Seriously thoughtful The NEW Covid Vaccination Poll

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Deskisamess

If we are going to consider the root of every word we use, here or on any forum, we are going to drastically change how we talk.

Nobody's suggesting considering every word. Only those that people make clear they find offensive. There's nothing wrong with adapting to changing societal norms. People manage to have conversations here all the time without having objections to the origins of some of the words used. Is it so terrible that people might be expected to find a new synonym for "hysterical" (regardless of how its being used) when they find out that many find it offensive?

[haertig]

Originally Posted by Almamida

And you conveniently forget that the context DOES NOT matter or change the root and origin of the word. This has already been explained, you just don't want to acknowledge it.

So you ARE offended by someone talking about a funny movie and calling it "hysterical".

And you have now stated that when you "explain something", that everyone is required to accept, acknowledge, and abide by your "explanation". No room for other opinions, other viewpoints ... your "explanation" ends all discussion.

And you and others who share your thought processes wonder why people don't just suck it up and follow your directives...

[Deskisamess]

Originally Posted by Almamida

I think it would be a great thing. Making the effort to be inclusive and respectful when someone explains a word I use is derogatory? Count me in!

I'd rather try to not always think the worst when reading what someone types. We can't see expressions, or hear intonations, etc.

Having every single comment picked apart ad-nauseam get very old, and sucks the life out the conversation.

[haertig]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

There's nothing wrong with adapting to changing societal norms.

You are suggesting that banning the word "hysterical" used in any context is the societal norm? I think you probably have that backwards. And it's the people who are trying to ban it who need to adapt to the societal norm.

[haertig]

As Issy requested when starting this thread, it's probably best to keep it on topic about covid related stuff. When challenged about why I lose respect for people who insult me, I answered that and pointed out two examples of the specific insulting I was talking about.

I don't think we need to go further into this, unless Issy approves the wandering of this thread.

[Almamida]

Originally Posted by haertig

So you ARE offended by someone talking about a funny movie and calling it "hysterical".

And you have now stated that when you "explain something", that everyone is required to accept, acknowledge, and abide by your "explanation". No room for other opinions, other viewpoints ... your "explanation" ends all discussion.

And you and others who share your thought processes wonder why people don't just suck it up and follow your directives...

I just side with the people rightfully offended.
And at the end of the day, we know in which direction the world goes. So, I'm not worried to not have you onboard.

Originally Posted by Deskisamess

I'd rather try to not always think the worst when reading what someone types. We can't see expressions, or hear intonations, etc.

Having every single comment picked apart ad-nauseam get very old, and sucks the life out the conversation.

It's your choice. You make it a bigger deal than what it really is.

Originally Posted by haertig

You are suggesting that banning the word "hysterical" used in any context is the societal norm? I think you probably have that backwards. And it's the people who are trying to ban it who need to adapt to the societal norm.

Well, people are rightfully challenging these societal norms. And I'm ready for it.

Originally Posted by haertig

As Issy requested when starting this thread, it's probably best to keep it on topic about covid related stuff. When challenged about why I lose respect for people who insult me, I answered that and pointed out two examples of the specific insulting I was talking about.

I don't think we need to go further into this, unless Issy approves the wandering of this thread.

Except nobody insulted you. Maybe your feelings are hurt but it's gonna be okay. You're a big boy.

And I agree to move back on the COVID related discussion.

[haertig]

Originally Posted by Almamida

Except nobody insulted you. Maybe your feelings are hurt but it's gonna be okay. You're a big boy.

Not just perpetually offended, but condescending and patronizing too. Don't worry, I'm not hurt. I'm more likely to laugh at statements like this than cry about them.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by haertig

You are suggesting that banning the word "hysterical" used in any context is the societal norm?

Nope. But then I didn't really expect you to follow along. In fact, I wasn't even talking to you. Prefer not to, truth be told.

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by haertig

You should go back and research the posts where the very person I was responding to has ridiculed me as being sexist and obtuse - because I said "hysterical media reports" in a different thread when referring to sensationalist journalism. Nothing to do with sexism.

Except that I haven't been reading the discussion and monitoring for behavior because (1) that isn't my job and (2) present bad behavior isn't justified by someone else's past bad behavior if in fact it really was bad.

I've only been reading the posts after mine and noted that you went from arguing your case to casting aspersions on someone's character, which is a different subject from someone objecting to usage with potentially sexist connotations. You might find both to be the same, but I do not. For one thing, usage involves the implications of language and is not a matter of character. For another, bad usage can involve good faith.

Both the sexist and anti-disabled zingers came in out of left field. No known reason for them, other than to insult.

If you can think of "no known reason" for anyone to have mentioned usage, then isn't it projection to conclude that people intended to insult you?

And in your world, this must all be OK to throw around insults and false accusations like that. I guess that's a fine thing to do. But if I mention that I lose respect for someone when they do things like that, well, that's not fine.

The us/them dichotomy in your ad hominem about my unknown motivations and opinions is disconcerting. I can't be a well-meaning member letting you know that perhaps you shouldn't be attacking people in the service of making an argument. I have to be a person with a "world" and orientation that is not only different from yours, but exists to pass judgments on you that are hypocritical and partisan. I couldn't possibly be trying to move the conversation away from personal attacks so that we could discuss your actual points, could I? Apparently, people from my "world" wouldn't be interested in listening to you.

Your logic is incomprehensible to me.

Apparently, the logic you project onto my words is incomprehensible, but my intended point and attendant logic is inaudible, since you have not heard me and assume I'm attacking you personally.

I only pointed out that the subject is lively enough. I'm now pointing out that this thread could get shut down if it continues to veer into the personal.

In fact, I've wanted to post evidence that the creators of the vaccine/autism scare were former UK physicians who have not only been discredited but had their licenses revoked; one of them claimed to "cure" autism with a formula that had to be made from his own bone marrow. But I have refrained from posting that bit because (1) it could veer into territory deemed political even though it's only reporting on the science and (2) we've hit an impasse.

I'm just trying to get through the impasse so that we can discuss COVID vaccines without making it personal. People who disagree can still remain friends.

And I'm glad that you were vaccinated against COVID-19, BTW. I wish you no ill -- least of all, that one!

[haertig]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

I'm just trying to get through the impasse so that we can discuss COVID vaccines without making it personal. People who disagree can still remain friends.

That, and the trajectory of this thread, made me immediately think of this. Definitely lightened the mood.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y05eFDQnSfE

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by Almamida

You conveniently left the explanation of "hysterical" where meeera was in her right in explaining the misogynistic root of this word.

A root which in no longer remembered by the vast majority. Ask the average person about medical treatments for "female hysteria" and most will give you a blank look. Do you care that at one time, the word cattle was used for domesticated quadrapeds as a generic term? That the current usage referring solely to bovines is a relatively recent change? Or even that the root for the word comes from chatel or katil as in personal property?

Do you care that the word Inuit means "people" with the implication that non-Inuit are not people? Oddly, the PC term now used for gypsies is Roma which also means people.

Would you feel offended if I used the term "16 mile an hour tits" in a post?

Originally Posted by Almamida

If it was that fun, maybe you should check your privileges.

For me, a good portion of the fun is in watching how some people will attempt to twist other peoples' posts to conform to their world view not to mention the attempted political correctness by the spiritual descendants of Dr. T. Bowdler. I must admit I do find a certain amount of amusement when someone uses "rightfully offended" in a sentence.

As for privileges? I might feel touched if I had even a shred of belief that you might know me well enough to be able to make even slightly informed judgments. All things considered, the likelihood is that you lack the information to make an informed judgment and so are offering an opinion which is worth diddly squat.

[BetterRed]

This thread has become something of a shambles, apologies if that offends any vegetarians.

BR

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by haertig

That, and the trajectory of this thread, made me immediately think of this. Definitely lightened the mood.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y05eFDQnSfE

"Let's not worry about who killed who[m]"? Hyperbolic comparisons, lobbed in semi-jest, are just more ad hominem barking. And what's interesting is that John Cleese and Eric Idle would be far less gentle with said barking than I have been. They would lob bits of brain at your vaxx arguments as well (witticism anticipated), but it seems as though we're never getting back to the topic.

I'm talking to you directly about things you've said since we began conversing and you're still attempting to mangle that conversation to fit your narrative of the suppression of right-wing freedoms. Apparently, there are no left-wing friends in your -- how did you put it? -- "world." There is only the enemy for you.

Funny thing is, I do have right-wing friends in the real world and we sometimes discuss things like vaccines. And if someone mentions that the conversation might be getting personal, we steer clear and that's the end of it. It's not a compromise that shows weakness. It's the barest requirement of a civil discussion.

[Almamida]

Originally Posted by DNSB

A root which in no longer remembered by the vast majority. Ask the average person about medical treatments for "female hysteria" and most will give you a blank look. Do you care that at one time, the word cattle was used for domesticated quadrapeds as a generic term? That the current usage referring solely to bovines is a relatively recent change? Or even that the root for the word comes from chatel or katil as in personal property?

Do you care that the word Inuit means "people" with the implication that non-Inuit are not people? Oddly, the PC term now used for gypsies is Roma which also means people.

Would you feel offended if I used the term "16 mile an hour tits" in a post?

I don’t understand what your examples have to do with hysteria.

Originally Posted by DNSB

For me, a good portion of the fun is in watching how some people will attempt to twist other peoples' posts to conform to their world view not to mention the attempted political correctness by the spiritual descendants of Dr. T. Bowdler. I must admit I do find a certain amount of amusement when someone uses "rightfully offended" in a sentence.

Bear with me, English is not my first language and I moved to Toronto 5 years ago. So there might be some oddities when I express myself.
By “rightfully offended” I mean being offended for the right reasons.

Originally Posted by DNSB

As for privileges? I might feel touched if I had even a shred of belief that you might know me well enough to be able to make even slightly informed judgments. All things considered, the likelihood is that you lack the information to make an informed judgment and so are offering an opinion which is worth diddly squat.

I don’t need to know you to understand you’re in a privileged position when you say to someone that they play the card of the immunosupressed or that the word hysteria isn’t charged with misogynistic meanings. And on top of that you had some fun re-reading through the conversation. That’s what I mean.

[haertig]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

"Let's not worry about who killed who[m]"? Hyperbolic comparisons, lobbed in semi-jest, are just more ad hominem barking.

It was a joke. Intended to lighten this thread. But my attempt to add a little levity, maybe make people laugh a little, and thus realize we've all be acting a bit on the rough side to each other - all that just went right over your head. You took it as an invite to add another condescending comment.

They would lob bits of brain at your vaxx arguments

Just what is my "vaxx argument" that you are referring to? Please find it and quote it, so that I know what you are talking about.

you're still attempting to mangle that conversation to fit your narrative of the suppression of right-wing freedoms.

What "right-wing freedoms" are you talking about? Are they different from "left-wing freedoms"? Doesn't matter. Specifically, what "freedom" do you claim I am advocating that you disagree with?

Apparently, there are no left-wing friends in your -- how did you put it? -- "world." There is only the enemy for you.

Actually, I find the nut jobs at either end of the political spectrum distasteful. But in any case, we have not been discussing politics, so I don't understand why you brought that up.