six-syllable words in Híí (where only two heavy syllables are permitted) so how could I be anything but well? :mrgreen:

User avatar
KaiTheHomoSapien
greek
greek
Posts: 585
Joined: 15 Feb 2016 06:10
Location: Stanford, California

Re: The Quintessential 5th Conversation Thread

Post by KaiTheHomoSapien » 20 Nov 2017 17:48

Hi shimo :) I hope to introduce my conlang's verbs before December. I'm working on it! Sorry to muck up this thread with this long discussion, but so far it's civil so I'll participate as long as it stays that way.
elemtilas wrote:
20 Nov 2017 12:54
One reason, for me at least, why "SJW" is a pejorative term, apart from the "it's not really my issue, but whatever" attitude, is that there's nothing real or substantive underlying. For them (in my experience, sadly, many on Left fall for this), it just feels good to be part of something bigger than themselves. Often the problem is not their intentions --- they are often noble intentions! --- but there's just nothing there. No underlying substance, no real issue being fought for (or against).
That's where we get into the issue of "virtue signaling", where people try to display their outrage and their offense so that they seem "woke", so that they make sure others know they're on the correct side of certain issues, while perhaps not fully understanding the issues in the first place.

Most decent people, regardless of their political leanings, believe in social justice. We will inevitably have some difference of opinion on what should be included in social justice when we get down to the specifics and the nitty-gritty, but most of us could agree on the general principles, and the problem with SJWs is that they have a much broader definition of social justice that includes, along with something noble like "freeing the oppressed", making sure that everything a persons says must be "sensitive" to all their pet issues and that anyone who violates this, even in the most unintentional way, should be publicly shamed as irredeemable scum.
sangi39 wrote:
20 Nov 2017 03:34
It's sort of a misplaced "alliance" idea, like "SJWs" think they know what does and doesn't "trigger" a certain group they believe shouldn't be subject to "triggering" without considering the context. Hell, my brother calls me a faggot like every other day despite the fact I came out as bi six months ago (he stopped for maybe a month, which I honestly found freaky as hell), and I honestly couldn't care less if a) my friends and family, or b) some random comedian made fun of me. On the one hand, those people know who I am and on the other hand I just plain don't know those people. If you don't know me as a person and call me a faggot directly to my face? Well it hasn't happened yet so who knows?*
I think that’s also a key part of what differentiates an SJW from someone who just cares about social justice as part of being a decent person. SJWs tend to try and speak for others in a way that is itself a bit offensive. Take the whole issue over “Happy Holidays”. I’ve never met a non-Christian who was offended by the phrase “Merry Christmas”. Nothing wrong with being more inclusive either, it’s just the idea that we can’t say these things without offending certain people yet I don’t know that those certain people are even offended in the first place!

The problem is when people try and tell others that they should or shouldn’t be offended by something. I would never tell someone that they can’t use a slur amongst themselves. Likewise, I’m bisexual as well and don’t want anyone, even friends and family, calling me that word (and my friends have respected that. One time my friend said the word referring to something on TV that had nothing to do with homosexuality and then he looked at me and said "oh, sorry Kai", but I had to clarify that I didn't want him to call me that, not that I was offended by the word in all its contexts). But that’s just my personal preference and I wouldn’t try and apply it to everyone, as SJWs often do.
Last edited by KaiTheHomoSapien on 20 Nov 2017 18:38, edited 1 time in total.
Don't live to conlang; conlang to live.

My conlang: Image Lihmelinyan

User avatar
GamerGeek
greek
greek
Posts: 853
Joined: 17 May 2017 17:10
Location: The Universe
Contact:

Re: The Quintessential 5th Conversation Thread

Post by GamerGeek » 20 Nov 2017 18:29

shimobaatar wrote:
20 Nov 2017 17:00
Whoa, I'm finally getting notifications again for this site! But what's up with the new layout? This'll take some time to get used to.

Anyway, school's been keeping me away from conlanging for a while now, and it probably still will be for the next month. Hope you've all been well.
Hey shimo. For some reason the forum didn't post this.


Second Draft


I'm new to the new set up too... I decided (accidentally clicked on a bookmark) to come here so I had some thing better to do.
Playing the biggest game of Chinese telephone is fun.

User avatar
elemtilas
runic
runic
Posts: 3226
Joined: 22 Nov 2014 04:48

Re: The Quintessential 5th Conversation Thread

Post by elemtilas » 20 Nov 2017 19:37

KaiTheHomoSapien wrote:
20 Nov 2017 17:48
Sorry to muck up this thread with this long discussion, but so far it's civil so I'll participate as long as it stays that way.
No worries! I think that's what these threads are for.
KaiTheHomoSapien wrote:
20 Nov 2017 17:48
elemtilas wrote:
20 Nov 2017 12:54
One reason, for me at least, why "SJW" is a pejorative term, apart from the "it's not really my issue, but whatever" attitude, is that there's nothing real or substantive underlying. For them (in my experience, sadly, many on Left fall for this), it just feels good to be part of something bigger than themselves. Often the problem is not their intentions --- they are often noble intentions! --- but there's just nothing there. No underlying substance, no real issue being fought for (or against).
That's where we get into the issue of "virtue signaling", where people try to display their outrage and their offense so that they seem "woke", so that they make sure others know they're on the correct side of certain issues, while perhaps not fully understanding the issues in the first place.
"Virtue signalling" --- thanks for that term! That sounds about right.
KaiTheHomoSapien wrote:
20 Nov 2017 17:48
Most decent people, regardless of their political leanings, believe in social justice. We will inevitably have some difference of opinion on what should be included in social justice when we get down to the specifics and the nitty-gritty, but most of us could agree on the general principles, and the problem with SJWs is that they have a much broader definition of social justice that includes, along with something noble like "freeing the oppressed", making sure that everything a persons says must be "sensitive" to all their pet issues and that anyone who violates this, even in the most unintentional way, should be publicly shamed as irredeemable scum.
Right. To me that's not what social justice is about (and I hazard the guess that we agree on that). I'm not even sure quite what to call it when someone overreacts in that way.

Well, :roll: :roll: :roll: comes to mind pretty close to instantly!
KaiTheHomoSapien wrote:
20 Nov 2017 17:48
SJWs tend to try and speak for others in a way that is itself a bit offensive. Take the whole issue over “Happy Holidays”. I’ve never met a non-Christian who was offended by the phrase “Merry Christmas”. Nothing wrong with being more inclusive either, it’s just the idea that we can’t say these things without offending certain people yet I don’t know that those certain people are even offended in the first place!
Excellent example! It's not even, intentionally, a matter of being "inclusive" (another pet peeve word, that). You're right, though: a lot of SJWs (mostly on the Right, this time) get their knickers in a bind over "Happy Holidays". They don't even realise that "Happy Holidays" cards were every bit as in evidence in the 1920s and 1930s as they are now! They're nothing new. There's nothing "inclusive" about them (though inclusivity can be an added benefit). It's just an alternative greeting. Same goes for the anti-"XMAS" crowd.

Best quote ever came from a Hindu friend of mine in college: "This is America. It's a Christian country. I expect people to say 'Merry Christmas'!"

Likewise, when people wish me a happy Hannukha or Holi or Festivus or even no specific, I do not take offense. It's just a way for people to express love & affection for other people. Just accept the greeting and be happy! (And respond to them respectfully and in kind!)
KaiTheHomoSapien wrote:
20 Nov 2017 17:48
The problem is when people try and tell others that they should or shouldn’t be offended by something. I would never tell someone that they can’t use a slur amongst themselves. Likewise, I’m bisexual as well and don’t want anyone, even friends and family, calling me that word (and my friends have respected that. One time my friend said the word referring to something on TV that had nothing to do with homosexuality and then he looked at me and said "oh, sorry Kai", but I had to clarify that I didn't want him to call me that, not that I was offended by the word in all its contexts). But that’s just my personal preference and I wouldn’t try and apply it to everyone, as SJWs often do.
Right. While I agree about not telling people they can't use a slur in group, I think we (outsiders) are certainly justified in questioning the practice. Some slurs, I think, would be best left to the rubbish heap of history. We really need to rise above that kind of behaviour.
Image

If we stuff the whole chicken back into the egg, will all our problems go away? --- Wandalf of Angera

User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 3140
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 00:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: The Quintessential 5th Conversation Thread

Post by sangi39 » 20 Nov 2017 22:30

elemtilas wrote:
20 Nov 2017 19:37
Right. While I agree about not telling people they can't use a slur in group, I think we (outsiders) are certainly justified in questioning the practice. Some slurs, I think, would be best left to the rubbish heap of history. We really need to rise above that kind of behaviour.
I think that's one of the major differences between "SJW"s and non-"SJW"s, i.e. the latter deal with offence as and when it occurs while the former jump in so that offence can't even happen accidentally, fighting offence vs. potential offence.

On the other hand, I suppose there's a blurry line between believing in and fighting for social progress and the behaviour often associated with "SJW", hence why it gets thrown around as an insult online (hopefully not on this board or we'll have to step in as mods and deal with it).

But yeah, at least as far as my own line on offence goes, aimed at me personally, is that a) anyone can call me whatever they want, but they'll find out what I think about that pretty quickly (whether it's fine to call me that or not), b) people on the "outside" can fight for my equal right under the law (the whole "ally" thing, I guess), and c) I don't want people telling other people what does and doesn't offend me. It's sort of "learning through context". You're not going to convince many people not to do something or to change by "attacking" them but by easing them into the discussion, getting to know each other, talking about stuff as and when it come up, seems like a much more... civil idea.

I suppose it's down to "the ones facing the issues directly should determine the discussion, other people can lend a hand".

On the note of "Christmas"... I work in retail so Christmas only offends me when it turns up before December, lol. One holiday shouldn't take up a literal third of my year [:P]
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.

User avatar
OTʜᴇB
roman
roman
Posts: 960
Joined: 14 May 2016 10:59
Location: SW England

Re: The Quintessential 5th Conversation Thread

Post by OTʜᴇB » 20 Nov 2017 22:38

sangi39 wrote:
20 Nov 2017 22:30
On the note of "Christmas"... I work in retail so Christmas only offends me when it turns up before December, lol. One holiday shouldn't take up a literal third of my year [:P]
Christmas should be the 24th through the 26th December. nothing more. Advent is the Christian bit that can start on the 1st, but if anyone dares put up anything red with snow on it before the 24th, I'm not happy (In that kind of semi-serious but light-hearted way that I'm probably doing a terrible job of explaining).
:con: : Current Project

BTW I use Arch

User avatar
Frislander
runic
runic
Posts: 3123
Joined: 14 May 2016 17:47
Location: The North

Re: The Quintessential 5th Conversation Thread

Post by Frislander » 20 Nov 2017 22:40

shimobaatar wrote:
20 Nov 2017 17:00
Whoa, I'm finally getting notifications again for this site! But what's up with the new layout? This'll take some time to get used to.

Anyway, school's been keeping me away from conlanging for a while now, and it probably still will be for the next month. Hope you've all been well.
Shimo! Shimo! Shimo!

Great to see you back mate!

User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 3140
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 00:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: The Quintessential 5th Conversation Thread

Post by sangi39 » 20 Nov 2017 23:06

OTʜᴇB wrote:
20 Nov 2017 22:38
sangi39 wrote:
20 Nov 2017 22:30
On the note of "Christmas"... I work in retail so Christmas only offends me when it turns up before December, lol. One holiday shouldn't take up a literal third of my year [:P]
Christmas should be the 24th through the 26th December. nothing more. Advent is the Christian bit that can start on the 1st, but if anyone dares put up anything red with snow on it before the 24th, I'm not happy (In that kind of semi-serious but light-hearted way that I'm probably doing a terrible job of explaining).
I'm actually probably about the same way so I think I get what you mean. A mild annoyance you can have a joke about with your friends?
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.

User avatar
KaiTheHomoSapien
greek
greek
Posts: 585
Joined: 15 Feb 2016 06:10
Location: Stanford, California

Re: The Quintessential 5th Conversation Thread

Post by KaiTheHomoSapien » 20 Nov 2017 23:39

@elemtilas I don't have a whole lot to say to what you wrote because I basically agree with every bit of it [:D] I think we're on the same page about social justice and the, uh...overly vehement "warriors". ;)

As for Christmastide, I love the Christmas season and in my family, it's a tradition to get out all the decorations on December 1st and then go cut down a tree the next weekend. I'm okay with Christmas stuff after Thanksgiving, but before that it gets annoying.
Don't live to conlang; conlang to live.

My conlang: Image Lihmelinyan

User avatar
elemtilas
runic
runic
Posts: 3226
Joined: 22 Nov 2014 04:48

Re: The Quintessential 5th Conversation Thread

Post by elemtilas » 21 Nov 2017 00:03

KaiTheHomoSapien wrote:
20 Nov 2017 23:39
As for Christmastide, I love the Christmas season and in my family, it's a tradition to get out all the decorations on December 1st and then go cut down a tree the next weekend. I'm okay with Christmas stuff after Thanksgiving, but before that it gets annoying.
Ya. Hereabouts, the shops all have Xmas goods out on or about 30 October.

Won't be many more days and the Valentines candies will be on the shelves... :mrred:
Image

If we stuff the whole chicken back into the egg, will all our problems go away? --- Wandalf of Angera

User avatar
Xonen
moderator
moderator
Posts: 1463
Joined: 15 May 2010 23:25

Re: The Quintessential 5th Conversation Thread

Post by Xonen » 21 Nov 2017 01:12

elemtilas wrote:
20 Nov 2017 19:37
Right. While I agree about not telling people they can't use a slur in group, I think we (outsiders) are certainly justified in questioning the practice. Some slurs, I think, would be best left to the rubbish heap of history. We really need to rise above that kind of behaviour.
Yet here we are casually discussing "SJW"'s. [:S] Not that the type of person we seem to be bashing here doesn't exist; quite a lot of people - on all sides of the political spectrum - just really seem to get off on anger and pretty much actively seek out excuses to lash out on someone. But the term SJW has strong connotations of being an insult for anyone with any socially progressive ideas, and specifically for those who've dared condemn targeted harassment campaigns against (primarily) women online. So yeah, rubbish heap of history, please.

Of course, maybe some people really think that condemning harassment constitutes "virtue signaling" - especially if it's a man defending a woman, since apparently men aren't supposed to be capable of genuine empathy towards women (or anyone?). Again, not that some people don't take this too far, rushing valiantly to the defense of what they perceive as poor oppressed minorities in situations where the minorities themselves aren't feeling all that oppressed... But this terminology is not limited to such situations; it can be, and quite often is, used to dismiss pretty much anyone the speaker happens to disagree with.

A part of the problem, I suppose, is that everyone's got a different idea of where the line goes between justified criticism and ridiculous overreaction. But maybe by not immediately going for the most rudely dismissive phrasing we could at least occasionally find some common ground?

User avatar
Ahzoh
korean
korean
Posts: 6192
Joined: 20 Oct 2013 01:57
Location: Toma-ʾEzra lit Vṛḵaža

Re: The Quintessential 5th Conversation Thread

Post by Ahzoh » 21 Nov 2017 01:37

I consider myself a Social Justice Necromancer.
Image Ӯсцӣ (Onschen) [ CWS ]
Image Šat Vṛḵažaẇ (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]

User avatar
loglorn
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2026
Joined: 17 Mar 2014 03:22

Re: The Quintessential 5th Conversation Thread

Post by loglorn » 21 Nov 2017 02:08

sangi39 wrote:One holiday shouldn't take up a literal third of my year [:P]
Boy you've seen nothing, in Brazil everything is Christmas-y by december the first, and after Christmas it's Carnaval until march.
Diachronic Conlanging is the path to happiness, given time. [;)]

Gigxkpoyan Languages: CHÍFJAEŚÍ RETLA TLAPTHUV DÄLDLEN CJUŚËKNJU ṢATT

Other langs: Søsøzatli Kamëzet

Post Reply