Jump to content

Recommended Posts

33 minutes ago, Sylvia Tamalyn said:

Honestly, from what little we've been given here, I'd say the best thing to do is MYOB.

There's nothing in what we've been given here that indicates that the guy is in any sort of financial bind, or that he needs or has requested help. It's a lot of assuming about what might happen without enough information (for instance, the lack of info about whether the person has a guardian). Without having a lot more information about his mental abilities, his financial situation, whether someone is already looking out for him, whether he even NEEDS to be looked after.... well, this just seems presumptuous to me and I have to wonder how HE would feel about it. 

I gotta go with this.  I feel it's all assumptions as well.  You are better off blocking him than anything else BECAUSE he is a grown up and you have no control of the situation.  

And, I'm just saying to block him if it is upsetting you too much.  You need to go on with your life now and try to relax because this situation is totally out of your control.   If it keeps upsetting you, try using an alt for awhile is another possibility.  

Edited by FairreLilette
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Annabell Wandsworth said:

Hello

I'm not sure where to go with this. I have been talking to a person who I think is retarded (yes, I know, I'm not supposed to use that word). He is spending a lot of money in sl on land, and giving other people money. 

I don't want to get him booted from sl, but I have no other idea how to protect him. Any advise is appreciated.

If you know you shouldn't use that term, why do so? Why not use an acceptable term that isn't insulting? It isn't hard to be a polite person.

Perhaps your heart is in the right place, but I have to question that when you find it acceptable to use a deragatory word to describe someone you are supposedly concerned about.

Everyone else is right. It isn't any of your business what this guy does with his time or money. It certainly isn't your place to question his stability. Perhaps he is lonely. Perhaps he has a generous spirit. Whatever the reason he does what he does, is his business. He isn't harming anyone or breaking terms of service by being generous. Perhaps it makes him happy! Whatever the reason, it is rude to speak about him as you have.

Realize your words and actions towards others can cause harm.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Lindal Kidd said:

Both Anya and Drake have raised a very real possibility...that Big Spender is just messing with your head.  There are plenty of twisted people in SL who really get off on this.

Your concern is laudable, but there's just no way to know, in our anonymous world, what someone else's Real Life situation really is.

Take people as they appear...but keep a bit of cynicism too.  The only thing you have control over is YOU...so if someone is upsetting you, maybe you want to step away from that person.

This is true. The mantra "Trust but verify" definitely applies here (and most of SL in general, heck: the Internet as a whole). I have found the best way to interract with cognitively-handicapped people is to just treat them the same way as though there were no handicap, perhaps scale intellect downward a touch, as you speaking to someone yoinger and still learning, but still just as frankly or otherwise normally as you would anyone else.

42 minutes ago, LyricalBookworm said:

If you know you shouldn't use that term, why do so? Why not use an acceptable term that isn't insulting? It isn't hard to be a polite person.

Retardation, by definition, is what it is. If you or anyone else takes offense at or find using a proper term to describe a particular aspect of a subject to be insulting, then that is your issue, not the speaker or writer. Not using words or substituting silly pseudo-words for real words is how the language gets dumbed-down to stupid levels.

Have you ever used the "N-word" I have, all the time and I call it to people's faces when it applies: "You nitwit"; "you nincompoop"; "You numb-scull. Huh, all "N" words"... By using "N-word" to substitute for a real word because you are too squeamish to use it because someone else will feel offended is no excuse to shy away from properly communicating your message. Own your own mind for a change. If it's in the dictionary and the definition applies then use the word, but use it in the proper context. To which, I believe the OP did just that. Don't be *****rdly with the language. OH NO! Another N-word!!!

Edited by Alyona Su
  • Like 3
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Alyona Su said:

Retardation, by definition, is what it is. If you or anyone else takes offense at using proper terms to describe a particular aspect of a subject, then that offense is your issue, not the speaker or writer. Not using words or substituting silly pseudo-words for real words is how the language gets dumbed-down to stupid levels.

And a bastard is someone whose parents aren't married, but we don't use the word outside of Game of Thrones (at least I hope we don't) because it's offensive and unnecessary. There are plenty of other ways to put it if you need to refer to it.

"Retarded" is offensive and unnecessary, even if it is, strictly speaking, correct as a definition. You can say a person has learning difficulties or disabilities; it's just as accurate but isn't insulting. Neither is it "silly pseudo-words" or "dumbing down" (what is this objection to language evolving? Do we speak nowadays like the Gawain Poet or the author of Beowulf? Do you still drape a toilet round your shoulders when washing your hair?). It's perfectly accurate, inclusive and respectful. If anything, it's more complex than simply "retarded", not "dumbed down" at all.

When you have such an alternative, which is entirely correct and accurate, and which people with disabilities have indicated that they prefer, why wouldn't you want to use it?  And how can finding a new expression to encompass a more sophisticated and nuanced concept, with regards to vulnerable people, ever be a step backwards?

 

Edited by Amina Sopwith
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Alyona Su said:

Retardation, by definition, is what it is.

What Amina said, so very well.

Any word, all words, have meanings that operate at different levels. Most simply, they have denotative meanings -- the dictionary definitions -- and connotative meanings, which are additional, generally socially determined meanings.

The very fact that people commonly use "retarded" as an insult should tell us everything we need to know about the connotations of that word. When you apply it to someone with DS or other form of mental disability, you are also applying those connotations to them.

It is, as Amina says, unnecessary. In fact, it's so unnecessary as to come across almost as deliberate.

22 minutes ago, Alyona Su said:

Don't be *****rdly with the language. OH NO! Another N-word!!!

Only if you misspell it. The word uses an "a" rather than an "e" before the "r."

Although the software here apparently doesn't care, and censors it even if you spell it correctly.

/me rolls eyes

Edited by Scylla Rhiadra
OFFS
  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Alyona Su said:

Retardation, by definition, is what it is. If you or anyone else takes offense at or find using a proper term to describe a particular aspect of a subject to be insulting, then that is your issue, not the speaker or writer. Not using words or substituting silly pseudo-words for real words is how the language gets dumbed-down to stupid levels.

Over time a marginalized group often encounters others making fun of them via certain words used as a put-down -- the words are used to denote that the marginalized group is somehow 'less-than' others. And so the marginalized group decides they don't want those words used in reference to themselves anymore, and we need to respect their wishes. All people have the right to define themselves, using the words they determine as non-offensive.

Some marginalized groups do a reclaiming of the words that were once used to make them 'less-than', and in doing so reclaim their power. For example, black people often use the N-word among themselves, lesbians call each other 'dykes', and "white knights" who believe it's a virtue to help others less powerful while receiving such an accusation thrown their way say, "yeah, thanks for calling me that, I love it!" lol  And yes, I'm "politically correct" too -- they used to call that caring about "civil rights".

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Alyona Su said:

Retardation, by definition, is what it is. If you or anyone else takes offense at or find using a proper term to describe a particular aspect of a subject to be insulting, then that is your issue, not the speaker or writer. Not using words or substituting silly pseudo-words for real words is how the language gets dumbed-down to stupid levels.

Have you ever used the "N-word" I have, all the time and I call it to people's faces when it applies: "You nitwit"; "you nincompoop"; "You numb-scull. Huh, all "N" words"... By using "N-word" to substitute for a real word because you are too squeamish to use it because someone else will feel offended is no excuse to shy away from properly communicating your message. Own your own mind for a change. If it's in the dictionary and the definition applies then use the word, but use it in the proper context. To which, I believe the OP did just that. Don't be *****rdly with the language. OH NO! Another N-word!!!

There is a difference in owning your mind, and using degrading language to describe people. Taking ownership is also accepting words can cause harm. I don't need to use deragatory language to clearly convey an idea or point. 

 

 

 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Some marginalized groups do a reclaiming of the words that were once used to make them 'less-than', and in doing so reclaim their power. 

I've never been 100% convinced by this one, but I follow the logic. 

3 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

 And yes, I'm "politically correct" too -- they used to call that caring about "civil rights".

When political correctness first became a "thing", I was far too young to understand it but I picked up that it was clearly a form of collective insanity by idiots.

Imagine my disappointment when I grew up and realised that it simply meant using terms such as "people with dementia" and "wheelchair user". 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Amina Sopwith said:
17 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Some marginalized groups do a reclaiming of the words that were once used to make them 'less-than', and in doing so reclaim their power. 

I've never been 100% convinced by this one, but I follow the logic. 

Not sure I know why you're not convinced by the notion of reclaiming, but I do think that one doesn't have true power when they have to set themselves against another person or group.  I see reclaiming as simply serving a purpose when someone feels oppressed by society, but hopefully, eventually, it would not be needed. So it's a means to an end.

* Similar (in some ways) to how an adolescent displays an attitude of being super independent and not needing anything. We all know that, deep inside, the adolescent feels very shaky emotionally and has not developed a strong sense of self yet.

Edited by Luna Bliss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Amina Sopwith said:

You can say a person has learning difficulties or disabilities;

I have already used the better, proper term (cognitive handicap) - calling it a disability may be offensive to the person with it (I know "disabled" people they they hate the label) and calling it a difficulty is outright unfair (insulting?); a person born without fingers may have better, more beautiful and graceful handwriting than you or I. I believe it comes down to either doing it correctly or doing it emotionally. If it comes down to these two, I prefer the correct over the emotion, albeit I try to be more tactful about it. if this gives reason for people to despise me, then they will despise me, though I believe it will be for the wrong reasons because the words we choose to express anything does not define the entirety of who we are.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Luna Bliss said:

Not sure I know why you're not convinced by the notion of reclaiming, but I do think that one doesn't have true power when they have to set themselves against another person or group.  I see reclaiming as simply serving a purpose when someone feels oppressed by society, but hopefully, eventually, it would not be needed.

I suppose it's that these ugly terms still remain insulting when used by people from outside of that group. (I would never dream of using the N word, for example, even if people are "reclaiming" it.) If it's still got its power to offend in another context then I am not sure the reclaiming has worked. Also I suppose I'd wonder if someone would then use it as an insult and then claim it wasn't insulting. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Only if you misspell it. The word uses an "a" rather than an "e" before the "r."

It was not misspelled and neither did autocorrect changed. The filters are what they are, which is why I did not try to circumvent them by an intentional changing of spelling. Go ahead: give it a go and you'll see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Over time a marginalized group often encounters others making fun of them via certain words used as a put-down -- the words are used to denote that the marginalized group is somehow 'less-than' others. And so the marginalized group decides they don't want those words used in reference to themselves anymore, and we need to respect their wishes. All people have the right to define themselves, using the words they determine as non-offensive.

Some marginalized groups do a reclaiming of the words that were once used to make them 'less-than', and in doing so reclaim their power. For example, black people often use the N-word among themselves, lesbians call each other 'dykes', and "white knights" who believe it's a virtue to help others less powerful while receiving such an accusation thrown their way say, "yeah, thanks for calling me that, I love it!" lol  And yes, I'm "politically correct" too -- they used to call that caring about "civil rights".

Yep, us “Queers” are reclaiming that word. It still bothers some older folks.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Amina Sopwith said:
5 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Not sure I know why you're not convinced by the notion of reclaiming, but I do think that one doesn't have true power when they have to set themselves against another person or group.  I see reclaiming as simply serving a purpose when someone feels oppressed by society, but hopefully, eventually, it would not be needed.

I suppose it's that these ugly terms still remain insulting when used by people from outside of that group. (I would never dream of using the N word, for example, even if people are "reclaiming" it.) If it's still got its power to offend in another context then I am not sure the reclaiming has worked. Also I suppose I'd wonder if someone would then use it as an insult and then claim it wasn't insulting. 

Ah ok, I see what you're saying. A marginalized group uses the reclaimed words among themselves only however. As an outsider we can't use the words to define them anymore, as in the past when we did so they were used to cause harm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Alyona Su said:

if this gives reason for people to despise me, then they will despise me

I never thought badly of you Alyona!   I only thought perhaps you did not understand some of what's going on in the U.S. as you don't live here do you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Over time a marginalized group often encounters others making fun of them via certain words used as a put-down

This is true, and why I specifically pointed to context. Whatever so-called offensive or insult word you use, if the context is to demean another then it is offensive, insulting, demeaning and all the rest. However, if the context is for informational purposes, etc., then any charged emotion is being projected into it where there shouldn't be. Could the OP have used a better description? Yes. Though I'm not sure there is good reason to call them out on it. This is how drama percolates to a boil. And, thus, I will stick to my own principal, just as all of you should stick you yours; we will not change each others' minds. As is always my practice of leaving a toxic scenario, all you can take the last word on it and eventually this will all die and IBL. :)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Alyona Su said:

I have already used the better, proper term (cognitive handicap) - calling it a disability may be offensive to the person with it (I know "disabled" people they they hate the label) and calling it a difficulty is outright unfair (insulting?); a person born without fingers may have better, more beautiful and graceful handwriting than you or I. I believe it comes down to either doing it correctly or doing it emotionally. If it comes down to these two, I prefer the correct over the emotion, albeit I try to be more tactful about it. if this gives reason for people to despise me, then they will despise me, though I believe it will be for the wrong reasons because the words we choose to express anything does not define the entirety of who we are.

None of this is really relevant to you defending an insulting and offensive term because you deem it to be "correct", as though in our rich and evolving language, there were no other words to use. Especially when you do give an alternative (which I wouldn't use either). What's your objection to people avoiding the overtly nasty one when even you admit there are other options?

You'll perhaps never please every last person, but on a community and representative level, people with disabilities have clearly indicated that they prefer "with a learning difficulty/disability" to the ugly, offensive and crude "retarded", which doesn't encapsulate anywhere near as much nuance. I certainly know which one I'd prefer.

I don't think anyone reading this will "despise" you. But I expect that, if you use or defend an ugly, crude term when a respectful and even more accurate one is available, you may cause people to form their own ideas about who is doing the despising and why.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

and "white knights" who believe it's a virtue to help others less powerful while receiving such an accusation thrown their way say, "yeah, thanks for calling me that, I love it!" lol  

...interesting to put them in a line with people who get discriminated for their apperance, abilities or sexuality. Especially, since white knights aren't what you describe. They are not the good guys. If anything, in most cases they are actually closer to being "nice guys". They are people participating in online discussions and traditionally take the side of any female user, that finds herself getting critic for their behavior. Thats why they are called "white knights", because they come for a poor damsel in distress! The prettier the damsel, the more (usually male) knights you get. Ultimately white knights don't act like this from a place of pure goodness and their opponents aren't all dragons, worthy to be slain.

But okay, that was a bit off topic. Although I think everything has been said to the case of the OP and on that I'm going to agree with those, who said that you can't really do much. LL is very very unlikely to do anything and your only option is to keep being his friend and trying to be a good influence by reminding him to put RL responsibilites first.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Yep, us “Queers” are reclaiming that word. It still bothers some older folks.

I once met an elderly woman who was part of a raging feminist movement in my town at the time.  In private conversation, due to some of her previous statements, I asked her if she was a lesbian.  She totally freaked out...even left the room to gain composure before returning.  Apparently, in her day, the word 'lesbian' denoted something akin to a serial killer!  It was shocking for her to hear the word spoken so casually.

Edited by Luna Bliss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Ah ok, I see what you're saying. A marginalized group uses the reclaimed words among themselves only however. As an outsider we can't use the words to define them anymore, as in the past when we did so they were used to cause harm.

That's one reason why I'm not 100% convinced by it...because the word remains offensive and insulting and still has its power to harm.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Alyona Su said:

This is how drama percolates to a boil. And, thus, I will stick to my own principal, just as all of you should stick you yours; we will not change each others' minds. As is always my practice of leaving a toxic scenario, all you can take the last word on it and eventually this will all die and IBL. :)

I think the conversation is interesting and educational.

But I agree, there's no need to vilify someone who doesn't intend to cause harm, and this sidetracks the discussion and can escalate into insanity!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Yep, us “Queers” are reclaiming that word. It still bothers some older folks.

Asians are embracing the term "Yellow" (Not just in that movie, it's true.) Hey, GOLD is yellow and Silver is white, So there! :P 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Amina Sopwith said:
10 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Ah ok, I see what you're saying. A marginalized group uses the reclaimed words among themselves only however. As an outsider we can't use the words to define them anymore, as in the past when we did so they were used to cause harm.

That's one reason why I'm not 100% convinced by it...because the word remains offensive and insulting and still has its power to harm.

The marginalized group reclaimed the word and brought it back to the time when it was not an insult though, so it is not insulting and offensive when they are using it among themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Solar Legion said:

Use depending, most words have the power to harm. Best not to speak or type at all then, hmm? <sarcasm>

In some cases, yes.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...