ThunderBunk, go fuck yourself.

1234568»

Comments

  • Antisocial AltoAntisocial Alto Shipmate
    edited June 2019
    Tubbs wrote: »

    This thread has been interesting for a few reasons.

    There’s the refusal to even acknowledge the pond difference or consider that the word may have different connotations elsewhere.

    It's interesting that you point this out, because from my side of the pond, it looks like it's mostly UK shipmates refusing to acknowledge that there may be any pond difference. I ask again, would you all brush it off as a pond difference if Americans were all over the Ship repeatedly using the P-word for people of South Asian descent, because it's not offensive in America?

    Several posters, mostly women, have said over and over that the word under discussion is extremely offensive to North American ears and the response from the UK (with a few exceptions) has mostly been "It's just a normal bad word, what are you talking about".
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    Racism is a C1 offence. Bad language isn't.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    Racism is a C1 offence. Bad language isn't.

    Thank you so much for illustrating my point. In North America it's not everyday bad language, it's a misogynist slur directed against women.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    And if it gets used here as a misogynist slur directed systematically against women, then it's sexism and also falls foul of Commandment 1.

    If that's not how it's being used, then it doesn't.

    What is mind-numbingly stupid here is the attempt to reduce offensiveness to the use of a specific word (and by implication, claim that refraining from using certain specific words grants instant immunity from any accusation of offensiveness).
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    Also, we are not in North America here. As well as being not in Kansas anymore.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    What is mind-numbingly stupid here is the attempt to reduce offensiveness to the use of a specific word (and by implication, claim that refraining from using certain specific words grants instant immunity from any accusation of offensiveness).

    No one has said this. No one. All that North American posters have said is that that particular word lands very differently on us. No one has tried to say that it's the only offensive word or that you can't be offensive without using bad language.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    No, but that's the reason that the 10Cs are applied on the basis of much more than individual words. Including the one under (apparently no-resolution-ever) discussion here.

    And as already stated, "words landing differently" comes under C5.
  • balaambalaam Shipmate
    Here in darkest Yorkshire there is a word pronounced identically yo cunt.

    The terms should not, would not and could not are not contracted to shouldn't, wouldn't and couldn't but further contracted to shun't, wun't and cun't. It is so common that none of the locals even notice the c bomb being uttered.

    I have to be carefull outside the UK, when I declare that I am unable to undertake a task, it has been interpreted as, "Aye cunt, do that."
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    Also, we are not in North America here. As well as being not in Kansas anymore.

    This sounds like you're saying that non-UK shipmates don't belong here.
  • Eutychus is stating the truism that the Ship is not a North American entity.

    However, all are welcome, and all are subject to the same rules. Those rules are few, are quite liberal, and are conditionally interpreted by the H&A.

    Tell me if I've missed something out.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    edited June 2019
    What Doc Tor said. Besides the Wizard of Oz comment about how increasingly surreal this vortex of a thread is becoming.

    (Oh and for the avoidance of doubt, it's not a UK entity either, apart from legally speaking).
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    Cunts.
  • Everybody’s a bit of a cunt sometimes, even you Rook. [NSFW, obviously]
  • I don't know what I'm doing here but I have been feeling my way through the conversation as a North American.

    It seems to me that context has everything to do with the offensiveness of the word.

    When my ex husband called me a stupid cunt during an argument, it was the worst insult he could possibly muster. Bitch wouldn't do. Though offense was intended, all I could do was marvel at the final failure of imagination the word represented. So on account of this, none was taken. But the context of the rest of the confrontation marked the end of civility between us.

    I have also been called a daft cunt by my British friends, and I have taken this as the kind of good humored joshing that their cultural context implies.

    It's a problematic word for certain. I don't have the same knee jerk visceral reaction to it that others in my culture do, but understand why they might.

    It just seems to me that good relationships hinge on knowing where others boundaries lie, and respecting them. But it also relies on being sensitive to others contexts and being willing to expand one's "alllowingness" to accommodate their meaning and intention.

    You can't give me offense if I refuse to take it - is pretty much what I'm saying in a lot more words.

    AFF




  • edited June 2019
    Everybody’s a bit of a cunt sometimes, even you Rook. [NSFW, obviously]

    That's so gay.

    (About as close as we can get to the level of offensiveness I think. Could have said "nigga" I suppose. The problem with "gay" as a slur is that the word itself has a positive use. Perhaps bumfucker, but "that's so bumfucked" isn't quite the same either. )
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    Also, we are not in North America here. As well as being not in Kansas anymore.

    Actually, "we" are -- also in the UK, France, Australia, and various other places.

  • Everybody’s a bit of a cunt sometimes, even you Rook. [NSFW, obviously]

    That's so gay.

    (About as close as we can get to the level of offensiveness I think. Could have said "nigga" I suppose. The problem with "gay" as a slur is that the word itself has a positive use. Perhaps bumfucker, but "that's so bumfucked" isn't quite the same either. )

    That remark makes no sense. Are you trying to say “that’s so fucked up” ?
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    You can't give me offense if I refuse to take it - is pretty much what I'm saying in a lot more words.
    This is true, but reality is not quite so simple. There are words and phrases that trigger memories for me and, whilst I work to change that, it is not quite voluntary.
    However, I do have the capacity to differentiate between when offence is intended or accidental.
    IMO, this whole discussion can be broken down to both sides considering the other and the heat should die down a bit.

  • 1. I'm not going to use the c-word in my post because I know there are some shipmates who are deeply offended by it.

    2. I'm not going to use the c-word in my post because I will get a hostly censure and maybe shore leave if I keep at it.

    Boggles my mind that people can't see the difference. Maybe this is a pond thing, and the difference between voluntarily refraining and being forced to refrain doesn't transfer in Blighty.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    edited June 2019
    mousethief wrote: »
    1. I'm not going to use the c-word in my post because I know there are some shipmates who are deeply offended by it.

    2. I'm not going to use the c-word in my post because I will get a hostly censure and maybe shore leave if I keep at it.

    Boggles my mind that people can't see the difference.

    1. Some people keep nattering on about this because they're assholes.

    2. Some people keep nattering on about this because they're idiots.

    Honestly, there is no functional difference. It's just as cuntacular either way.
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    It's not a pond thing. You're drawing a distinction that amounts to no difference.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    Ohher wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    Also, we are not in North America here. As well as being not in Kansas anymore.

    Actually, "we" are -- also in the UK, France, Australia, and various other places.
    The Ship is an English-speaking inter-cultural discussion space of which one of the attractions is a degree of cultural diversity.

    In visiting it, all of us are stepping out of our local culture.

    Just as in real life travel, if people are persistently deliberately offensive, by whatever means, they are going to get into trouble, and do.

    But they are not going to have a very good or enriching journey if they are persistently easily offended, either.

    That is what C5 is all about and it is entirely fit for purpose in my view.
  • Well, I've now encountered this pond difference in anger, having managed to get myself a suspension from another forum I frequent for referring to the foreign secretary as "Jeremy Rhyming Slang". Never would have occured to me that even an oblique reference to a well-known soubriquet would be considered offensive.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    As ever, it depends on the context and on the precise reason for the suspension.

    We have a policy here of discouraging people from persistently using derogatory terms for politicians on Purgatory discussion threads, because we deem persistent use is not conducive to constructive discussion or attracting opposing views, but rather gratuitous offensiveness, which if engaged in repeatedly will probably get you into trouble under C5. From the point of view of the 10Cs, you'd be OK referring to a politician in those terms in Hell, though.
  • LeRocLeRoc Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    The word con in France, which Google translates into English as cunt, is pretty much suffixed to every sentence uttered in South-West France.
    The equivalent Dutch word isn't that heavy either.
  • sionisaissionisais Shipmate
    Ruth wrote: »
    It's not a pond thing. You're drawing a distinction that amounts to no difference.

    If only that were so.
  • sionisais wrote: »
    Ruth wrote: »
    It's not a pond thing. You're drawing a distinction that amounts to no difference.

    If only that were so.

    1) happens already. Except when it doesn’t.

    The main confusion seems to be the over the difference in potential outcomes when refraining is voluntary and when it’s compulsory.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    If one of the potential outcomes is a Styx thread and a shamblor-like 8-page Hell thread every cunting time, a brief suspension of a single Shitmate seems minor in comparison.
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    edited June 2019
    Ruth wrote: »
    It's not a pond thing. You're drawing a distinction that amounts to no difference.

    Only if outcome is all that matters and not motivation and attitude. As it now stands you can say this or a vast number of other words without running afoul of the rules, but everybody else can judge what kind of person you are because of it. (I am including myself here.)

    Some while ago you (I'm almost sure it was you, Ruth) pointed out to me the implications of calling a woman "bitch". Since then I have reconsidered my use of that word and tried to extinguish its use. Feedback from members works.
  • sionisaissionisais Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    Feedback from members works.

    Now that really is so. I didn't appreciate how much more inflammatory "that word" is, particularly for shipmates in North America. Now I do, and I'll be more careful.
  • If my memory serves, I think I've only ever used the c-word on Ship of Fools on this here Hell thread.

    That doesn't make me any better or worse than others.

    I certainly wouldn't sprinkle it liberally throughout my standard Shipboard discourse, any more than I would use it in 'real life'.

    If anything, I probably use more ripe language aboard Ship than I would ashore. Make of that what you will.

    On the Pond difference thing ... I certainly 'get' how and why North American posters object to the word more than some British posters claim to - and yes, I think those who find it less offensive should exercise restraint now they know that other posters are more likely to be offended by it than they are themselves. Yet it seems to me that the Ship's rules on these matters are adequate.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    And if it gets used here as a misogynist slur directed systematically against women, then it's sexism and also falls foul of Commandment 1.

    If that's not how it's being used, then it doesn't.

    What is mind-numbingly stupid here is the attempt to reduce offensiveness to the use of a specific word (and by implication, claim that refraining from using certain specific words grants instant immunity from any accusation of offensiveness).

    It's ALWAYS a misogynist slur directed systematically against women. Whatever else it might be.
  • And you @Martin54 are mansplaining and a hypocrite, you are one of the eleven people who have employed the epithet on the Ship since October last year outwith the threads discussing the use of such words. And you did so on two different threads. And you weren't one of the three who did so in quotes (me, @goperryrevs and @KarlLB) so enough already of your faux outrage. See here

    While I'm pointing out hypocrisy here, let's also point the finger at another of the hypocritical mansplainers - NOprophet is another of the eleven here, not that you'd guess from the outrage expressed on this thread.

    By the way Sioni, where were you when we discussed this all at length on this thread in February? Where it was discussed for 6 pages.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    It is not that simple. Where are the Penis Street, the Grab Bollocks Lanes? The focus on women's value as being carriers of the naughty bits is why there is a Gropecunt lane, but not a Grabcock road. So misogyny likely does play a role in the origin of use.
    That said, most contemporary UK usage is not directly misogynistic and only indirectly by a tenuous route.
    Speaking of bollocks, however, rude words for men's bits have neither the same guidance or general impact that cunt does. Misogyny might play a part in this.
    It is not as straightforward as always or never.
  • sionisaissionisais Shipmate
    edited June 2019
    And you @Martin54 are mansplaining and a hypocrite, you are one of the eleven people who have employed the epithet on the Ship since October last year outwith the threads discussing the use of such words. And you did so on two different threads. And you weren't one of the three who did so in quotes (me, @goperryrevs and @KarlLB) so enough already of your faux outrage. See here

    While I'm pointing out hypocrisy here, let's also point the finger at another of the hypocritical mansplainers - NOprophet is another of the eleven here, not that you'd guess from the outrage expressed on this thread.

    By the way Sioni, where were you when we discussed this all at length on this thread in February? Where it was discussed for 6 pages.

    I have to plead forgetfulness. I subsequently hoped my thread might have helped but I’m not sure it ever did.

    Eta: good observation by lilbuddha too.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    So having come late to this thread and having read it all through my thoughts are:
    Cross pond differences have always dogged the ship.
    As to use if the word Cunt then there perhaps needs to be a compromise. Brits like me have a more flexible use of the word than North American’s tend to. My gut says use the word carefully in one side, and understand that if someone does use it be understanding on the other side. Compromise.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited June 2019
    And you @Martin54 are mansplaining and a hypocrite, you are one of the eleven people who have employed the epithet on the Ship since October last year outwith the threads discussing the use of such words. And you did so on two different threads. And you weren't one of the three who did so in quotes (me, @goperryrevs and @KarlLB) so enough already of your faux outrage. See here

    While I'm pointing out hypocrisy here, let's also point the finger at another of the hypocritical mansplainers - NOprophet is another of the eleven here, not that you'd guess from the outrage expressed on this thread.

    By the way Sioni, where were you when we discussed this all at length on this thread in February? Where it was discussed for 6 pages.

    If it's mansplaining - which it isn't as no condescension is involved and I'm not explaining anything to a woman - to you and everyone else here, it's still so.

    You don't acknowledge this.

    My apologies for not using quotes nonetheless, despite the fact I was obviously quoting.

    And furthermore my apologies for using it at all.

    What is the other reference please?

  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    And you @Martin54 are mansplaining and a hypocrite, you are one of the eleven people who have employed the epithet on the Ship since October last year outwith the threads discussing the use of such words. And you did so on two different threads. And you weren't one of the three who did so in quotes (me, @goperryrevs and @KarlLB) so enough already of your faux outrage. See here

    While I'm pointing out hypocrisy here, let's also point the finger at another of the hypocritical mansplainers - NOprophet is another of the eleven here, not that you'd guess from the outrage expressed on this thread.

    By the way Sioni, where were you when we discussed this all at length on this thread in February? Where it was discussed for 6 pages.

    If it's mansplaining - which it isn't as no condescension is involved and I'm not explaining anything to a woman - to you and everyone else here, it's still so.
    ...
    Of course! That's me gaslighting.
  • Marvin the MartianMarvin the Martian Admin Emeritus
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    And if it gets used here as a misogynist slur directed systematically against women, then it's sexism and also falls foul of Commandment 1.

    If that's not how it's being used, then it doesn't.

    What is mind-numbingly stupid here is the attempt to reduce offensiveness to the use of a specific word (and by implication, claim that refraining from using certain specific words grants instant immunity from any accusation of offensiveness).

    It's ALWAYS a misogynist slur directed systematically against women. Whatever else it might be.

    I doubt my (female) coworker, who this afternoon used it about three times in a half-hour discussion/rant about our (male) boss, would agree with you.
  • @Martin54 sorry this one and lots of quotes on other threads.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    @Martin54 sorry this one and lots of quotes on other threads.

    No apology necessary. You got that right first time. I fully acknowledge that. Own it. Regret it. Regardless of context.

    I'm not aware of making any other allusion to the word, apart from in response to Rook I think. Obliquely, but I regret nonetheless. And I was horribly amused I'm afraid.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    And if it gets used here as a misogynist slur directed systematically against women, then it's sexism and also falls foul of Commandment 1.

    If that's not how it's being used, then it doesn't.

    What is mind-numbingly stupid here is the attempt to reduce offensiveness to the use of a specific word (and by implication, claim that refraining from using certain specific words grants instant immunity from any accusation of offensiveness).

    It's ALWAYS a misogynist slur directed systematically against women. Whatever else it might be.

    I doubt my (female) coworker, who this afternoon used it about three times in a half-hour discussion/rant about our (male) boss, would agree with you.

    Indeed not. But she isn't a misogynist. A bit Samuel L. Jackson perhaps. I'm talking heterosexual male usage, as I've mentioned before.
  • Marvin the MartianMarvin the Martian Admin Emeritus
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    And if it gets used here as a misogynist slur directed systematically against women, then it's sexism and also falls foul of Commandment 1.

    If that's not how it's being used, then it doesn't.

    What is mind-numbingly stupid here is the attempt to reduce offensiveness to the use of a specific word (and by implication, claim that refraining from using certain specific words grants instant immunity from any accusation of offensiveness).

    It's ALWAYS a misogynist slur directed systematically against women. Whatever else it might be.

    I doubt my (female) coworker, who this afternoon used it about three times in a half-hour discussion/rant about our (male) boss, would agree with you.

    Indeed not. But she isn't a misogynist. A bit Samuel L. Jackson perhaps. I'm talking heterosexual male usage, as I've mentioned before.

    So is "cunt" ALWAYS a misogynist slur directed systematically against women or not? Make your mind up.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    And if it gets used here as a misogynist slur directed systematically against women, then it's sexism and also falls foul of Commandment 1.

    If that's not how it's being used, then it doesn't.

    What is mind-numbingly stupid here is the attempt to reduce offensiveness to the use of a specific word (and by implication, claim that refraining from using certain specific words grants instant immunity from any accusation of offensiveness).

    It's ALWAYS a misogynist slur directed systematically against women. Whatever else it might be.

    I doubt my (female) coworker, who this afternoon used it about three times in a half-hour discussion/rant about our (male) boss, would agree with you.

    Indeed not. But she isn't a misogynist. A bit Samuel L. Jackson perhaps. I'm talking heterosexual male usage, as I've mentioned before.

    So is "cunt" ALWAYS a misogynist slur directed systematically against women or not? Make your mind up.

    I have.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    Context is all.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    Tubbs wrote: »
    There’s the refusal to even acknowledge the pond difference or consider that the word may have different connotations elsewhere.

    One can recognise that this word is more offensive in some subcultures than others, and still object to those who seem to want to insist that their own subculture should prevail.

    Some of the posts here boil down to "be reasonable - do it my way".
    Hugal wrote: »
    use the word carefully in one side, and understand that if someone does use it be understanding on the other side. Compromise.

    Sounds perfectly reasonable, as an individual response.

    Commandment 5 does its best to hold to that compromise at the level of Ship-culture. This word is not deemed either acceptable or unacceptable, but the way is open for individuals to be gently rapped across the knuckles for acting either overly offensive or overly offended.

    But it won't please everyone. And possibly won't really please anyone. Compromise is like that sometimes.


This discussion has been closed.