fandomsecrets | [ 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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

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

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

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". .

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.)

Edited 2015-04-22 06:23 (UTC)

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?

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?

is that a more reasonable standard do you think?

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.

Edited 2015-04-22 06:43 (UTC)

i'm probably going to sleep soon. thanks for the interesting conversation; i'm glad that we were, if nothing else, able to establish to our mutual satisfaction who had or had not responded to or refuted what points exactly.

i hope you have a good night.

Good night.

[ SECRET POST #3030 ]

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

SA

Re: SA