fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3906 ]

[ SECRET POST #3906 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3906 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 14 secrets from Secret Submission Post #559.
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

I agree with you, but you're not explaining yourselves well.

You're saying this word is bad and going to the extra mile to say that people who use the word are bad. A lot of the people using the bad words aren't bad in and of themselves, they're exploring boundaries. They're testing limits.

When you tell them (us) that they (we) can't use words because "they're bad" but you don't explain WHY they're bad, it makes us want to say them more because you're hurting our feelings, and we want to hurt you back.

So the dichotomy here is that you think by removing the word from existence entirely, you can remove the pain it has caused for centuries or millennia or whatever in the past. But that's unrealistic because the word exists in and of itself and meaning can be personal. When you tell us we're bad for using it, but you can't explain why, we begin to tell ourselves that we are bad. Because you won't let us explain that it's more complicated than a simple good/bad split.

Language is inherently manipulative. It's actually heartbreaking. It's why we parrot the phrase "no excuses, just apologize." Or, "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me." Literally every person on Earth knows that isn't true because someone has used words to hurt them. But they tell people: "Hey, this hurts me!" and because of how we're socialized culturally we say: "That's fucking idiotic. It's a word. How can it hurt you?"

First: I think a lot of the lack of explanation is just that people assume a level of familiarity with the underlying discourse, arguments, meaning, concepts, etc. And I don't think that's incorrect, as much as it can be frustrating. I don't think it's practicable to have the complete, down-to-the-bedrock conversation about the whole structure and worldview every time you want to talk about these things. And so people for the sake of convenience use shortcuts. So for instance I tend of assume that most people on fandomsecrets have at least some base-line level of familiarity with the concept of slut-shaming and the underlying reasons why someone might object to it. Maybe that's an unfair assumption to make, I don't know. But I think it's inevitable and inescapable in any conversation.

Second: I think that there are two different senses in which we are talking about a word being "bad" and it's important to keep both of them in mind. There's the concept of personal pain, and hurt, and offense. And that's important and I don't want to diminish that. But there's also the idea of the effect of words - not just in terms of personal impact, but in the way that we understand and act in the world.

So the argument would be that the use of the word "slut" entrenches certain ideas about sexual behavior and morality, and that those ideas and conceptual structures are actively harmful in a practical sense, over and above the emotional reaction that people have to the words, or to the underlying topic of sexual behavior in society.

I agree with everything you've said.

And so people for the sake of convenience use shortcuts. So for instance I tend of assume that most people on fandomsecrets have at least some base-line level of familiarity with the concept of slut-shaming and the underlying reasons why someone might object to it. Maybe that's an unfair assumption to make, I don't know. But I think it's inevitable and inescapable in any conversation.

The problem here is that for me, my shortcut was "Hey, here's a fun idea: How about we not police the way other people use language."

And as you can see, other people jumped on me because they decided to tell me what I meant when I said that instead of asking me, and engaging with me, and LISTENING to me when I explained what I meant when I said that.

That's why it's so important to me that you're taking the time to reach out about this. I get it. I get you. I just wish you got me too, in a sense?

But because this is so tiring and tends to be circular, I have to be done with it now. It's tiring me out and making me sad. I am done talking about this. I'm sorry.

The problem is that - and I'm sorry if this comes across as rude but there's no way around it - the specific thing that you said was an extremely bad and confusing representation of what you meant. Which is why the first response to it was me just asking "What?" The problem is that the thing you actually said (1) does not at all get across the point that you're trying to make about emotional reactions, and (2) does get across a general point about the idea of "policing language" which seems prima facie wrong.

The reality is that, in a vacuum, what you said was really confusing. The shortcut didn't come across, at all. I don't think any reasonable reader would have been able to understand what you meant by it.

I respect that you don't want to talk about this any more and I hope you have a good day.

Thank you.

For the record, your response of "What?" was not offensive to me. I understand that I confuse people. But they don't seem to understand that they're allowed to engage with me, so instead they insist on telling me what I mean/say/think.

It gets exhausting.

I hope you have a good day too, anon.

Do you think your experience gives you carte blanche to practice refusal of responsibility and blatant blame-shifting? It's disgustingly manipulative.

NAYRT

When you tell them (us) that they (we) can't use words because "they're bad" but you don't explain WHY they're bad, it makes us want to say them more because you're hurting our feelings, and we want to hurt you back.

First of all, the person (and many people throughout discussion of this and other words) have said WHY this word is bad. You can feel however you want about sexual promiscuity, but slut is a judgment based word basically saying that unless people are pure, they are to be looked down upon. And even the appearance of seeming like you might enjoy sex is enough to look down upon someone and declare them and their opinions unworthy. This is why it is a "bad" word to most people.

And that attitude you have is very immature. "Someone says something I don't like so I'm going to go out of my way to hurt them more!" How about no. Someone saying that "slut" is a bad word to use isn't attacking you personally. They are attacking the history and (often) disgusting and degrading use of that word. They are asking you not to use it. Someone is not making any kind of attack on you personally or your views by asking you not to use that word, and turning it into a personal attack and choosing to double down on the offensive behavior is not a good response at all.

Yes, this.

+1000 to all of this. Well said, anon.

Just gonna point out one thing I noticed here:

OP said:
"Don't use slut as an insult."

Sadiesockmonkey said:
"You're saying "This word makes people feel bad, stop using it entirely"'

"You're saying this word is bad and going to the extra mile to say that people who use the word are bad. "

"you think by removing the word from existence entirely,"
---

It seems like OP's issue was with the word being used in a certain way (as an insult), not the fact that the word was used at all. Sadiesockmonkey repeatedly comments that the OP wants the word to not be used at all. Which is actually not what OP said.

Thank you.

That helps me to better understand. I read it that way because when OP says "Slut is a good thing!!!"

What if for me personally it doesn't feel like that? But when I go to express to other people that to me personally it doesn't feel empowering, they think I'm telling them they can't use it at all. Which is why I interpret them telling me how it either must be used in a positive manner or it cannot be used at all as incongruent.

To me, what I said in my first comment means the same thing as the anon in the comment above mine. Funnily, nobody jumped over the anon above me because on some level, what with anon using the word "neutral," other people understand that what that anon is saying.

Edited 2017-09-14 03:07 (UTC)

Because the post you wrote had nothing to do with slut being a positive thing or a neutral thing. Your post was about how we shouldn't police people's language, which is a totally separate thing.

Not to me they're not.

And the truth is, they're not to you either. It's why you're so mad at me because you think I'm putting words in your mouth.

I am autonomous. I am allowed to feel about words how I feel about them. But because I have trouble expressing it, and because the way I do express it leads to people yelling at me, telling me what I said as opposed to asking me what I meant, I shut down and no longer want to talk to you.

And because I've shut down, you guys think that's the end of the conversation and that it was an argument that you've won. It's really isolating.

I'm sorry if any of this has come across as hostile and I hope you feel better.

Thank you. That really does mean a lot.

I hope you have a good night.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #3906 ]

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

DA

Re: DA

Re: DA

Re: DA

Re: DA

Re: DA