What are some of your pet peeves?

[kiramanell]

11 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Kinda depends -- a lot, actually -- on who is using the word, whom it is referring to, and all the other contextual clues that are part of the utterance.

There are very few words -- and "girl" is not one of them -- that come bundled with only one denotative meaning, and one set of connotations. And language doesn't consist of a bunch of disconnected signs that are like "counters," always with the same meaning: they recombine endlessly in sentences, paragraphs, and other contexts in ways that produce an almost infinite variety of possible meanings.

So, a man walking into a room full of working women and calling them "girls" -- yeah, that's almost certainly infantilizing and sexist. A woman, particularly a peer, doing so? Not so much.

Critical reading, being thoughtful about all of the shades of meaning and implications of language, entails a great deal more than a knee-jerk response that implies that a word must always signify one thing, and not others. Lindal is speaking as a woman, mostly (here) to other women. There is nothing in her utterance to suggest that she is "infantilizing" Taylor Swift, blondes, or any women at all.

Use your critical capacity to make such judgments, not a handy pull-down list of "bad words and usages." You are, frankly, trivializing instances where the term is used as a put-down.

 

"Bello, Barone. Veramente!" 👍 Indeed, context is everything (when is it ever not, really?!). 

There's one particular instance, though, where I actually don't like the term 'woman.' Like in "A college woman has been reported missing."  That sounds like a schoolteacher having gone to Vegas for the day with a few friends or something, whereas what they really mean, is "A young 19-year old girl was abducted, r*ped, and now lies dead in a ditch somewhere."  Sorry for the graphic, but using 'woman' in that context somehow diminishes the severity of the crime, makes it too generic, as it were. Like "A man got killed in the war." When you say it like that, ppl go like 'Yeah, whatevs.' Which is why I generally refer to a teenager as a 'girl.' Or 'young woman,' at best. Whatever the Law says, at 18, you're still a child. And when a crime is committed against you, at that age, reports should reflect that, IMHO.

[Orwar]

4 hours ago, Seicher Rae said:

No one's coming?

   Are you freaking kidding me? I baked! 

[Cindy Evanier]

9 minutes ago, Orwar said:

   Are you freaking kidding me? I baked! 

Ctrl-Alt-R and rebake!   

[Dano Seale]

20 hours ago, Fauve Aeon said:

Do you ever run across a photo and wonder wth is going on, like this one?

 

Do you wonder why that "her" would ever wear those socks with those shoes? Technically they walked that mile for nothing!
 

 

19 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Calling her - or any woman - a girl is dismissive

(Grrr, done it again! This quote is from BelliBunBun, not Scylla!)
  Anyway, in the UK, "girls" is an often used word and is rarely used in a dismissive way. Things like..."The girls are meeting up later to go clubbing. We've got a babysitter so I'll be down the pub around 8.00pm" and suchlike! Ever hear of a "woman's night in/out"? Some things are just ingrained in people and in different Countries and communities and can't just be removed because it upsets a few people. Imagine Americans suddenly being told they can't use "OMG/ oh my Gawdddd!"....they'd have to cut their tongues out ffs!
Have you tried telling the black females they can't use "girl" anymore? Let us know how that goes. Sometimes, all this PC bollox just gets right on my t***s sorry! 
End of "peeve".
 

 

9 hours ago, Seicher Rae said:

That's what he said....

I can't believe no one said that until now

Yeah, can imagine the result if I'd have said it......it was a close run thing though!  😆

[Rolig Loon]

7 hours ago, kiramanell said:

"Bello, Barone. Veramente!" 👍 Indeed, context is everything (when is it ever not, really?!). 

There's one particular instance, though, where I actually don't like the term 'woman.' Like in "A college woman has been reported missing."  That sounds like a schoolteacher having gone to Vegas for the day with a few friends or something, whereas what they really mean, is "A young 19-year old girl was abducted, r*ped, and now lies dead in a ditch somewhere."  Sorry for the graphic, but using 'woman' in that context somehow diminishes the severity of the crime, makes it too generic, as it were. Like "A man got killed in the war." When you say it like that, ppl go like 'Yeah, whatevs.' Which is why I generally refer to a teenager as a 'girl.' Or 'young woman,' at best. Whatever the Law says, at 18, you're still a child. And when a crime is committed against you, at that age, reports should reflect that, IMHO.

Yes, that's a tough one.  I spent half of my professional career in college classrooms with 18 - 22 year olds.  They are apprentice adults at that age -- old enough to know better but not experienced enough to do it consistently.  Most are away from home for the first time, bearing the burden of making life-shaping decisions without familiar close oversight.  They deserve the respect that we give to other adults and the guidance and protection that we give children.  My own personal choice was to refer to them as young men and young women, not boys and girls, because I felt that they deserved that mark of respect.  At the same time, I felt a responsibility as an educator and parent to offer them much more support and guidance than I would ever offer full-fledged adults, a responsibility to act as a role model as much as a teacher. It's a delicate balancing act all around, and language -- even the words we use to describe each other -- is malleable and contextual.

[Selene Gregoire]

Pet peeve: People who hold grudges for years over something that is their own damn fault, yet blames others and hounds them for years trying to get back at those the person wants everyone to believe are such evil, horrible people when the whole thing is a lie to begin with.

[Luna Bliss]

PET PEEVE:  Someone who believes I hold a grudge against them and that I am after revenge, when I don't.

[Ivy Mysterious]

26 minutes ago, Selene Gregoire said:

Pet peeve: People who hold grudges for years over something that is their own damn fault, yet blames others and hounds them for years trying to get back at those the person wants everyone to believe are such evil, horrible people when the whole thing is a lie to begin with.

 

9 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

PET PEEVE:  Someone who believes I hold a grudge against them and that I am after revenge, when I don't.

I dunno the history between you two, I won't pretend otherwise but making peeves that are jabs towards one another seems counter productive, no disrespect intended. Have you tried maybe sitting down and talking it out???

[Luna Bliss]

Just now, IvyLarae said:

I dunno the history between you two, I won't pretend otherwise but making peeves that are jabs towards one another seems counter productive, no disrespect intended. Have you tried maybe sitting down and talking it out???

I would be willing to if she would allow it.

[Selene Gregoire]

4 minutes ago, IvyLarae said:

 

I dunno the history between you two, I won't pretend otherwise but making peeves that are jabs towards one another seems counter productive, no disrespect intended. Have you tried maybe sitting down and talking it out???

On the old SLU,  gave her chance after chance after chance and she stabbed me in the back every time. No. Never again.

[Luna Bliss]

2 minutes ago, Selene Gregoire said:

On the old SLU,  gave her chance after chance after chance and she stabbed me in the back every time. No. Never again.

Selene, I don't want to continue this discussion here, as it might be perceived as us arguing and "singling each other out", or some type of infraction like that which can cause a suspension.

I don't like errors about me stated in public though - I never stabbed you in the back after you gave me "chance after chance", but I could say we both did a bit of stabbing each other at times.

If you want to say more, or if you want to discuss it with me privately, I'm willing. We could even have a monitor there if you'd like.

[Ivy Mysterious]

3 minutes ago, Selene Gregoire said:

On the old SLU,  gave her chance after chance after chance and she stabbed me in the back every time. No. Never again.

I had that sort of drama with someone at the beginning of the year. Everytime I gave them a chance to clear the air, they instead used it to slander and harass me, every single time so I get that.

If you two can't get along why not just block each other and be done with it finally?

[Selene Gregoire]

1 minute ago, IvyLarae said:

I had that sort of drama with someone at the beginning of the year. Everytime I gave them a chance to clear the air, they instead used it to slander and harass me, every single time so I get that.

If you two can't get along why not just block each other and be done with it finally?

I've had her blocked since shortly after I came back to the forums. Sometimes I can't help but see her posts when they've been quoted. No, I'm going to give her what she wants. I'm gone. The troll wins.

[kiramanell]

12 minutes ago, IvyLarae said:

 

I dunno the history between you two, I won't pretend otherwise but making peeves that are jabs towards one another seems counter productive, no disrespect intended. Have you tried maybe sitting down and talking it out???

 

Good call. I was just going to post a pet peeve about something which just happened in another thread (with familiar players). But you're right: that's not what this thread is for, so I won't do that. Thx for reminding me. 

[LittleMe Jewell]

3 minutes ago, IvyLarae said:

 If you two can't get along why not just block each other and be done with it finally?

Or just scroll / ignore.  

I don't typically block folks, but I am getting better at just scrolling past some stuff.  It does ME no good to continually be upset about something. So I'm learning to ignore, for my own sanity and stress levels.

[Beth Macbain]

Since the definition of a pet peeve is something that a particular person finds especially annoying, and this is the pet peeves thread, mine for today (and yesterday, and the day before, and all the days to come) is the ignore function on these forums. It should be a block function, and allow a person to completely block another person from seeing, commenting, emoting, or reacting to that person's posts, as well as completely block the other person from the view of the blocker as if they don't exist. 

I used to love the forums, but one person became two, and those two became four, etc. No idea if they're all the same person, nor do I care, but being unable to remove that person/those people has made the forums an untenable place for me to be. I get too emotional when I see any sign of their existence. If I'm logged in, the urge to correct the history that is being fabricated is too much.  If I'm logged out and just reading, I can stop myself. Just reading and not trusting myself to post is depressing, so I'm reading them less and less, and losing the connection I had to people here and that saddens me more. 

This was my social outlet during the pandemic. It's my decision, and one I hate, but I just can't be here as a participant until I'm in a better place, and I'm afraid that when I'm in that better place, I'll be too far removed from the forums that there is no coming back. 

So those people win because I just can't continue with the negativity they bring out in me for my own sanity. My mental and emotional well-being may be a game to others, but it isn't to me. 

TL:DR These forums need real block functionality. 

 

[Sylvia Tamalyn]

1 minute ago, Beth Macbain said:

TL:DR These forums need real block functionality. 

Agreed. It would definitely deflate the fun for those who deliberately follow others around trying to upset them with not-so-subtle little digs. No reaction = sad times for troll. 

[Gatogateau]

4 hours ago, Rolig Loon said:

18 - 22 year olds.  They are apprentice adults at that age -- old enough to know better but not experienced enough to do it consistently.

:::waves paw in air::: That "apprentice adults" thing (great term, btw)? Does not discriminate on age. Let's just say that some of us :::points to that two-legged avatar SR::: are a little older than 22 and still in the category of apprentice adult. Fairly happily so. It's not so much an issue for felines, which might be why this avatar is typing and not that.

Edited May 26, 2020 by Gatogateau

[Gatogateau]

1 hour ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

Or just scroll / ignore.  

I don't typically block folks, but I am getting better at just scrolling past some stuff.  It does ME no good to continually be upset about something. So I'm learning to ignore, for my own sanity and stress levels.

I scrolled for years (as I've yammered about for ages), even through some really horrific old forum stuff (not sure if we could block then). Very recently I've been experimenting with the block function and for the most part, it really helps. I can just read along a thread and happily (or not) read posts by unblocked people, quite oblivious to "wars" trying to be waged by others. Then half of my pages turn blank with little notices of "you've chosen to ignore content by..." and I can guess what is happening merely by that alone. When I have peeked I saw I was correct. That's enough motivation not to peek.

I agree with @Beth Macbain, though, I wish block was block. I've read other threads a while back where people knowledgeable in the ways of forum software have explained why that's difficult to do. I nearly hit my screen the other day when one of my forum friends did a complete quote of a blocked person and so, yup, I read it. I should have scrolled. Cats have impulse control issues.

Sad as it is to say, I also have to agree about walking away if something is just pinging one's mental health to bits, and weirdly or not so weirdly, forums can do that. Forums can be a social outlet, and sometimes the only social outlet for people. They can provide a great deal of social support and entertainment for folks, and if it does, it hurts like hell to have that taken away by those who see forums in terms of wars to be won, gangs to belong to, etc.  Those people suck the living hell out of forums. I've walked away from SL Forum for years at a time. I had to, because of energy vampires and their endless need for attention, muckraking, faux vengeance, and just plain evil craziness.

Some people thrive on divisiveness, in creating a hostile atmosphere, and sometimes it seems LL allows it, and while I have been upfront about my mental issues (depression, anxiety, PTSD) because I'm not ashamed of it and don't think people should hide those things out of shame, and while I will sort of gladly state that I'm crazy or nuts, I'm not THAT crazy or nuts. That need to malignantly pot-stir is some kind of warped way of being that I'm glad I cannot empathize with. Anyway, the point being, yeah, sometimes folks have to walk away, for however long, for whatever reason. SR did an adorable Official Flounce™ from the photo thread, because that place was getting on "her" last nerve and hasn't been back since and life is better.

For various reasons, the cat is getting most of the say these days. This is a type of gentle removal from the forum, because while it is (usually) not intentional, Gato posts a bit differently than SR.

Wow, it's been a while since I've typed a novella.

 

[Gatogateau]

I dunno if the Community Rules allow  this post (I expect it to poof), but the following is very much a pet peeve of mine lately with the Forum. I will quote myself, 

28 minutes ago, Gatogateau said:

Some people thrive on divisiveness, in creating a hostile atmosphere, and sometimes it seems LL allows it

I was alluding to LL allowing a "member status" which reads "BullyBee Watcher" to remain as a 24/7 dig at a select, NAMED—either explicitly or implicitly—group of SPECIFIC avatars. This seems to be a breach of LL's rule about not carrying on personal conflicts in the Forum. It is also a form of hate speech. It is used to harass and denigrate a specific group of people. It creates a hostile posting environment. I have AR'd this "status" several times, with a good, clear argument about why I think that status should be removed. LL is ignoring it. Fine, that's their right. But I think it is wrong and hypocritical. Normally I'd just roll my eyes at such Jr. High school "antics" as I'm not that thin skinned. Not so in this case, since the avatar in question has shown a repeated hostile intent against these avatars, referring to them as a gang and her waging war.

SR changed her status accordingly and will probably keep it like that, or even more specifically, until LL lives by its own rules. The cat doesn't have enough posts under her collar to be able to customize her profile badge, or else heaven only knows what would be there. :::purrs:::

Edited May 26, 2020 by Gatogateau
lol, thin skinned not thinned skin

[Rolig Loon]

2 hours ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

Or just scroll / ignore.  

I don't typically block folks, but I am getting better at just scrolling past some stuff.  It does ME no good to continually be upset about something. So I'm learning to ignore, for my own sanity and stress levels.

I ignored the GD forum entirely for many years because it was so toxic, then started lurking and participating here when Maddy lured convinced me that saner voices were on the ascendant.  CoVid-19 seems to be doing a job on everyone's mental state, so perhaps "saner" has become less certain again.  In any case, I will join Lil in scrolling / ignoring most of the heated threads here for a while. My own sanity is still more or less intact, but I don't want to be responsible for tipping anyone else over the edge by accident.

[Luna Bliss]

6 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said:

In any case, I will join Lil in scrolling / ignoring most of the heated threads here for a while.

I don't have anyone blocked. I do scroll sometimes. Even those I've had tiffs with sometimes have interesting things to say, and I wouldn't get to see that if they were blocked.

[Sylvia Tamalyn]

13 minutes ago, Gatogateau said:

I was alluding to LL allowing a "member status" which reads "BullyBee Watcher" to remain as a 24/7 dig at a select, NAMED—either explicitly or implicitly—group of SPECIFIC avatars. This seems to be a breach of LL's "rule" about not carrying on personal conflicts in the Forum. It is also a form of hate speech. It is used to harass and denigrate a specific group of people. It creates a hostile posting environment. I have AR'd this "status" several times, with a good, clear argument about why I think that status should be removed. LL is ignoring it. Fine, that's their right. But I think it is wrong and hypocritical. Normally I'd just roll my eyes at such Jr. High school "antics" as I'm not that thinned skin. Not so in this case, since the avatar in question has shown a repeated hostile intent against these avatars, referring to them as a gang and her waging war.

I kind of like it that she's clueless enough to use that as her forum tag thing. It clearly shows everyone that she is operating with a (hypocritical) agenda, and it ain't "kumbaya". 

[Gatogateau]

2 minutes ago, Sylvia Tamalyn said:

I kind of like it that she's clueless enough to use that as her forum tag thing. It clearly shows everyone that she is operating with a (hypocritical) agenda, and it ain't "kumbaya". 

Yeah, the old Pep thing of letting idiots fly their I'm an Idiot or trolls their I'm a Troll flags high and proud for all to see (and usually these folks do get to fly both at once). I get that.

[LittleMe Jewell]

Something that bothers me often:  People that enter a thread and add a response, yet the response clearly shows that they did not read the entire OP (maybe nothing more than the thread title).