Toribash
Why can't I call you bud? Just means buddy. I called you mate - You didn't oppose mate.

So look bud, I'm not gonna waste time arguing with you about comedy. I can't think of anything more unproductive to do.

Glad to know I'm 'erasing some of humanity's atrocities', 'subconsciously racist' and that South Park is bad. You've really educated me.
Originally Posted by Maya
I just dislike bud more than mate. Why do you feel the need to question my comfort with these words?

Questioning your discomfort with bud cus I'm sure there's some bullshit 'whiny baby' reason behind it.
Originally Posted by Maya
I'm going to once again ask you not to use that word. It has masculine coding and I do not feel comfortable being referenced with it. I don't know how many times I have to ask you not to use masculine coded words to reference me. You're doing it intentionally and it is obviously malicious.

Aaaaand there it is.

Only in your twisted, 'whiny baby', ' pathologizing everyday experience', 'impotent victimhood' world is calling someone bud/buddy offensive. Honestly bud, get the fuck over yourself. I'm 'misgendering' you (and transphobic) because I'm calling you bud? That's laughable. You're ridiculous. You're like a caricature of yourself at this point.

So no, I'm not going to take you seriously. Why? Because you're acting like a joke.

I wonder if there's any staff that'll infract me for calling someone bud
--------------------
This is exactly the point of this thread. If they're looking for it, people will find problems wherever they look, in the absence of actual problems. The definition of what's 'problematic' gets broadened to the point of ridiculousness. The pussification (or 'comfortabilization') of society has lead to some people now getting offended (and crying 'transphobia') at being called 'bud'.

Thank-you for proving my point, Maya. Knew I could count on you.
Last edited by Ele; Feb 12, 2020 at 07:10 PM.
Originally Posted by Icky View Post
Congrats. A lot of victims are though.

Some of possible reasons why are;

You dodged a bullet, you lucked out.

Or your memories of the discipline and your rantionalisation of them make you see they werent that bad but the imprint they made was severe.

Your parents weren't abusive.

~~~

Justt cause the survivors survived, doesn't mean its a viable way to go about things.

To me this ended up the more interesting discussion in this thread. Maya handily makes herself look stupid, I no longer find it entertaining to pile-on.

I've seen the abused become abusers. It's not always how things go, but it is certainly a common route for the abused.
They normalise the abuse they received, and through that lens they rationalise the abuse they inflict.
I've had discussions with a person who had a tremendous level of cognitive dissonance on the subject, so I largely think Icky is spot-on with the rationalisation stuff. I mean, I've witnessed it. "I've seen some things, man, and some stuff... wouldn't recommend it!"


I was a difficult kid, and I'm sure many parents would have done worse to me than what I received. I'm grateful for my mum's 'compromise.' I grew up in an extremely violent environment, so I'm very aware of the effects of violence, but none of that came from my family or carers, the people a child trusts implicitly.

My mother, a stern Scottish woman who saw corporal punishment doled out on the boys in her school system, her brothers included, came up with what she felt was a compromise: on the few occasions where she really felt need to get through to me, she lightly smacked the back of my hand. It was done sparingly.
Any British kid who was forced to (somehow unironically) read A Kestrel For A Knave in school will know why the back of the hand works so well... and I guess anyone reading this who got the cane as a child.

It was light, but it was enough of a shock to really get my attention. In that regard it worked very well.
Now, the things she told me once she held my attention... well, I might not have understood the lesson, but that's different - she sure as shit had my full attention. My grandparents were pinchers, which hurt, while I certainly wouldn't call that abuse - the pain made me more temper-tantrumy. The hand smacks worked better because it didn't actually hurt.

If I ever adopt, I won't do what she did. But I think I'm able to make that decision because I wasn't really physically disciplined growing up.
-----
Also I should note: the hand smack was *NEVER* a "punishment", it was a way to stop me from acting like a maniac in that moment.
Defaulting to corporal punishment is just bad parenting.
Last edited by DrGonz; Feb 13, 2020 at 01:20 AM. Reason: <24 hour edit/bump
Originally Posted by Thorn View Post
I'll take the hardship of having peaceful nonconformists over fighting and war any day, the idea that we need our life threatened because people are annoying on Twitter is pathetic

Yeah cool Thorn. Good thing that idea isn't the one I'm circulating here.
Originally Posted by fudgiebalz View Post
is this saying that life needs to be violent to be normal?

Originally Posted by Ele View Post
No.

It's saying that our identification of 'violent'/'problematic' acts becomes broader and more encompassing over time, for a variety of reasons. That's concept creep (the first article).
The other part of this is that as things become rarer, if we're looking for them, we can still find them even when they're not there, solely because we are trying so hard to look for them. That's prevalence-induced concept change (the second article).

If you take these two articles together, it explains something that's happening in our culture. We look for shit to complain about in the absence of really big smelly shits (we complain about farting perhaps, which isn't even shitting).
We whinge and cry about stuff that people who've dealt with actual existential threats would brush off. We get mad at Smaiva for making a 'did u assume my gender' joke.

"Although conceptual change is inevitable and often well motivated, concept creep runs the risk of pathologizing everyday experience and encouraging a sense of virtuous but impotent victimhood."

Modern living absolutely has its problems. I'm not denying that. I am asserting, however, that some 'modern problems' are only problems because people are looking to make mountains out of mole-hills (pathologizing everyday experience).

My recommendation for everybody to go get punched in the face is aimed at getting people to put their threats into perspective. Life doesn't need to be violent to be normal, but having some violence in your life can put things into perspective.

I'll also throw in this exchange with sirkill, for good measure, since he pretty much said the same thing as you,
Originally Posted by sirkill1 View Post
Lol you say all this like it's a bad thing that life becomes easier for future generations, I'd love to see your attempt at surviving a cold winter in 1785 Russia, starvation style.

Originally Posted by Ele View Post
Certainly not. Just that we become softer as true threats become scarcer, and in this scarcity of true threats, we start to broaden the idea of what a true threat actually is.

I wouldn't want to live 100 years ago, and you wouldn't either (as you said), because we both recognise the difference between true threats and soft threats.

So yeah, read past the OP bro. Cetainly not saying war is more desirable than peace...
Last edited by Ele; Feb 13, 2020 at 04:28 AM.
My point is about trying to explain why people complain about frivolous things. Yes, there are real issues to discuss regarding trans people and gender (real problems that have come to light with the expansion of what we identify as problematic). But also yes, along with those real issues, there are some silly things that have been raised as problems too.

Do you reckon microaggressions are a legit problem Icky? Is calling a trans woman bud transphobic?
Last edited by Ele; Feb 13, 2020 at 12:46 PM.
Originally Posted by Icky View Post
Why does my opinion matter to you? You and I both know you will/would argue against it even just on the premise of continuing the thread.

Sure about that? If you think bud is problematic, then you think it's problematic. I'm hardly gonna change your mind.

Originally Posted by Icky
But I'm aware enough that my personal reasons for it are due to my experience with it, which differ greatly to others. I think buddy is a shit word for the same reason.

Yeah, I get that some people find it problematic.

I just don't buy it. I think it's a totally silly thing to get all up in arms about.
Originally Posted by Icky
Being told not to call someone that, by that person themselves no less should be enough for you to not do that. Otherwise you're that kid from the playground that thinks it's cool to be a bully.

Irrelevant of your disagreements over the words offensiveness on a topic/issue you don't directly deal with, you're being a dickhead. And you know that.

If you think it's a microaggression and isn't that big a deal, fine. Your opinion. But if you suddenly just start using that word with the full intent to be antagonistic, then you're being an asshole, and being an asshole on purpose isn't micro anything. It's just being an asshole.

Look mate, I'm not about calling gay people 'faggots' or black people 'niggers'. If something is legitimately offensive, I won't say it.

But part of what's wrong with the world right now (in my opinion) is that 'offense' seemingly has everything to with the someone's perception and nothing to do with the 'offendors' intentions.


That's why I took a stand on 'bud' being an OK way to refer to people (that and the common sense notion that only somebody wacky would get offended by its usage). Not to be antagonistic, but to stick up for (what I perceive to be) common sense. I really don't care if you call me a dickhead for that. Sticks n stones may break my bones but words are just words.

But I can be gracious. For you, Maya and anyone else who finds 'bud' to be an offensive, transphobic term, I will stop using it. That's my gift to you. You don't have to thank me.


Concept creep gone mad.
Last edited by Ele; Feb 13, 2020 at 04:35 PM.
Originally Posted by Maya View Post
You're judged by your actions, not your intentions, as with anything else in life. You cannot kill a person with the intention of defending your property when they posed no threat to you. Does your "innocent" intention justify the murder?

What a completely batshit crazy thing to say.

Well, yes intention does matter when discussing murder. If you're not intending to kill someone then you don't get charged with murder, you get charged with manslaughter and the sentence isn't as severe (legal studies 101 mate ((I can call you mate, right?)). Why?


Becaaaaause, intentions matter. They inform future action. Do you judge someone who accidently stabs you with a pair of scissors the same way you judge someone who's stabbed you because they wanted to harm you? No, you treat them differently. The way you do things and the intent with which you do them matters. Imagine not being Hitler and thinking consequentialism is a valid theory. So very, very misguided.

Honestly, in general, this community (and yours specifically Maya) heads are so far jammed up their own collective PC assholes, there's no distinction between left and right anymore. Staff (Icky et al) are such pussies that they infracted me for 4 points for calling Maya 'bud'. Hey Icky, you called me a dickhead. That's puporsely inflammatory. Infract yourself, dickhead. Guess it's not a two way street though, huh? I'm done talking sense to this community. 'Whiny baby' staff have run it to the ground.

Have fun everyone. Good luck.
Last edited by Ele; Feb 14, 2020 at 08:57 AM.