The 'R-word'.

You pretty much proved my point here. I said gratiuitous, as in, too much. Swearing emphatically makes sense in the context of carrying a meaning. If, however, everything has an intensifier there's no control sample for normal so the intensified statement becomes the normal. Basically, if you ****ing throw it ****ing in ****ing every-****ing-where it ****ing loses its ****ing place as a ****ing intensifier, you ****ing get it ****er?

 

One can't control what other people say. One can control what one hears.

Why is it offensive? One views it as offensive. Why's that? One views it as an attack on oneself. People are not so single-minded as to go out of their way to menace a particular person; not knowingly, anyway. One must put oneself on a pedestal to even assume offense, as it makes one the center of attention or the butt of a joke. Perhaps the offender just isn't thinking. People tend not to.

So if you hear an insult, don't tell the offender to stop saying it. Stop hearing it. Take a step back from yourself and recognize it for what it is: a careless and ineffectual statement. If it can affect you, it is because you are not strong enough to handle it. You doubt yourself. You give credence to the insults. Be like a rock, and let criticism wash past you like a harmless wave. Don't wait for the day in your dreams when no one ever says something you don't like; just discard your dislikes. Doesn't that seem a lot easier?

 

I already do this, but I am also very controlling. I go to some lengths to correct people for using words in unaesthetic ways.

I am far more bothered by *** and gay in those cases. That is important to note.

 

Though I disagree with "People are not so single-minded as to go out of their way to menace a particular person" <- That, I think you think of it the same way I do. It's all a matter of perception, and people who take offense are in the wrong.

 

Whatever your notion of that quotation, I doubt it's quite the same as mine. Most people act maliciously out of ignorance or fear, and all actions made out of ignorance or fear are at best temporary and easily dismissed, and at worst self-destructive. Anyone who responds with malice is, first off, reactive, which is dangerous; and secondly, most likely, also acting out of ignorance or fear. It's the observed trend, anyway. But this is a semantics issue, and doesn't really take away from the main point. Regardless of the offender's intent, it is the mark of a healthy, confident individual to be able to let it pass, or even entertain the offensive thought, without being dragged down by it. If no one was offended by the word "nigger," half the people reading this sentence just now wouldn't have felt a chill jump up their spine (and, as you might notice, I wouldn't need to bypass the censor to say it). Now, isn't it silly for that little jumble of letters to have such sway over people? The point stands for any insult--any word, even. I find it's a fatal flaw to have such a reaction to words, especially when any word can be in someone's common vernacular.

 

I agree. When people get made of fun because of a disability it makes me angry. Like it could happen to anyone for no reason but that doesn't make it right to make fun of someone for it and call them a ******. It might happen to someone they know and they won't think it's so funny anymore when someone calls that friend or relative a ******.

I'll be honest I use the word, but I would never say it to someone to hurt their feelings.

 

I can understand your view, and maybe even agree to a degree on it. But I expect my peers to respect me so that we can co-exist in a healthy environment; as much as I hate to admit it, things get to me sometimes -- specially after it's done with frequency.

Enlightenment and realization may come too late, rendering what you suggest not applicable to the cases where some sort of understanding on it is not reached, or where there's not enough love of oneself to stand above such things.

Here I am recognizing that I may not be able to create a healthy environment on my own, and that insults of others -- meant with ill intentions-- do not help that. Does that mean people should prey on my insecurities? Hardly. Does it mean I should go preaching my morals down everyone's business? Neither. But it's as simple as the Golden Rule. Keep in mind that I'm not including the cases where a person insults you unknowingly.

Since no one else knows how different the other person is, it'd be better to not have demeaning intentions in the first place. Of course, that's...only ideal.

 

Hey my little brother is mentally ******ed and I find that offensive

 

I was once called a fire hydrant by somebody. When I asked what he meant, he told me he meant it with all of the offense he could possibly use.
...I still wasn't offended because I'm not a fire hydrant.

I'm on the same level as these two. Hell, I use the word myself, though I haven't used it as much lately because I just don't like the way it sounds. It's an ugly word and I don't mean ugly because of what it's mean or how it's used, I mean I don't like the way it sounds (I love the word 'bubbly,' though. It's fun to say).

Someone once said something like "the only people who should be offended by the word '******' are ******s and, let's face it, they're too ******ed to notice." Not saying that it's okay to insult them, just pointing out that they're usually not the ones taking offense to it. Maybe it's just a personal thing, but I think it's all about context. I wouldn't call someone who is mentally ******ed a ****** but I would call when my roommate tried to engineer a pair of roller skates with an actual engine ******ed.
It's not exactly the same as when black people get pissed when you call them ****** but they use it to refer to each other often (usually, '*****' though), but it's similar to it.
The word has both an actual meaning and a slang meaning (well, more than one of each).

Getting that offended over people saying the word ****** is just gay.

 

Hahaha.


How many of you have really called someone who are mentally ******ed for a ******? I'm going to guess none of you.
Thing is, you say it like you would call someone gay for doing something feminine?
People take offense to that as well, for reasons I understand but think are foolish.

Thing is, the correct term for someone with mental ******ation is not ******. They don't have a term, they have a diagnose known as mental ******ation. Calling someone a ****** is calling them slow, I'll repeat what I've said before; it's a matter of perception. The way you interpret the word "******" is due to how you hear it. If, when you hear "******" your reaction is "Hey, that's offensive!" I think you should think about it. Is ****** a derogatory term? Sort of, but only in a joking way, because you don't tell someone with mental ******ation '******ed.'

There are several ways of being offensive, is it really better to call someone an idiot? Or is that not offensive towards people who are dumb? You might say "We shouldn't say bad things to anyone." If you think so, please grow up and realize that the world is an evil place where people are evil and mean and perhaps, one day the only way you can make someone shut up is by saying "Shut up, you ******."

 

I dislike both uses, for reasons mentioned earlier. Both gay and ******ed, I mean. While it may seem true that being offended is the problem, the people who say it still view it as a negative. Both sides need to stop considering it negative in order for the prejudice to be gone. I am more bothered by gay being a negative than ****** because its use is not often simply misunderstood; it is honestly an insult to people that you might call gay. Let me clarify. Those who say it as an insult honestly see being gay as a negative trait. Those on the receiving end are still responsible for taking it as a negative, but the one who says it to them is wrong to hold it in such a light. It is not good enough for those on the receiving end to be tolerant, because they are not the ones being openly intolerant like the ones who said it are. ******ation is quite different, as some have been saying.

 

But wherein lies the issue of disrespect? Is it with the word? The word is often used in a clinical capacity, one which lacks offense. Is it the context? Context is open to interpretation. And if it's done with frequency, it loses impact, loses meaning. Do people mean anything when they say something's "gay" anymore? I certainly don't. I chastise myself for saying it, not because I find it offensive or hurtful, but because it's a waste of words. It means nothing to me, the way I use it. As a substitute for how many words is it used? Can it be said to carry any weight if it can be slung around with such abandon? "******" follows closely on its heels, in that regard. If one can find a way to describe anything as "******ed," one may as well omit it for convenience--or, failing that, ignore its presence.

Ah, but from this it's clear that the real issue is known, but not addressed. It's the timeliness of the realization that must be worked at, such that what little enmity is sparked by the "insult" washes away in short order. Furthermore, it's the respect for oneself that must be built; from this flows naturally a respect for others, which often reflects in one's speech. Moreover, I pity those who openly and frequently use words like "gay" and "******," rather than take offense to them, for it's clear they lack the respect for themselves to demand of themselves better articulation--not to mention, they lack the self-respect to be comfortable with themselves without lashing out at others, in those cases. Or perhaps they simply lack the respect for themselves to demand they be aware enough to avoid what could be perceived as insulting. One could trace many things to a lack of self-respect, but, I suspect, far fewer to true blue malice. Hate is not a whore.

The Golden Rule begins with oneself. Treat others how one wants to be treated. At no point does it reverse, at no point does it externalize. To put it another way, every offense is double-fault. And by that I mean also that there is no fault, and more accurately that it is not an issue of fault. And finally, to put it a third way, give as much as you can, and be satisfied with that; I've no doubt that anyone who truly and completely internalizes this mindset will be unmoved by perceived offenses, or even cease to perceive offense. For offense is a matter of reaction, and it is wholly better to act than to react.

What's ideal is for everyone to realize that what they perceive of each other's intentions is often not the whole truth, or downright wrong. We all misunderstand each other, and ourselves, equally, and when one supposes a definite stance from his neighbor, it is not only unfair but damaging to oneself and others. I've already stated that I believe few perceived acts of insult are done consciously and with the sole, driven intent to insult; people are often more complicated, and less sure of themselves, than that. But once a thing is said, the only thing the recipient can control is his reaction; so why not start there? Again, give as much as you can, and be satisfied. Those worth the effort will respond favorably. The rest are ankle-biters, and they'll give up once they realize they're getting nowhere.

There is such a thing as "Spot-on intent, but poor execution," and I'd still rate it a C-. A solid insult skimps on neither passion, nor precision.

Excellent point, I'm in full agreement. What's wrong with being gay? Hell, by all rights, they're calling you happy! Oh, but no one likes to be happy, it's not cool. Oops. And for that matter, what's wrong with being a ******? In the strictest sense, they're just calling you slow! I could interpret that as "easy-going" or "tastefully uncomplicated," if I so chose. But this is a bit advanced, and probably not helping my point much at this stage. Suffice it to say, the full cycle of insult and offense suggests a lot of bias from both parties.