(Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
Sasquatch
sinic
sinic
Posts: 219
Joined: 29 Jun 2013 23:24

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Sasquatch » 29 Mar 2015 14:28

thaen wrote:
Maybe Ossicone found Menlish more funny/acceptable because she's a woman? [xP]
I'd be curious to see if I (a straight, white male) made a jokelang about blacks, gays, or women if the mods would be equally as tolerant. Fun is fun. But menlish was about as childish, ignorant, outdated, and ill-conceived as a joke can be. Frankly, I'm tired of belonging to the only group that doesn't have to be tolerated. If I tell a black joke, I'm a racist. If I tell a gay joke, I'm a homophobe. If I tell a female joke, I'm a misogynist. So what do we call the person who stereotypes and belittles men? Apparently a hero.
Englishcanbepolysynthetictoo <--------- All one word!

User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4609
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 18:32

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Creyeditor » 29 Mar 2015 14:46

Sasquatch wrote:So what do we call the person who stereotypes and belittles men? Apparently a hero.
That's a good one.
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]

Prinsessa
runic
runic
Posts: 3226
Joined: 07 Nov 2011 14:42

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Prinsessa » 29 Mar 2015 14:48

nobody who belittles men is a hero

people who criticise the very truth of current social hierarchies are

but joking about a white straight cis man rarely actually affects him because he rarely has actually had to deal with a bunch of crap (and by that i mean real crap; actual harassment and bullying) every other day for his entire life simply due to his skin colour or his gender; this is unfortunately true of a lot of people where one of these variables differ (especially the more variables differ)

not saying no white straight cis male is never harassed (he can be for other reasons, like nerdy interests) and not saying all people who do not conform to these variables get regularly harassed, but it really does happen a lot more commonly in the latter case, and even when it happens in the former case does it very rarely reach the level of actual threats, dehumanisation and objectification

the truth of these current social hierarchies are not any white straight cis male's fault simply for being that
but if he denies it he's not helping
if he actively speaks against it as lies he is problematic

i see as little a point in telling white straight male cis jokes as i do telling black jokes (especially if someone truly claims not to be a racist, why would they feel the need to pull something so distasteful of at all if they're not even really at any level of conscience agreeing with it at all; people who do tell jokes like these seem to me to have something going on underlyingly, at least subconsciously – and they're not monsters for that if they're unaware of it, but if they refuse to listen when it's pointed out to them they obviously are not as willing to be tolerant as they've claimed to be)

Sasquatch
sinic
sinic
Posts: 219
Joined: 29 Jun 2013 23:24

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Sasquatch » 29 Mar 2015 15:10

Prinsessa wrote:nobody who belittles men is a hero

people who criticise the very truth of current social hierarchies are

but joking about a white straight cis man rarely actually affects him because he rarely has actually had to deal with a bunch of crap
Nothing in menlish was criticizing any great social truth. It was pure vitriol directed at a group of people based solely on their gender. It was blatant, mindless sexism. And it is disgustingly hypocritical for a woman to demand respect and equality while belittling others for their gender. I'm a card-carrying member of Mensa, I do not speak in grunts. I know many adjectives other than "sucks" and "rocks".

Joking about men rarely affects them? How would you know? if I am not affected then why did I respond? That comment sounds remarkably like, "well they aren't people, they don't feel pain the way we do". These jokes affect the hell out of me. They disgust me, they anger me, they make me hate the world.

Don't tell me I don't have to deal with real crap because you don't think my problems matter. You don't think men are discriminated against? It happens every day. Any idea how many times I've been harassed by gay guys because I'm a big, hairy ape? Any idea how many jobs I've been turned down for because I won't shave my beard? Any idea how many promotions I've been denied because a less-qualified black guy was moved up to fill the affirmative action quota? Don't you dare presume to tell me my life is all sunshine and buttercups because I'm a straight, white male.

And wtf is "cis"?
Englishcanbepolysynthetictoo <--------- All one word!

Fanael
greek
greek
Posts: 477
Joined: 19 Jul 2012 20:26

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Fanael » 29 Mar 2015 15:22

Sasquatch wrote:And wtf is "cis"?
Not trans.

Prinsessa
runic
runic
Posts: 3226
Joined: 07 Nov 2011 14:42

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Prinsessa » 29 Mar 2015 15:40

Clarifications:

Cissexual is the opposite of transsexual.

I wasn't talking at all about Menlish. Just discussing the general issue posed after that.

I'm not telling you about your life or problems. I'm not. I'll try to explain it again. And please realise I'm not trying to be hostile. Just hear me out, please.

First off, you mistakenly simplified my "straight, white cis male" simply into "male". I'm specifying all these attributes each time for a reason.

Secondly, you're missing my main point. There is a distinction here. I'm not saying at all that you are immune to horrible treatment thanks to your orientation, complexion and gender. I'll take your word for it if you say that's how you've felt about attacks directed at you, and I have no doubt that you may have been attacked many times (heck, you're a nerdy conlanger!). But were they directed at you for being a straight, white cis male or for something else? That is the point here.

I'm not saying straight, white cis males can't have true problems or can't be driven to suicide. I'm saying it rarely happens simply because they are straight, white cis males. It happens for other reasons, which are not relevant to a discussion about sexism or racism.

Straight, white cis males in general (<- please read these two words) are not driven into depression, suicides, feelings of disentitlement, dehumanisation or objectification due to their sexual orientation, skin colour or gender. They are usually for other reasons. Being weak, nerdy, considered ugly or feminine or god knows what.

And that is just as bad of an issue. Don't think for a second that I'm saying anything else. I wasn't saying straight, white cis males never get harassed. I was saying they seldom are simply because of these factors, which many people not conforming to one or more of these factors often are.

These problems are just as relevant, but they're usually not relevant to a discussion about racism, sexism, homophobia or transphobia. That's all I'm saying. And that's what people often miss. And that's why people often fight about it without realising they're not even fighting the same battle against each other. And that's not helping either discussion.

Tweaking some of these variables, they will start to get relevant. A homosexual, white cis male will definitely risk being harassed simply for being homosexual. And so on. Risks increase and get worse the more you alter these variables, and unfortunately even if you change male into female. That doesn't mean males don't get harassed. But they are not likely to be so simply on the basis of being male, which females in fact are quite likely to be in various situations.

That doesn't mean there aren't individuals who do harass men for being men or whites for being white, but they are a tiny minority and generally do it as a reaction to the enormous opposite system, so it's a circular problem that leads back to the same place either way.

I am not trying to offend you, belittle you or your problems. I'm trying to shine light on what is really two completely different issues and types of harassment, unfortunately often treated as one and the same. The more who realise, the easier we can stop on the one hand sexist, racist, homophobic and transphobic harassment as well as on the other hand harassment due to physical features, interests, nationality and everything else.

If anybody seriously does claim you haven't got any problems just because you are straight, white, cis and male, I'll be the one who's got your back. Not the opposite.

thetha
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1995
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 00:43

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by thetha » 29 Mar 2015 18:37

Which parts of the world do you hate when you hear these things, Sasquatch?

User avatar
MrKrov
banned
Posts: 2414
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:47
Location: /ai/ > /a:/
Contact:

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by MrKrov » 29 Mar 2015 18:53

Chagen in the Menlish thread wrote:This is a parody of Ladaan, isn't it?
Probable answer to Menlish. Stop crying, squatchy.

Sumelic
greek
greek
Posts: 714
Joined: 18 Jun 2013 22:01

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Sumelic » 29 Mar 2015 19:05

Prinsessa wrote:First off, you mistakenly simplified my "straight, white cis male" simply into "male". I'm specifying all these attributes each time for a reason.
Actually, I'm curious. What is the reason? I see people specifying this exact combination of traits often, but I don't quite get why, since they're all logically independent of one another. I have heard of the concept of "intersectionality", which seems to posit a link between different forms of marginalization, but I'm still not sure why that would require specifically addressing only the most privileged group of people, rather than all the people in a relevant privileged group. If a gay white cis man is sexist, is that any less problematic than if he were straight? The way I see it, merely having experience dealing with crap for one feature of your identity, doesn't in any way excuse giving crap to others for some other feature of theirs. And people don't always develop empathy simply by undergoing hardship.

(Maybe this conversation should move to the spam thread at some point.)

Prinsessa
runic
runic
Posts: 3226
Joined: 07 Nov 2011 14:42

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Prinsessa » 29 Mar 2015 19:08

MrKrov wrote:
Chagen in the Menlish thread wrote:This is a parody of Ladaan, isn't it?
Probable answer to Menlish. Stop crying, squatchy.
Seems legit. Which makes it a sexism joke rather than a sexist joke. A parody. One can have a racial joke as opposed to a racist joke in the same way. If this is correct, Menlish is making fun of Ladaan and of stupid stereotypes (of men and women alike) rather than of men. And that's needed, not sexist! [tick]

-----

Oh, come on, Sumelic. [:(] I spent the entire rest of the post explaining why (especially that last part about tweaking the variables). I can't do much more than write up essentially the same post again, because that's all there is to it. I really used way too many words to explain it and just tried to repeat essentially the same thing several times to make sure it got through.

They are indeed independent of each other, which is why one variable at a time can be tweaked without changing the others. But it is these four values that are the least likely to cause harassment, and thus the more variables you change, generally the more likely the person is to be harassed for not having some or all of these values conform to these four values I repeated over and over.
Sumelic wrote:If a gay white cis man is sexist, is that any less problematic than if he were straight?
Absolutely not.
Sumelic wrote:The way I see it, merely having experience dealing with crap for one feature of your identity, doesn't in any way excuse giving crap to others for some other feature of theirs.
I agree completely, and if I've seemed to suggest anything otherwise, at least I'm confirming now that that's not what I think either.

Sumelic
greek
greek
Posts: 714
Joined: 18 Jun 2013 22:01

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Sumelic » 29 Mar 2015 19:19

OK. So if I'm understanding you right, the implicit claim is that these four factors are the most important axes of privilege today/in our immediate social context. Other factors are not worth mentioning, or would be harmful/distracting to mention. I never actually saw that said outright, which is why I'm not sure; would you agree with that?

Prinsessa
runic
runic
Posts: 3226
Joined: 07 Nov 2011 14:42

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Prinsessa » 29 Mar 2015 19:36

Sumelic wrote:Other factors are not worth mentioning, or would be harmful/distracting to mention.
No, no, I claimed the exact opposite later in the post. I said that it's just as relevant (to the world; to society; to us all) an issue that needs to be addressed just as much as the other, but it's not relevant specifically to a discussion on sexism, racism, homophobia or transphobia, because harassment of straight, white cis males generally isn't fueled by their sexual orientation, skin colour, sex or gender.

Their problems aren't less important, but often aren't the same, whereas on the other hand people who do not conform to the values of straight, white, cis and male generally have all of those problems to deal with in addition to the orientation, race, sex and gender issues, and that at the very least is supposedly a reason to say that straight, white cis males at least have the potential to more privileges.

Nonetheless, of course on an individual level we can obviously cherrypick some person with other variables who has a better quality of life than some individual straight, white cis male. One factor not mentioned so far is for example wealth, which can affect anybody.

But looking at the picture as a whole, straight, white cis males generally score higher on this ladder of privilege than the rest. And that's not an attack against individuals who fall into these categories. It's not their fault that they happened to be born that way. But when they fight against people who try to bring this up, claiming it not to be true or belittling the problems, then the continuation of this system does in part become their fault (and that of course goes for non-white, non-cis, non-heterosexual, non-males who do this as well; they're just shooting themselves and everyone else like them in the foot).

I don't blame anybody for happening to be a straight, white cis male with few worries in his life. That's great. Everyone should be as free of worries as possible. I only blame a person (no matter their race, sex, gender, orientation, wealth or what have ye) who fights against equality by either scooping these issues aside or even actively working against them.

To clarify in a tl;dr fashion: there is nothing wrong with being straight, white, cis or male; what is wrong is denying or fighting the truth of certain issues that are very real to a majority, and that goes for all of us, no matter what we look like or where we come from.

Sumelic
greek
greek
Posts: 714
Joined: 18 Jun 2013 22:01

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Sumelic » 29 Mar 2015 19:56

OK. So you're saying that sexism, racism, homophobia, and transphobia are all interrelated and linked, and therefore should be discussed together, while other forms of privilege are not linked to these and so are irrelevant to these factors. Sasquatch only made a comment about racism, homophobia and sexism, so as far as I can tell you are the one who brought transphobia into the discussion. So you clearly see it as being relevant whenever these three other forms of privilege are being discussed, even if it is not explicitly brought up. What I'm missing I guess is the idea that only these 4 topics are specially linked, and always relevant to one another, but no other topics are relevant to these four. These 4 issues are clearly not all the same, and it's not even clear to me that they are all so closely intertwined that they have to always be discussed at the same time.

Prinsessa
runic
runic
Posts: 3226
Joined: 07 Nov 2011 14:42

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Prinsessa » 29 Mar 2015 20:07

Sumelic wrote:OK. So you're saying that sexism, racism, homophobia, and transphobia are all interrelated and linked
Only so far as to be some of the primary factors that cannot be applied to those who are generally seen as higher ranking on the scale of privilege, but like I said on the contrary, individual factors out of these four can be disconnected in order to see an increasing risk of harassment for an individual. So they're not necessarily interrelated as they can obviously exist alone without the others, but the more of these factors, the higher the risk of the harassment. That's what they have in common.
Sumelic wrote:and therefore should be discussed together
I'd stop at can be discussed together, but it usually makes sense to do so. But again, they can absolutely be disconnected as well if the others are not relevant to the discussion in question. But they're all pretty relevant to a discussion on privilege.
Sumelic wrote:while other forms of privilege are not linked to these and so are irrelevant to these factors.
Other forms are important to certain discussions, since they are, unlike the four I've been repeating, ones that can much more easily affect anybody, including straight, white cis males. They're relevant to a discussion on privilege, absolutely, but not always to a discussion on the four matters I've been repeating, and that seemed to be what Sasquatch was trying to invoke (even if he himself didn't mention all four).
Sumelic wrote:Sasquatch only made a comment about racism, homophobia and sexism, so as far as I can tell you are the one who brought transphobia into the discussion.
Because it's quite analogous to the other three and a relevant variable out of the four that I've been repeating. Not because he said anything about it. But sure, you can take that part out and my reasoning still stands.
Sumelic wrote:So you clearly see it as being relevant whenever these three other forms of privilege are being discussed, even if it is not explicitly brought up.
Not necessarily, but I felt it worth mentioning this time, as I wanted to clarify the difference between those four variables and other types of issues.
Sumelic wrote:What I'm missing I guess is the idea that only these 4 topics are specially linked, and always relevant to one another, but no other topics are relevant to these four. These 4 issues are clearly not all the same, and it's not even clear to me that they are all so closely intertwined that they have to always be discussed at the same time.
Hopefully all the above replies should answer this last one too. They are not the same, but they have something in common and are often analogous to each other.

Other than these four one should also put things like dwarfism and disabilities and the like in there. Sorry for forgetting those. Just biological traits and features in general.

Sumelic
greek
greek
Posts: 714
Joined: 18 Jun 2013 22:01

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Sumelic » 29 Mar 2015 20:29

OK. I don't find anything you've said unreasonable specifically, I just find it odd that people usually refer to all of these factors at the same time, but rarely to any additional factors. I don't quite understand why you generalize that
Prinsessa wrote: Other forms are important to certain discussions, since they are, unlike the four I've been repeating, ones that can much more easily affect anybody, including straight, white cis males. They're relevant to a discussion on privilege, absolutely, but not always to a discussion on the four matters I've been repeating, and that seemed to be what Sasquatch was trying to invoke (even if he himself didn't mention all four).
Obviously, if we add to the discussion another axis of privilege than homophobia, racism, transphobia and sexism, straight white cis males can also be affected. I don't see how it could be otherwise. It seems odd though to say that if a problem can affect straight cis white males, it by definition can easily affect anybody, which sort of seems to be what you are saying. What about issues like ablism (physical or mental)? In general, being non-neurotypical is something that only affects a subset of people, and it generally affects them throughout their life. But I much less often see references to "straight white cis neurotypical males". Also, I wouldn't quite say that issues like poverty and imprisonment "easily affect anybody" at all where I live, the United States: there's a strong connection with race. White people are less easily affected by these issues than the average person. Yes, technically "anybody" can be sent to jail for drug-related reasons, but it disproportionately affects African Americans. So I actually still don't understand the basis of the distinction. I'm wondering now when it was historically that people started to perceive these 4 issues as especially linked, and if there was a conscious strategic decision to combine these movements in order to consolidate support and be able to more easily achieve important results for all of these groups. I should do some research I guess!
Last edited by Sumelic on 30 Mar 2015 07:15, edited 1 time in total.

Prinsessa
runic
runic
Posts: 3226
Joined: 07 Nov 2011 14:42

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Prinsessa » 29 Mar 2015 20:42

Sumelic wrote:OK. I don't find anything you've said unreasonable specifically, I just find it odd that people usually refer to all of these factors at the same time, but rarely to any additional factors. I don't quite understand why you generalize that
It felt relevant to me this time, but wouldn't necessarily always be, that's all.
Sumelic wrote:Obviously, if we add to the discussion another axis of privilege than homophobia, racism, transphobia and sexism, white males can also be affected.
Yes, I've been trying to say that. ._. I said that if you start altering variables, the more risk of harassment. I said straight out that a homosexual, white cis male is more likely to be harassed than a heterosexual one (unless there are other factors too) simply for his sexuality, still being white and male.
Sumelic wrote:It seems odd though to say that if a problem can affect straight cis white males, it by definition can easily affect anybody, which sort of seems to be what you are saying.
I can't really think of an issue that is unique to being a straight, cis white male that can't also affect other people. I can think of an issue that is unique to being a homosexual, cis white male (i.e. being harassed for his sexuality), which is the point I'm trying to make with how these variables can be tweaked.
Sumelic wrote:What about issues like ablism?
I edited that into the bottom of my post, but you were probably already typing this by then so I guess you didn't see it. Ableism is indeed another variable that could be added to these, so again, sorry for forgetting to bring that up as well.
Sumelic wrote:But I much less often see references to "straight white cis neurotypical males".
Indeed. That's a pity, and I feel bad for not bringing it up myself until now that I edited my above post last minute. But as I said in my edit, we can probably generalise this to biological issues.
Sumelic wrote:Also, I wouldn't quite say that issues like poverty and imprisonment "easily affect anybody" at all where I live, the United States: there's a strong connection with race. White people are less affected by these issues than the average person. Yes, technically "anybody" can be sent to jail for drug-related reasons, but it disproportionately affects African Americans.
That's actually pretty much what I said. I said (essentially, but not word for word) that if we cherrypick individual cases, we might find a black person who is richer than a white one, but that this is generally not the case. So I was at least trying to say precisely what you are saying here. I hope that's clear now.
Sumelic wrote:So I actually still don't understand the basis of the distinction. I'm wondering now when it was historically that people started to perceive these 4 issues as especially linked, and if it there was conscious strategic decision to combine these movements in order to consolidate support and be able to more easily achieve important results for all of these groups. I should do some research I guess!
Well, detaching women, LGBT is a thing of its own, connecting at least non-heterosexual orientation with transsexualism. Which is kind of weird. While, again, I think it's relevant to a discussion on privilege, it often makes little sense to combine these two, as transsexualism is not a sexual orientation, but something completely different that just happens to unfortunately have similar terminology attached to it for various reasons.

But when it comes to fighting about equality, joining these people together does make sense. As does lumping women in with them. And disabled people and little people and others, so again, I'm sorry for leaving those out until now. Seems we both caught me at about the same time.

thetha
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1995
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 00:43

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by thetha » 29 Mar 2015 20:48

Prinsessa wrote: Well, detaching women, LGBT is a thing of its own, connecting at least non-heterosexual orientation with transsexualism. Which is kind of weird.
I don't think it's weird at all. What makes you say so?

Prinsessa
runic
runic
Posts: 3226
Joined: 07 Nov 2011 14:42

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Prinsessa » 29 Mar 2015 20:52

Teddy wrote:
Prinsessa wrote: Well, detaching women, LGBT is a thing of its own, connecting at least non-heterosexual orientation with transsexualism. Which is kind of weird.
I don't think it's weird at all. What makes you say so?
I said why in the next couple of sentences. [:(]

Sumelic
greek
greek
Posts: 714
Joined: 18 Jun 2013 22:01

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Sumelic » 29 Mar 2015 20:54

Prinsessa wrote: I can't really think of an issue that is unique to being a straight, cis white male that can't also affect other people. I can think of an issue that is unique to being a homosexual, cis white male (i.e. being harassed for his sexuality), which is the point I'm trying to make with how these variables can be tweaked.
That isn't an issue that is unique to being a homosexual, cis white male. [:(] It also affects homosexual trans, black, and female people. Just like a straight, white, cis, male can be autistic and have unique issues in common with other autistic individuals of any gender, sexual orientation, race, or (whatever the noun is for being trans or not-trans). My point is that we obviously wouldn't expect a person who is privileged in some ways, to have an issue that hurts them specifically because of that privilege. But they can have an issue that affects them because of another type of privilege that they lack. And I think we basically agree in that, based off of your response to Sasquatch; I just think you phrased this particular argument illogically in the quoted section and some of your previous posts.
Last edited by Sumelic on 29 Mar 2015 20:58, edited 1 time in total.

Prinsessa
runic
runic
Posts: 3226
Joined: 07 Nov 2011 14:42

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Prinsessa » 29 Mar 2015 20:57

Yeah. I'm very bad at writing concise messages, too. I always babble way too many words. :x

But yes, the issue there is being homosexual. But I think a white homosexual is generally better treated than a black homosexual because he doesn't also have to deal with racism. That's the point.

Post Reply