superpeeve Oh my Gawd! - Totally unOfficial Pet Peeve Thread.

[Love Zhaoying]

7 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

If it's used primarily by those types of people, I'd actually prefer to be considered a 'normie' and NOT belong to that group.  Just the fact they use it puts them in a category of people I'd rather not interact with anyway.  Nice of them to out themselves as toxic people for us all to avoid.

Might just change my title to Proud Normie!

I like your point of view!

When I first saw Scylla's post, my mind went to the Wednesday series, where it's "Outcasts" vs. "Normals". Now, it's more obvious why they may not use "normie".

[Scylla Rhiadra]

3 hours ago, kali Wylder said:

I don't think I ever heard anyone refer to anyone else as a normie.  Is that like neurotypical?  I'm a bit on the divergent side myself so maybe that's why nobody has ever accused me or normie-ness.

I have seen the term used in this context maybe once or twice; what makes it a little insidious is that by a pretty common slippage in language usage, "normie" is now being used uncritically by some within other communities, notably gamers, anime lovers, and furries. The latter is particularly bizarre in a way: 4Chan and the alt right generally hate furries with a passion.

I have somewhat fewer objections to its use with the ND community, because it is working hard to establish that being divergent isn't an "illness," and has its own legitimacy. In general, though, I still dislike any cultural expression that focuses upon negativity and exclusion to establish its own bona fides.

[JetReigns]

I feel like normie is used differently here on SL than it is in most corners of the internet though... Some people use it to distinguish realistic human avatars from things like kemono and anime style avatars. I don't think it's meant to be an insult?

 

My pet peeve is whatever you call those sounds some people use on SL. High-pitch, munchkin voices have a way of grating every nerve in my body. I've also heard people use (uncomfortably heavy) breathing sound effects and automatically play music every time they walk. Not a fan of the spanking and moaning either.

I sound like a prude but really I'm just sensitive to sounds, especially voices.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

1 hour ago, Love Zhaoying said:

I learned more about "incels" from Google after reading Scylla's post than I wanted to know. Thanks, @Scylla Rhiadra. I think!

Should you want to know more (and god knows it would be understandable if you don't), the best overall introduction to the history and culture of that community that I know is Natalie Wynn's vodcast on the subject. Wynn is a former academic (she was doing a PhD in philosophy, I think) who has remade herself as an influential commentator on online culture; her vodcasts are thoughtful, informative, well-researched, and almost always immensely entertaining in a (deliberately) campy sort of way.

 

[Love Zhaoying]

Peeve: when you "shouldn't" use a word because some people, not all, take its meaning in a way / context that bothers them. ("Triggered", and now "normie" are examples.)

[Istelathis]

32 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I have seen the term used in this context maybe once or twice; what makes it a little insidious is that by a pretty common slippage in language usage, "normie" is now being used uncritically by some within other communities, notably gamers, anime lovers, and furries. 

I share your disdain for the word "normie", I also dislike "neurotypical", and to a certain extent "cis" as all of these words often are used to insult others who do not belong to some group.  I understand the need for the labels, but when I typically see these words being flung around, they are being used to promote an argument.  Calling others NPCs, has gotten a little old as well, it is simply used to dehumanize people.  NPC doesn't make very much sense regardless, because it infers that others are a PC, which then begs the question who is controlling their character in this simulated environment that has been fashioned by some outside source, and if they are in anyway superior.  Who knows, perhaps the AI for NPCs is superior .🙃

 

I mean, I get it, but at the same time I don't like all of the hate that has become dominate in our society and the constant stream of people trying to divide one another rather than try to find commonalities to build upon.  This to me is highly strange, considering just how incredibly solitary of a person I am and that I am often considered different.

[Ayashe Ninetails]

20 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I have seen the term used in this context maybe once or twice; what makes it a little insidious is that by a pretty common slippage in language usage, "normie" is now being used uncritically by some within other communities, notably gamers, anime lovers, and furries. The latter is particularly bizarre in a way: 4Chan and the alt right generally hate furries with a passion.

I can't speak on anime or furry communities, but as a lifelong gamer, I have never encountered that term, thankfully. Not in Discord, not in Vent/Teamspeak, not in guilds, not in MMOs, not on YouTube, not on Twitch, not on Reddit, not on the Steam forums (where you'd expect it most! 😂), not in other games, not in SL, not from gamers I knew/know.

I HAVE heard "Normans," but only in one channel on Twitch, and it's said by a political streamer - referring to people who, smartly, don't binge news and politics 24/7. Never heard it anywhere else. 

I must be very fortunate, because that would annoy the stuffins out of me if I had to listen to that daily. Maybe more annoying than "we chillin', we chillin' bro, no cap." *groans*

[Coffee Pancake]

43 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Should you want to know more...

That's it, get them hooked on Natalie with a short video, exhaust her excellent catalog and then find themselves down hbomberguy's tormented rabbit hole ❤️

This is how we win.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

14 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Peeve: when you "shouldn't" use a word because some people, not all, take its meaning in a way / context that bothers them. ("Triggered", and now "normie" are examples.)

"Shouldn't" is a rather vague word. I will agree that the more extreme varieties of "political correctness" that engage in attacks upon people for words they might have unknowingly employed are counter-productive and frequently ugly.

What, I suppose, should dictate one's choices about the use of a word is one's understanding of the impacts it causes. If one is using a slur or a term associated with a toxic viewpoint or culture, then one is having very real impacts, negative ones, upon one's auditors. Where a person is doing so unknowingly, then it is beneficial to them to explain what those impacts are. Where a person is doing so deliberately, then they are saying something about themselves as bigots or what have you, and they probably deserve the grief that they have invited. In my experience, it's generally not difficult to tell these two apart.

If I am using a term that is problematic to some people, I want to know that, and I'm grateful when someone points that fact out to me because it empowers and educates me. For instance, at one point some time ago, I was frankly unaware of the difference between the terms "trans woman" and "transwoman." There are real cultural and semantic reasons why the former is acceptable, the latter viewed as a kind of slur, and I was extremely thankful that this was pointed out to me, as the last thing I wanted to be doing was unintentionally insult people I believe deserve support.

Language is a tool, and sometimes a weapon. And any intelligent user of either of these things wants to be as fully educated and skillful in their employment as they can be.

Edited January 1, 2023 by Scylla Rhiadra
Ugh

[Scylla Rhiadra]

27 minutes ago, Istelathis said:

I share your disdain for the word "normie", I also dislike "neurotypical", and to a certain extent "cis" as all of these words often are used to insult others who do not belong to some group.  I understand the need for the labels, but when I typically see these words being flung around, they are being used to promote an argument.  Calling others NPCs, has gotten a little old as well, it is simply used to dehumanize people.  NPC doesn't make very much sense regardless, because it infers that others are a PC, which then begs the question who is controlling their character in this simulated environment that has been fashioned by some outside source, and if they are in anyway superior.  Who knows, perhaps the AI for NPCs is superior .🙃

 

I mean, I get it, but at the same time I don't like all of the hate that has become dominate in our society and the constant stream of people trying to divide one another rather than try to find commonalities to build upon.  This to me is highly strange, considering just how incredibly solitary of a person I am and that I am often considered different.

I agree very much overall with what you say here, although personally I find "cis" (speaking as a cis woman myself) fairly unproblematic: I think the term itself is largely descriptive rather than judgmental. (Which is not to say that there aren't instances of people insulting or dismissing cis men and women. Of course there are.) I've never felt insulted by being termed "cis," and in fact am very comfortable describing myself as such.

In general, I try to avoid "labels." I get called an "SJW" a lot. It doesn't really bother me much, in one sense: the "SJ" very nicely describes things that are definitely of central interest to me. But I also recognize that it's used dismissively, and in that sense, because it means that the person using it isn't really listening, but is just sort of waving me off as a "type," I dislike it.

And this is why I try not to use other such labels such as "MRA" or even "TERF." On a purely semantic level, these are, again, descriptive terms that were initially employed by members of those communities to describe themselves, but whatever their origin, they've become, like such terms as "SJW" or "woke," a reductive way of not listening to what such people have to say. If I refer to someone as a "TERF," I'm bundling them up together with a whole bunch of attitudes that I'm implicitly suggesting aren't even worthy of a serious response, and I'm ensuring that the person I'm so labeling will not bother listening to me. And that, it seems to me, defeats the entire point of communication.

That said, I'm also not going to try to dictate what language people use. I understand why members of the trans community use the term "TERF," and even if I don't like it, I'm not about to tell others who are much more vulnerable than I and whose very existence is literally under attack by such people, that they "shouldn't" use it.

Edited January 1, 2023 by Scylla Rhiadra

[Garnet Psaltery]

When did a pet peeve thread become a lecture room?  

[Love Zhaoying]

33 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

"Shouldn't" is a rather vague word. I will agree that the more extreme varieties of "political correctness" that engage in attacks upon people for words they might have unknowingly employed are counter-productive and frequently ugly.

What, I suppose, should dictate one's choices about the use of a word is one's understanding of the impacts it causes. If one is using a slur or a term associated with a toxic viewpoint or culture, then one is having very real impacts, negative ones, upon one's auditors. Where a person is doing so unknowingly, then it is beneficial to them to explain what those impacts are. Where a person is doing so deliberately, then they are saying something about themselves as bigots or what have you, and they probably deserve the grief that they have invited. In my experience, it's generally not difficult to tell these two apart.

If I am using a term that is problematic to some people, I want to know that, and I'm grateful when someone points that fact out to me because it empowers and educates me. For instance, at one point some time ago, I was frankly unaware of the difference between the terms "trans woman" and "transwoman." There are real cultural and semantic reasons why the former is acceptable, the latter viewed as a kind of slur, and I was extremely thankful that this was pointed out to me, as the last thing I wanted to be doing was unintentionally insult people I believe deserve support.

Language is a tool, and sometimes a weapon. And any intelligent user of either of these things wants to be as fully educated and skillful in their employment as they can be.

Sorry, I'm still remembering people telling me literally, "stop using that word". Much stronger than "shouldn't". Can you please suggest a better term than "should not", in that context?

[Love Zhaoying]

2 minutes ago, Garnet Psaltery said:

When did a pet peeve thread become a lecture room?  

I guess you have to look at the topic, and who's lecturing. Peeve: some have self-control issues. ("Must..not..lecture.." *explodes*)

[Scylla Rhiadra]

6 minutes ago, Garnet Psaltery said:

When did a pet peeve thread become a lecture room?  

These are all demonstrably peeves, and we are, as one does on a forum, discussing them. There are means at hand should you wish to avoid seeing them, Garnet.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

6 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Sorry, I'm still remembering people telling me literally, "stop using that word". Much stronger than "shouldn't". Can you please suggest a better term than "should not", in that context?

No, not really Love, because I can't be responsible for how others use the word. I think my explanation makes clear my view: you "shouldn't" use a term if some deem it insulting, and you dont wish to insult them. It's not the same as "mustn't" or "can't."

In the instance to which you are referring, I think that I too was being "admonished," at least implicitly. I learned from the experience, actually.

[Love Zhaoying]

5 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

No, not really Love, because I can't be responsible for how others use the word. I think my explanation makes clear my view: you "shouldn't" use a term if some deem it insulting, and you dont wish to insult them. It's not the same as "mustn't" or "can't."

In the instance to which you are referring, I think that I too was being "admonished," at least implicitly. I learned from the experience, actually.

Peeve: this logic, while seemingly kind, makes it difficult to "take back" words used against groups. For instance, I and others are set on "taking back" the word "queer", while others in the same group (LGBT in this case) are still bothered by the word. In my opinion - those who want to "take back" a word and use it despite other's potential discomfort - those, are the people pushing society towards greater acceptance and healing. The Peeve is real. 

[Arielle Popstar]

18 minutes ago, Garnet Psaltery said:

When did a pet peeve thread become a lecture room?  

It is like one normie telling her other normie's that she has had a linguistic awokening about the word normie and that it is no longer a safe word that can be used by social justicing workers in polite company. Should, could, would sounds like it will be lectured about in an upcoming post, so stay tuned! 

[Rowan Amore]

[Scylla Rhiadra]

16 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Peeve: this logic, while seemingly kind, makes it difficult to "take back" words used against groups. For instance, I and others are set on "taking back" the word "queer", while others in the same group (LGBT in this case) are still bothered by the word. In my opinion - those who want to "take back" a word and use it despite other's potential discomfort - those, are the people pushing society towards greater acceptance and healing. The Peeve is real. 

Well, it's always difficult to take back words! It's a deliberately political move that is, by definition, breaking norms, right? That's literally the point of it: you are telling people that they "shouldn't" use a word in a particular way, because you want to redefine (or reclaim) it.

Reclaiming words is also always going to be problematic, because there are always going to be those who refuse to go along. And what that means in practice is that who is using it, and how it is being used, needs to be treated critically.

To use the example you give: I use the word "queer" in some technical and specifically academic senses. I teach "Queer Theory," and I use the word as a verb: such and such a person is "queering" our understanding of something (which means seeing it from a new and radically strange perspective).

But as a cishet woman, I'd be very careful about my use of it as a personal descriptor, as for instance, "She is queer," because there are too many people who use it that way negatively.

An analogy is the modern currency of the N-word. People of colour have a right to use it how they please: it refers to them. I, on the other hand, would not, because it's not "about" me, and it can too easily be read as a slur coming from someone who is not black.

[Love Zhaoying]

54 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Well, it's always difficult to take back words! It's a deliberately political move that is, by definition, breaking norms, right? That's literally the point of it: you are telling people that they "shouldn't" use a word in a particular way, because you want to redefine (or reclaim) it.

Reclaiming words is also always going to be problematic, because there are always going to be those who refuse to go along. And what that means in practice is that who is using it, and how it is being used, needs to be treated critically.

To use the example you give: I use the word "queer" in some technical and specifically academic senses. I teach "Queer Theory," and I use the word as a verb: such and such a person is "queering" our understanding of something (which means seeing it from a new and radically strange perspective).

But as a cishet woman, I'd be very careful about my use of it as a personal descriptor, as for instance, "She is queer," because there are too many people who use it that way negatively.

An analogy is the modern currency of the N-word. People of colour have a right to use it how they please: it refers to them. I, on the other hand, would not, because it's not "about" me, and it can too easily be read as a slur coming from someone who is not black.

I thought the example I used was pretty good.

Sorry you don't like analogies. Maybe a good topic for a peeve!

P.S. I didn't suggest making certain words ok for everyone to use about targeted groups. Quite the opposite: I said "taking back" a word. As a cishet woman, your opinion of my usage of "queer" is irrelevant! Fun, hey?

Edited January 1, 2023 by Love Zhaoying

[Kathlen Onyx]

50 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

An analogy is the modern currency of the N-word. People of colour have a right to use it how they please: it refers to them. I, on the other hand, would not, because it's not "about" me, and it can too easily be read as a slur coming from someone who is not black.

As a Caucasian person I have never, ever used this word. It has always been offensive to me. Who decided that this word was acceptable for people of color to use? I don't care who is using it, I still find it offensive.  How black do you have to be for it to be "ok" to use? What if you look white but are 50% African American? If a word is offensive it's offensive, I don't care who is using it.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

30 minutes ago, Sam1 Bellisserian said:

As a Caucasian person I have never, ever used this word. It has always been offensive to me. Who decided that this word was acceptable for people of color to use? I don't care who is using it, I still find it offensive.  How black do you have to be for it to be "ok" to use? What if you look white but are 50% African American? If a word is offensive it's offensive, I don't care who is using it.

Honestly, Sam, this is my preference too.

I feel exactly the same way about terms like "sl*t"and "whore," which I dislike deeply -- but I'm not going to police other women about the language they use to describe themselves. And, despite my personal agreement with you on this, I'm certainly not going to tell POC what words they are permitted to employ with reference to themselves.

There is something to be said for the reappropriation of language as a means of self-empowerment: Love's example, "Queer," is good one in that regard. But it's often a double-edged sword in my view.

Edited January 1, 2023 by Scylla Rhiadra

[Scylla Rhiadra]

40 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

I thought the example I used was pretty good.

Sorry you don't like analogies. Maybe a good topic for a peeve!

*coughs*

You used an example, which I agree was good. It's not an analogy, which is what I used. I employed the N-word as an analogy -- a parallel instance that sheds some light on the original example -- because I think it is more familiar to most people.

42 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

P.S. I didn't suggest making certain words ok for everyone to use about targeted groups. Quite the opposite: I said "taking back" a word.

I didn't suggest that you did.

42 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

As a cishet woman, your opinion of my usage of "queer" is irrelevant! Fun, hey?

Which is actually pretty much precisely what I said myself, no?

[Love Zhaoying]

17 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

*coughs*

You used an example, which I agree was good. It's not an analogy, which is what I used. I employed the N-word as an analogy -- a parallel instance that sheds some light on the original example -- because I think it is more familiar to most people.

I didn't suggest that you did.

Which is actually pretty much precisely what I said myself, no?

Peeve: Perhaps if I didn't find your posts so..upsetting, I'd read the entire thing instead of replying to the first point that seems offensive.

My bad!

[LittleMe Jewell]

Peeve:  I might have to admit that I'm an Inventory Hoarder. 

I went through my old Pixel Dolls folder.  Pretty sure that I must have bought everything in the store when they had their closing sale.  While I kept a few tops for BOM layers under jackets, I deleted 99% of the stash -- just shy of 5000 items.

And my inventory is still almost 170,000.