c3b4ba11   
   From: green_knight@greenknight.org.uk.invalid   
      
   Brian M. Scott wrote:   
      
   > On Sat, 27 Sep 2008 19:33:43 +0100, Catja Pafort   
   >   
   > > Brian M. Scott wrote:   
   >   
   > >> I can't bring myself to care   
   > >> very much if someone is offended by the mere appearance of a   
   > >> word on the page/screen, irrespective of the context in and   
   > >> likely intent with which they're used.   
   >   
   > > But that means denying the existence of offensive words;   
   > > and I cannot believe that you mean to do that.   
   >   
   > It's more a matter of placing an upper bound on the possible   
   > *inherent* offensiveness of a word and holding certain   
   > expectations about reasonable behavior.   
      
   Nobody has behaved in an unreasonable manner in this thread. For   
   starters, its a thread about 'these words sound offensive' on rasfm   
   rather than 'Sea Wasp is a homophobe' on rasfc'. And rightly so.   
      
   I think it's up to the people being insulted to decide whether they take   
   offense or not; and up to all of us to be aware of the connotations   
   words have. I mean, that's just good writing.   
      
   There are also words that have _positive_ connotations - are you saying   
   you're surprised that people should be only mildly pleased at being   
   praised highly and that it's unreasonable for them to react in   
   accordance to the intensity of the words they are praised with?   
      
      
      
   > As I see it, the offensiveness of a word lies in the context   
   > in which it's used and people's reactions to it, not in the   
   > word itself.   
      
   So if you have a word that's used regularly by a small group, none of   
   whom are the target group of the offensiveness, and none of whom take   
   offense at it, it's not an offensive word?   
      
   And if I happen to be deeply offended by a word that nobody else finds   
   offensive, does that make it into an offensive word?   
      
      
   > Offhand I can't think of any word to which I   
   > have a stronger reaction (sans context) than distaste, but I   
   > recognize that this is by no means the case for everyone,   
   > and I'm not saying that it should be;   
      
   I think some words are designed to _be_ offensive - strongly offensive,   
   in fact, while others are designed to anger people, ridicule them, or   
   put them in their place by proving they are powerless to protest against   
   being denigrated day by day.   
      
   And most of those words work pretty well in that they *have* that effect   
   on the target group; though people who are not affected can happily say   
   they see no offense in it.   
      
      
   One thing that happens with this kind of term - a way in which they are   
   propagated - is that the majority-who-do-not-take-offense are telling   
   the target group - who *do* take offense - that they shouldn't. This is   
   happening with schoolyard bullies and works its way right up - but that   
   does not render those terms inoffensive.   
      
      
   > I'm just saying that   
   > barring pretty unusual circumstances, I've very little   
   > sympathy with reactions so strong that they cause the   
   > context to be ignored.   
      
   I think there are terms that have an inherent context of 'this word is   
   used to insult group x,' and it's a context a writer ought to be aware   
   of. (Note that I'm not saying they should never use it, characters being   
   what they are, and some of them are - deliberately, inadvertendly, or   
   thoughtlessly offensive.)   
      
   Catja   
      
   --   
   writing blog @ http://beyond-elechan.livejournal.com   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)