Case (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
case) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
fandomsecrets2015-04-21 06:41 pm
case) wrote in fandomsecrets2015-04-21 06:41 pm
[ SECRET POST #3030 ]
⌈ Secret Post #3030 ⌋
Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.
01.
__________________________________________________
02.
__________________________________________________
03.
__________________________________________________
04.
__________________________________________________
05.
__________________________________________________
06.
__________________________________________________
07.
__________________________________________________
08.
__________________________________________________
09.
__________________________________________________
10.
__________________________________________________
11.
__________________________________________________
12.
__________________________________________________
13.
__________________________________________________
14.
__________________________________________________
15.
__________________________________________________
16.
Notes:
Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 051 secrets from Secret Submission Post #433.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2015-04-22 05:23 am (UTC)(link)i wouldn't say regardless of my personal class background, as i don't think it's relevant.
Nice goal-post shifting. We went from "a slur must invoke certain associations" and when I hit that goal, you created a new one for me. Now using the slur the way the Tumblr kids do has to reinforce a stereotype for it to be an issue.
it's not goalpost shifting it all. it's a restatement of my previous goalpost. because you responded to that one by essentially saying "No, that's not true, you're wrong" and nothing more. so i asked you to explain precisely how i was wrong. which i would still like to see you do.
i'm sure that you disagree. but i really hope you can make some substantive disagreement, because just arguing over who won / who is more of a shitfucker is a really goddamn pointless debate to have, and that's all we seem to be doing at the moment.
no subject
Uh-huh. The class-privileged person won't say their class background, because their privileged status is irrelevant to a discussion on class! If you're trolling, I have to say nice work, because you're really making me laugh. You're perfectly invoking the stereotype of a privileged douchebag insisting they know better than a marginalized group about their experiences. It's amazing.
it's not goalpost shifting it all. it's a restatement of my previous goalpost.
*slow clap*
because you responded to that one by essentially saying "No, that's not true, you're wrong" and nothing more. so i asked you to explain precisely how i was wrong. which i would still like to see you do.
Oh, you mean I called out your weasel words and challenged your poor logic? And then instead of dealing with the rebuttals, you "restated your goalpost" and insisted I never addressed your reasoning?
but i really hope you can make some substantive disagreement, because just arguing over who won / who is more of a shitfucker is a really goddamn pointless debate to have, and that's all we seem to be doing at the moment.
That's all you're doing. I already destroyed your poor reasoning and now I'm watching you come up with bullshit evasions and goal-post shifting. I can't deny it's been amusing, for me at least.
I disproved your "trash has associations" bullshit, and then rolled on to your "tell me how Hobo party is like X" crap, where you argued that a slur has to be used in a stereotype-enforcing way for it to be bad. And you have yet to answer my rebuttal to that, which is:
Are you arguing that it's okay to use slurs so long as they're not reinforcing stereotypes?
no subject
(Anonymous) 2015-04-22 05:34 am (UTC)(link)You can say a thing, it doesn't make it true.
like...
i mean, i guess it's true, as far as it goes, but it doesn't address the point at all. since clearly i do think it's true. it really looks like it's just saying "no, you're wrong" to me.
but if you've decided to declare victory that's okay too
no subject
(Anonymous) 2015-04-22 05:36 am (UTC)(link)no subject
(Anonymous) 2015-04-22 05:38 am (UTC)(link)okay, no, you pretty much just expanded your point
i'm still pretty sure that you didn't disprove any part of the point about associations, and i can't really find a more in depth argument than "you're just wrong" from you on that point
and regarding slurs, my point is the same as it's been, which is that using slurs is never okay but that trash is not a slur
no subject
On what grounds is it not a slur? I recommend reading your previous argument as cited in my comment/summary below, if you want to avoid needless repetition. In other words, I recommend you find a rebuttal for my previous counters, rather than simply have me counter them again when you repeat your original, already countered, statements.
no subject
That was disproved by me here here in multiple comments throughout the subthread, in which I demonstrated that trash had specific associations. A fact which you tacitly accepted when you ceased to defend that line of reasoning or invoke it whatsoever, instead choosing to move onto another goalpost.
That goalpost was:
A slur must be used in a way that is stereotype-reinforcing for it to be bad. It MUST be used like the "Thug parties" where people dress up like stereotypical thugs and invoke the stereotype. (that goalpost can be found here)
To which I asked you if you believed that it's cool to use slurs if it's not in a stereotype-reinforcing way. You never answered that. (that question can be found at the bottom of this comment.
but if you've decided to declare victory that's okay too
I think you declared victory when you gave up on defending any of the statements you'd previously made, upon them being challenged.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2015-04-22 06:01 am (UTC)(link)sorry, no, i just stopped posting in that thread because the line of argument seemed to be developing in this one. if the one post you made that i didn't reply to there is what you're taking as proof, fair enough i suppose, although i don't think it's very good proof
what i would say to the one post i didn't respond to here is that, again, someone calling a millionaire trash may or may not be invoking a series of connotations associated with poor people. i don't think they necessarily are. like, there's pretty obviously a whole slew of connotations of the concept of trash that pretty clearly have nothing to do with poor people, because 'trash' is a word that has a meaning distinct from its use as an insult. even using it in the sense of worthless or garbage doesn't necessarily need to be invoking any set of ideas about class, in the way that any use of the n-word is intrinsically invoking a set of ideas and stereotypes about race. because the common english meaning of the word "trash" is synonymous with "garbage".
A slur must be used in a way that is stereotype-reinforcing for it to be bad. It MUST be used like the "Thug parties" where people dress up like stereotypical thugs and invoke the stereotype. (that goalpost can be found here)
that wasn't a goalpost or an attempt at a definition. i didn't mean to - and didn't - say that a slur must be comparable to a "thug parties" and invoke a stereotype. that was me asking you to expand on how the use of the word 'trash' is inextricably connected to the use of the word as an insult, which I take to be your position. to go into more depths on the specific mechanics and mechanisms, to help me see your point. in the same way as the other thing i said in the post where i asked you to explain your point.
"thug parties" aren't what i take to be central or definitive examples of stereotypes; rather, they're examples (which you brought up) of cases where the way in which they're intrinsically harmful and bad is clear.
You never answered that.
yeah i saw you got me in the other comment
no subject
Common meaning. Doesn't mean it doesn't have another meaning as a slur.
Do you think a banana is always a fruit, and is never a slur against Asians? A crow is just a bird, never a racial term, frog is always an amphibian and not a slur meaning a French person, kimchi and kraut have no ethnic connotations, and neither does the word oreo?
Your argument here seems to be "it has other meanings so it can't be a slur".
that was me asking you to expand on how the use of the word 'trash' is inextricably connected to the use of the word as an insult, which I take to be your position.
First, if you could, expand on what you mean by "inextricably connected" in this context, because it sounds like a weasel term where you'll go "but it's not inextricably connected". Second, specify what you would take as evidence of it being so connected.
Because it seems to me that the only way to prove that a word has a certain association is to observe and see if it has that association: and multiple people have came forward and said that to them, trash as a word has a clear connection as a slur on lower class or marginalized people.
If you're going to demand 100% agreement, from every single person, on the meaning of a word, for it to mean that, then you'll never have a meaning for a word. Some people are unaware of a slur being a slur; it doesn't divorce it of that connection for many people. Some people even argue that the N word doesn't refer to black people, that it refers to "bad people of any color" (Ew, I know, but I've heard this from people before.)
no subject
(Anonymous) 2015-04-22 06:33 am (UTC)(link)perhaps. at the same time, i would find it difficult to object to someone having a frog party, unless they were wearing berets and making lots of stupid jokes about surrender.
First, if you could, expand on what you mean by "inextricably connected" in this context, because it sounds like a weasel term where you'll go "but it's not inextricably connected". Second, specify what you would take as evidence of it being so connected.
sure, that's fair, "inextricable" is maybe not a useful word there. but what i would say is some explanation for what's going on here that goes beyond the mere fact of them using the same words. that gives some grounds for regarding the usage of "trash" in fandom as being materially the same as its use as a classist insult or in some material way harmful. is that a more reasonable standard do you think?
no subject
I thought it was better at first, but it's opening up the can of worms of "a slur used in a non-stereotype-reinforcing fashion is ok" issue again, and I'd rather not go through a repeat of that.
Multiple people have came forth and said that to them, the word trash, when used toward human beings and not literal waste, has a clear and inextricable association as a classist slur and oftentimes a racialized classist slur.
If the word, as used towards humans, is historically and currently a slur, it doesn't matter in what way fandom is using it, it's not appropriate. You yourself have said that it is not okay to use a slur in any way, even if it's in a non-slur fashion.
SA
(Anonymous) 2015-04-22 06:37 am (UTC)(link)i hope you have a good night.
Re: SA