Category: the Rant Board
When someone is racist, it isn't tollerated. When someone calls someone something related to their disability that's a slur, it isn't allowed. Slandering someone who's Christian, Jewish, Catholic, Muslem, or any other faith or belief isn't allowed.
If someone's not attracted to the opposite gender, or anything related to that area of discussion, you have no business using slurs to them.
But, if your problem is related to mental health, or psychological, it's all right?!
You can seriously call someone a psycho, and it's all right? Well, I disagree!
As a person who has admitted challenges in that department, I am sick and tired of hearing people make judgments, and slurs, and it's all right! Why is it all right to abuse the people with problems in the mental health area? Why? Why is it allowed here? Why is it right? I've tried to support others' rights, and this isn't the first time I've seen judging people like Chelsea call someone crazy. Even on this one board, where a user lost her friend to suicide, Chelsea was abusive, and this "CRAP," is tollerated! I'm telling you all, here and now I PROTEST the unfairness of this!
Discuss, if you choose.
I've just had enough, and I'm saying something! I wouldn't call a deaf person "Dumb," so why?! Why, is this crap allowed?! If you can't discuss a topic on a News And Views board, and feel safe from being called a crazy person, or "Psycho," just because you have to take a pill so you don't feel down all the time, then something is seriously wrong here!
Sarah
This is why I no longer pay attention to Chelseabelle The Cow's mooing.
While I disagree with Chelsea, she has the right to say such things. You do
not have the right to not be offended in this world Sarah. You have the right to
block her, ignore her, skip her posts, but you don't have the right to stop her
from saying what she wishes simply because it goes against your sensibilities.
Sensorship is the defense of the weak-minded. Find a way to strike back at
Chelsea. I doubt you'll get through to her, but you can show those you feel are
being harmed that not everyone thinks like her, and that she really doesn't
matter. You could be active and work against chelsea, or you could be passive
and hope that someone else prevents her from saying things you don't like.
But, if you choose the passive path, what happens when I don't like things
you say? Do I get to say that you're being offensive and get you blocked or
silenced simply because I disagree with what you're saying? Remember, if we
make a rule effecting Chelsea, we also make a rule effecting you.
I'll second that.
Cody, I understand. You also think racism is all right, and hating people for what they believe. You saying what you do, I expect.
But, what people like you and her do, is abusive behavior. If someone's teasing a friend about being crazy, that's something different. But, you are saying that it's all right to be cruel if someone has a psychological problem. Kind of funny in a strange way, that chelsea is so cruel, since I've also heard she's admitted having her own issues. Yes, we all have rights. But, we also have the responsibility of respect.
How is that not freedom? Someone who isn't Cody or Chelsea, please tell me? I'd ask you, but you've shown me you don't respect anyone, except maybe, yourself. I've heard enough of this junk, and think just Ignoring the problem isn't the answer. I'm not all right, with letting people seriously call someone psycho or Loony, as a put-down. My problem is, everyone sweeps it under the rug and forgets about it. I'm asking folks to think about this. And if you think it's all right for the belittlement of those with mental health problems, let's just go backwards, and disrespect everyone. Well, that's stupid, but what happened to "Equality?" Maybe I'm not rich enough and that's why you think I'm wrong. Maybe I'm not bluenosed enough, or blue-blooded enough. Well, that makes no sense.
However, I refuse to kiss butt, and I refuse to let this go. There's a line, and it's been crossed. Like it, or not.
Blessings,
Sarah
Ten million points to the first person besides me or chelsea who points out the
hypocrisy in that post.
Sarah, while I often don't agree with Cody on things, or agree with the way he says them, in this case, he's right. You start down a very slippery slope when you start dictating what people can and can't say on a site like this. He is right that by instituting rules that effect someone like Chelsea, you institute them against everyone. As I said on another post, the terms are very subjective as it is, and this would make them all the more so. Then CL's could ban things simply because they disagreed with them on a personal level, which is what you're asking for, and that would lead to one big-ass mess.
If you think the rules of the site need to be changed, take it up with Chris and/or JJ. I'm not even being sarcastic when I say that. They are the ones who could implement such a rule, and tell the CL's to monitor posts for things they deem inappropriate. I doubt they'll do it, but that's who you'd have to get to agree with you here. Like others have said, if you truly don't like what she's saying, ignore her.
And I don't say this because I like what Chelsea had to say on the other board. I very strongly disagree with Chelsea most of the time, but I still know she has the right to voice her opinion, much as I may disagree with what she says or how she says it. Same with that I disagree with Cody a lot of the time, but in this case, it's my opinion that he's right. I think you not being listened to has nothing to do with being rich, or anything else that you sited in your post. It's ust that, one the Zone's home page, they make it clear they don't censor their members speech, and that they are not our parents. If you're going to use the site, that's just something to be aware of, until the admins decide to do otherwise. People's disagreement with you here isn't anything personal against you, your circumstances, background, or otherwise. They are simply opinions.
Oh, and though I don't give a crap about the points, because points are useless around here, the hypocrisy of your post is that you're asking for censorship of speech and calling it greater freedom. At least that's the one I see.
Close Alicia, close, but no cigar. The hypocrisy is that she's complaining about
people insulting other people and saying cruel things, in a post in which she is
being judgmental and saying cruel things. Its not nice to say that someone is ok
with racism. I'm not ok with racism. Doesn't mean I want people being sensored
though.
As Cody said in another thread, prove it. Where’s the charge of racism? I don’t know him personally, but from what I do know, it’s just not there. You may not like how he frames things all the time, but nobody can agree with someone’s way of doing things 100 percent of the time. This charge hits kinda close to home to me personally, because about three months ago I and another friend were accused of racism by some unknown person, and it just wasn’t true. Anyone who does know me personally would actually find it laughable. In fact,, the charge was enough to make me extremely livid, and I don’t really get that angry most of the time. So, maybe you wanna be a little more careful with that one, please?
she's accused me of it before, and people who do know me, including the
blakc people who know me, literally laughed at the idea. But its still not a nice
thing to be called.
Sarah, I agree with you. People can be incredibly rude, judgemental and cruel. It's a frustrating aspect of our existence and interaction with one another. But I have to agree with those who have said sensorship isn't the answer. You can be frustrated, angry, hurt and want it to stop, and you have the rite and reason. But those whom are offending you have rites too. And when you start dictating who has the rite to say what and how ... where will that limitation end. We should all be more respectful; we should speak with a little consideration and forethought. I agree there should be consequences and accountability of some kind for treating people like crap, and in most aspects there are. but we can't force people to act with decency. we can only choose how we will react to their indecency. That means being respectful ourselves - or not, speaking to them privatly - or not, and defending others against their judgemental douchebaggery ... or not. And though it can be really hard at times, it also means choosing to take offense or not, either yourself, or on behalf of others.
Just to be clear, there are consequences of being rude. The consequences of
my interactions with Sarah is that Sarah and I are not friends. Now, I don't see
this as particularly negative, but if sarah doesn't like the situation, Sarah should
remove herself from that situation. The fact that Sarah chooses not to is her
responsibility, not mine. Its not the job of the cL's or anyone else to protect
Sarah from rude people. Its her job to do that. She knows what she can handle
and what she can't. If she can't handle a conversation, she should leave that
conversation. That goes for everyone.
If you have triggers, avoid places where that trigger might be tripped. Just
like I avoid topics that I don't want to get involved with. Sometimes its because
I don't have the energy to deal with people. Sometimes its because the subject
troubles me. Sometimes its because I just don't feel like it. Sometimes I simply
don't know anything about the subject in question. However, if I do choose to
get involved, the last thing you will hear me doing is saying that someone else
doesn't have the right to say what they said. I might say that they're being
stupid or that what they said makes no sense, but they have the right to say it.
Just as I have the right to entirely discount them for saying it. But the control is
all in my hands.
So, sarah, if Chelsea annoys you that much, put her on ignore, or skip over
any post that you see with her name above it. Just like I usually skip over your
posts. If there is this hypothetical somebody who is irreparably harmed by what
Chelsea said, I don't think we can lay that blame at Chelsea's feet. I think they
have issues, and they need to seek help for them while avoiding Chelsea, or
myself, or anyone else. That's how being an adult works. You don't always get
to hide behind somebody's skirts and hope that everything works out ok. The
world at large doesn't give a tinker's damn if you're offended or not, and I
entirely agree with it.
I agree with Sarah in the sense that we could all do with being kinder to one another in general. And I personally dislike the use of slurs relating to mental illness. So if someone used one, I might explain to them why it makes me uncomfortable. They might not listen, but equally they could have just said it because they weren't aware why it was wrong.
However, the point in which our views differ is that the staff should do something about it on here. If someone is clearly harassing everyone the cl's can warn them if it's escolating to a major problem...but if it's the case of a user expressing an opinion that someone doesn't like there's not a lot they should and can do.
In some communities users expressing these views would be banned, but the zone has a very open policy regarding such things. We know that, if we don't like it we can either leave the site or put the offenders on ignore.
Yes, it sucks to see people saying things that are ignorant and nasty, but we've chosen to join this website, a place where almost anything is tollerated.
And I would say that it's unfair of Sarah to call Cody racist when she is writing a board about nastiness not being tolerated. Do I agree with everything cody says? No I don't. I also don't think he's racist, but even if I did it would be irrelivent. Sarah is writing a board about treating people better and yet she's not doing that for Cody.
You could argue that he should step away from the situation, but if it doesn't bother him then he won't. If his behaviour bothers her she should use the ignore feature. That's just how I see this.
I’ll give another example because I live it. As a gay male, I don’t like the word “fag.” I actually hate it. I have a visceral reaction when I hear the word. But will I demand censorship? No, because if people seriously use the term “fag,” it gives me an idea of what they’re actually like as human beings. I don’t have to associate with such people, and I don’t have to tolerate them. But I will skip over their postings, if such word is used on these boards, and I won’t take them seriously. I would rather they used a term that I dislike because I’d rather such terms be used openly and honestly, even if such term is meant to be offensive. You can do more about overt discrimination than you can about covert discrimination, but censorship is definitely not the way to go. The slippery slope argument is sometimes over-used, but it is nonetheless valid. Once you start censoring, you can’t really stop.
Here's the problem. If someone uses the term "Fag," the get a repremand for it. Now if someone says:
"He's Mental," "Crazy," "Insane," "Fucked in the head," on a post and means it, well what is said? Nothing. Case in point, Chelsea telling someone their friend was selfish and crazy for killing themself. Obviously, he did have a problem.
But, this is where I have the problem. Cody made a racial slur, and was warned about it. If someone uses words like: "Fag," or "Queer," they are told about it. So isn't that telling them what their rights are too?
All I ask for is consideration. Cody can say I have something against him, and I only have one issue with him. He thinks he's too good for most people, and I find that snobbish. Now, I don't care two cents how he feels about me. He's not my friend, and would need a serious personality transplant to become my friend. That's fine. We won't be pals. Chelsea, is a bit different. Here's someone with admitted depression issues, and still she puts others with the similar condition down. I think she's a hiprocrit. So we don't get along. That's cool.
But when the topic specifically is discussing someone who's mental health is discussed, calling someone Loony, Crazy, Mental, or anything else... Shouldn't there be the same considerations, as someone discussing someone who is gay, or believes in something different than the poster, or has a different ethnic background?
That's all I ask, nothing more. It's topic-orientation or subject-based.
Blessings,
Sarah
Ok, I get what sarah is saying here. If a cl or someone reprimands someone for using homophobic or racist language they should also do the same for ableist. It should be all or neither imo. But, I'm happy for them to do it for none of those as long as it's clear that this place is a free for all, or what is and isn't tollerated is made clear. It's hard for the cl's too as nothing is made clear even to them and rules aren't enforced higher up.
Thank you. Someone sees the flaw! It's about equality, which even Cody probably agrees with.
I've made the statement, and will try to keep as open a mind as possible. But, this is the point. I don't think of wanting better rights, because that's just uncool. But equal for all. Parents teach this to kids, teachers teach students, and so should we live.
All that said, the screwed-up part, is probably not a thing will happen. But, I spoke up, and that's all I can do.
Blessings,
Sarah
The flaw in that is the the CL in question actually appologized for that because
I didn't use a racial slur. I used a word people who didn't know better thought
was a racial slur, but isn't. But that's a long and drawn out subject for another
post.
But now you're changing your tune sarah. You went from wanting people
blocked and banned and silenced, to them being warned and repremanded and
sternly glared at. Make your mind up, which do you want?
Ok there's a difference between a term like fag and one like, say, spazz, for some people.
I was a punk once and there's no nice way to call someone a fag. We were dicks when we did that back in the 80s, and yes I will openly state that we did know better.
However, when a niece of mine was younger she used to be extremely hyper all over jumping on things and stuff, and there were times I said, "Settle down girl! You're being a spazz!"
Was that wrong? I guess it was now. But I didn't know then what bipolar was. And once the Wife found out, She explained it to me, I at least got enough to initially think the girl couldn't help it. Even then, I was still wrong, the Wife would settle her down by something to do with learning how to manage it.
So I think it depends if the situation is where someone is just ignorant and you show them what's going on, versus someone being spiteful That little niece of mine never disliked me at all, even call herself a spaz while laughing and hyping out even for awhile after I'd quit that. Her aunt and them would correct her and use some other kinda words / have her "center," I think the word was, though don't really know what that was. I mainly stayed out of it after that. But I say all this to say I think the mental health / shrink type situation isn't the same at all as people going all punk against the gays, etc. Seems more complex.
I stand by my original point, but it is sort of interesting that a reprimand was issued for a racial slur, and yet you can hurl virtual abuse and profanity - directed at a specific individual - until your fingers bleed and see no results. Obviously one can get banned on here for certain affronts - though attempted murder doesn't appear to be one of them. I just wonder where one draws the lines between what is deemed appropriate, and what is not.
Cody, now you are saying it's not true you have been racist. Wow, I just think you have some serious problems dude.
And, I never said start out by kicking everyone who does the offense off the system. You know the procedure on this site, so don't start playing on my words. It's not my fault you want to split hairs. The rest of us have lives and no time for Cody and his hair-splitting problems. Yoou want to split hairs, go find someone to say you're not racist. I read the post, and I remember I was up on your case about it. Not because it is you, but because you and a few others in the world think you can be offensive, and it's all right. And, I am not all right with this so-called attitude. So, go look at the site protocols, and if you are really desperate for attention, you can post them here. But, I doubt anyone is going to look at it. We all know how to click on "Terms Of Service..."
You know that first you get a warning, proceded by further actions, if you keep violating. So, this isn't the place to split hairs. You just don't like my opinion and that's your problem, not mine.
Blessings,
Sarah
Leo, there is indeed a difference. But that topic where they discuss the whole "I Porred Drain Cleaner In My Eyes," and Chelsea says "She's Crazy!"
By the clinical definition, she's right. But it's a Dirogatory term, in the way it was used. If someone can see that, the individual should be at least contacted and told that's not appropriate. Will that happen? No, probably not. But, I at least am all right if someone uses it in fun, or in teasing. But this really calling someone Psycho or Crazy, in a topic thread where obviously mental health or lack of said is discussed, that's totally wrong, and offensive. I'm not saying never use the term crazy, or Nutty, but I'm asking for a bit of consideration. You here someone complain about this being discussed and you are a CL, obviously the person ment to offend someone.
The only reason I even brought it up, is here's these folks calling her crazy and things, and someone who has the condition is on this site. They are reading the insulting stuff, and realize maybe they aren't feeling very welcome here. That is why I'm pissed. And obviously, by her history, Chelsea deliberately did this to offend. Not judgment calling, just assumption by her past actions of disrespect.
Blessings,
Sarah
Now you're assuming you know what chelsea was thinking sarah. That's very
irresponsible. You should never assume you know what someone is thinking.
Just because you were offended, doesn't mean that the person who offended
you was aiming to offend you. Especially when we're talking about you, who
seem to be exceptionally easy to offend.
But first, lets just point out that no one, not even the guy on that post who
had the same mental disorder as the woman in question, is complaining about
what Chelsea said. You're the only one doing that. You're the only one who has
her panties in a bunch over a word on the internet. So I would think we'd be
safe in assuming that its not as big a deal as sarah is making it out to be.
Clearly no one else cares, so why should we listen to sarah, who doesn't even
have a pony in this race?
second, Sarah has failed to explain to us why "i'm offended" is a valid defense
for anything. so you're offended, to quote the excellent writer and actor steven
Fry, "So fucking what"?
Cody, if I want a lecture on how to behave, I won't take it from you. Now, why don't you quit deferring and discuss the topic. This time I barely looked at your post. I will ask my mommy for a lesson in how to act, before I'd ask you.
Back to the topic.
Cody, since you have to make this about you, I'm not going to read anymore posts till I find there's something of value. And I can tell by others' posts. I don't need to Ignore you, to not see you, pal. Trust me on this.
Blessings,
Sarah
Ok, um, not sure what that was supposed to mean, but alrighty.
Anyway, here is where I think Sarah should have gone with her post. sarah
should have made a differentiation between being offended and being harmed.
There should not be, as we've all said, sensorship on the basis of being
offended. we're all adults here, or close to it, and we should all be able to take
what other people say online. If we can't, its up to us to ignore the posts we
don't like. I think can all agree on that. This is why we disagree with sArah.
However, what I think the TOS should address is the idea of harm. Its a much
more rare thing than offense, especially on here, but it is possible, and I don't
think the TOS are quite strict enough. If what someone says genuinely harms
someone. If you say someone should commit suicide, and they do, you should
probably be banned for that. If you encourage people to rape a girl, or to beat
someone up. If you threaten someone's life or threaten to harm them. Then I
think you should be banned. And I think we can all agree on that. But that's not
what Sarah asked for. Sarah is asking for sensorship. I think we should ask for
protection. Thoughts?
I see where I think Sarah was going with this, and quite apart from the specific situation I agree with her. People do toss words about mental illness around pretty easily, and I've seen it plenty of places apart from here. That word "crazy" comes up a lot, as do many others. It seems more okay in society at large to say "Man, that guy's crazy, I don't get why he killed himself" than it is to say "There are fags everywhere these days". The former might get you a stern look from the wrong person, the latter is likely to get you smeared.
I do think picking on mental illness, treating it casually, is a bad thing. The very ignorance Chelsea displayed about BIID on the other thread demonstrates pretty clearly to me that she truly doesn't get it. Other comments she's made about depression and suicide also suggest that she doesn't get it. I have never been clinically depressed or suicidal, and even I know there are certain buttons you probably don't push, things you just don't say. Even if I really don't get BIID - and I don't - I'm not going to come out and say I think someone's crazy, and I really wish others wouldn't either. Not because we're all made of glass, but because of a little thing called common decency. I use really strong words either 1. when I'm really angry or 2. when I'm in a firefight and I think I need to in order to give as good as I'm getting. Otherwise, I find they're overkill.
All that having been said, true censorship might not be the way to go (in the way of banning or whatnot), but I do think more consideration of mental health is due. And this is an opinion I hold of society in general, not just the zone.
I would like to add, however, that some of you are making what I think is entirely too big a deal of potential censorship. I have seen dozens of other boards where ideas are pretty freely expressed between members, and where the few things you can't or shouldn't do are so limited that all but a very select few won't do them. You're acting, in short, as if a little more censorship than we've got might suck all the fun or life or freedom out of the zone. Realistically, the amount of censorship I'm talking about would probably affect very few of us, and I don't think any of you are so dependent on vulgarity or personal attacks or trolling that a general inability to call someone a fucking asswipe, or something else equally pungent, is going to ruin your day. No, this is not my way of saing vulgarity isn't okay; I'm actually fine with swearing. But for instance, if I'm really mad at you and I think you're wasting everyone's time and being hurtful, do I have to really rip you down? Or could I not say something like, "This argument is pointless. I'm disgusted to see you hurting people this way and you ought to stop. All my respect for you, such as it was, is gone."?
There are certain things, I maintain, that we do not -have to say, an losing the right to say them in one very specific forum is not going to bring the world to a crashing halt. It is only a slippery slope if you let yourself slide; otherwise, it's just a hilltop.
Cody made no racial slur. I even said so and it was me he was talking about.
In his case, and this case, it is and was a word, crazy.
What is the difference in saying she's mentally ill, sick, or whatever?
Chelsea was not the only person that felt the lady was mentally sick/crazy.
She didn't call the lady a name, she described what she felt was her condition.
It won't fly.
Maybe it was to blunt, but it was quite descriptive.
Sometimes it helps to provide a different way to say that. Instead of saying just
"You can't say spazz" or "you can't say crazy", people need to know what the
replacement that is going to be acceptable is. Just putting this one out there.
When I think "spazz" I think of someone who's really hyper. It's the sort of thing I'd call someone who was super-excitable, and it would never be derogatory. And if I ever used the term "crazy" with regard to a person it would also be in a more casual light. "You're crazy if you think skydiving is fun." Incidentally, I dearly want to skydive one day, so I guess that makes me certifiably nuts.
When I think it has the potential to tread on toes is when you refer to someone who's mentally ill as crazy, with all the potentially negative hangups. Some people probably read more into them than the author originally intended, I'll say that much; sometimes when a person says crazy, they literally mean mentally ill. Crazy is just a blunt and perhaps slightly overblown way of saying that.
Now, you edge into slurrish territory if you say stuff like "crazier than a shithouse rat" or "loony" or whatnot. It's unnecessarily strong when describing a mental illness, especially when we remember that mental illness is very badly understood on the whole. I know many otherwise fairly intelligent adults who don't really know a lot about mental illness and who will say awfully judgmental things about sufferers, depending on what they're doing and such. I think this mentality is somewhat facilitated by all the synonyms for "mentally ill" we throw around.
And yes, it's your right to use those words, just as you can call a gay person a fag if you want. But that doesn't mean it's nice, or acceptable, or appropriate, or ideal.
I, personally, have pretty thick skin, but that's not true of some others.
Cody, I think, raises a very strong point concerning offensive versus harmful. I’ll go back to the word “fag.” I find the term “fag” offensive. But in and of itself, it does not harm me because it is merely a slur. I’ve heard it from people bbefore. I’ve even, in the past, stood by silently when it’s been used in my own family because I wanted to preserve my anonymity where my sexual orientation was concerned. I am far less able or willing to let it slide these days. But even with that said, it’s still a slur. “Fag” is slang for gay or homosexual. And while I personally find it offensive, there are others in the gay community whom I’ve known or met that have actually embraced the word “fag” to take the sting out of it. IN other words, if a gay person calls himself a fag, the sting of the slur is taken away. Maybe it’s all in the ear of the listener, for lack of a better word, because for whatever reason I don’t find the term “homo” as offensive as “fag.” But there was another board topic where I felt at times that some people were accusing me of being into young boys. I am not. That is potentially harmful because it’s basically tantamount to accusing me of being a criminal. That constitutes defamation. So, while calling me a fag or homo or queer isn’t nice, it’s not the same as inferring that I’m a pedophile. That can potentially get me charged with something I’ve never done nor will ever do. That’s harmful. Is that clear, or not?
Sarah, part of living in this world is accepting that everyone has different ways of presenting things. Some of those ways you may not like and others you may. It all depends on you, whether you take the time to think about where the person who said those things was actually coming from, rather than assuming what they are thinking, or what they mean in their posts, as you so often do. Example: Assuming I have depression issues (which I don't) or accusing Cody of being a racist when all he is doing is expressing his views just as I am or you are.
Here is a tip for you Sarah that I'd really like you to think about: if you really wanna know what people are thinking when they post things that offend you, ask them for clarification instead of getting bent out of shape because you think you understand exactly what they are getting at. Because, assuming never does anyone any good. Communicating with people, which includes asking for clarification when you have misunderstandings, can really show you a lot...but that's assuming you will give it a try.
Cody, when I get bored, and I just might, I'll look up the slur.
Chelsea, I wasn't even the one that pointed out you've said that you were suffering from depression, so don't blame me. Apparently, there's more than one person hearing things on their JFW, or reading it in Braill. Wow, I'm sorry for the people being accused of imagining they saw a post where Chelsea actually said she was dealing with depression. We are all halucinating.
Blessings,
Sarah
Ok...guys, this doesn't often happen but I agree with Chelsea on this one.
Sarah does have a history of jumping to conclusions. Tbh on this thread, the person I've seen attacking others the most is Sarah. She's made personal comments time and time again, and you know what? That's not cool.
I get it, we have disagreements. But how about be an adult and aproach the person directly instead of playing victim on the board. Explain why you're hurt by what they say, without attacking them personally. And just maybe you'll reach an understanding.
If not, well you can just ignore them I guess, no harm done.
But what I am seeing, and not liking is Sarah making really personal remarks about people and yet crying on here when people say something she doesn't like. If the people she complained about made half the remarks about her she is about them then people would come down on them hard, so why the forgiveness when she's doing it?
I'm just saying, if this board topic is about fairness it's laughable.
Grow up people.
Wow chelsea, loo at you being all logical and making sense. Rationality looks
good on you.
I completely agree with Holly though. I've seen it time and time again. Sarah
is simply allowed to say pretty much anything she wants without the natural
repercussions that should go along with that. For some reason people just let
her slide, but me or chelsea or James say something, and we get pounced on.
I'm not saying all the things we say are correct and that we shouldn't be
pounced on, but why are some people reviled and others tolerated? There are
people, who I'm not going to name, who I think do this more than others where
sarah is concerned, but its a wide spread problem.
That's why I kinda chuckled when I first saw this post. If we start punishing
people for causing offense, Sarah's gonna have a lot of sins to make up for, and
I just don't think she's considered that. I don't really think she stops to consider
the effects of her words and judgments very often..
Cody, as much as you disagree with things I say and certain opinions I hold, I don't at all think you're scum for our disagreements/differences in opinion. In fact, I don't think that about anyone I disagree with, not even Sarah. I haven't gotten to know Sarah at all the way I have you Cody and I don't like all the wining and "poor me" attitude that she displays, but hey, she's still entitled to do it.
You're exactly right Cody that it's crazy (oops, I said that forbidden word) how some of us get pissed on for expressing our views while others like Sarah, who wine all the time, have people backing her up and trying to discourage you and I from talking to her like we do. Look people, she's the one who has a thin skin; she, Sarah (and only Sarah) is responsible for how she reacts to things that are posted online. I wish that more people told her as much, in hopes that one day she may learn the ways of the world and come to appreciate people for their differences, the way she claims she wants people to automatically accept her.
It's all about balance, people. I don't think an excessively thin skin is a good idea, but I don't think unloading on people for no reason is good either. I'm definitely not one of those people who thinks Sarah's completely okay. She may have brought up a valid enough point to begin with, but the way it's been handled isn't good at all.
I said what I had to say. If you want to play your little let's blame it all on Sarah crap, well I can't stop you. Of course, Cody, I know you think you are the cool blind person. You aren't any example to live by. I'm not saying I don't have stuff to work on, but I've been trying to make a point, and of course you and Chelsea want to tear it down.
Chelsea, I doubt you want to know me, or aren't judging me.
And as far as having thin skin, I've tolerated more than either of you would even understand or know how to face. All your doing now, is the same thing that warranted this topic post. Prejudging, hence term Prejudiced. So actually, in finding me as a target, you prove my point.
Blessings,
Sarah
This isn't even worth it. Because all Sarah does in response is makes a comment about someone. This time, saying Cody thinks he's a cool blind person...not even sure how he's supposed to think that, but ok then.
I'm just sick of the bs, and yes, I agree sarah's point was valid enough at first. We do need to be mindful of how we speak about mental illness. Now, does that mean banning the word crazy on this site? I don't think so, but like I said it was a valid topic and interesting debate.
But I feel like it's just turned into Sarah slamming people for things that aren't even relevant.
Even if Cody was a racist, which he's not, how is that relevant to this discussion? Look, I doubt he's offended by this, but I honestly feel like Sarah's personal attacks on people are worse than them using words casually without thinking first.
wait, I'm not a cool blind person? Aww, sad-face.
It's all about balance as has been stated. But there is intent to consider too. Short version, side A: don't intentionally act like gaping rectal sphincters. And Side B, when side A just can't act with common decency, learn how not to take offense. or if you must be offended, take it up with the offender.
To elaborate: If something someone has said was meant to be harmless then it's something to take into consideration. We're human beings; sometimes we say dumb things out of a need to seem funny, or out of thoughtlessness. But, and this is a megan Trainer butt, there's no excuse at all for treating one another like excrement under a boot, as certain individuals on this sight appear to revel in doing. There are those here who appear to specifically engage in forum discussions for the soul purpose of insulting, belittling and creating drama. They shoot their virtual mouths off seemingly without any forethought. Whether they do it out of sheer bordom, molitious intent, or simply a desire to display what they consider superiority doesn't matter; the result is the same, agrivation, insulting and yes, even occasionally real harm. Now I'm not saying we all need to get along all the time; it's not possible in such a diverse group such as this. But we each have a responsibility not to intentionally be a dick. And for those of us who finwho feel utterly insulted by what others are saying, we need to get past it. Because if we don't we're only stressing ourselves out, and making that dicks egotistical erection that much bigger.
I've tried to end this topic. Several times, when Cody and Chelsea have their fun, I've tried to say, this isn't what I posted this for. I really have tried. You can check past posts, if you doubt me. I've said we are off-topic. But as usual, some people, and I won't pick on anyone, keep it going. You want to turn this into the Tell Sarah What A Loser She Is board topic, great. I'm done. I made my point, and all that's happening now, is people pointing fingers. Including me, in my own defence, but it doesn't matter. So, if I could get rid of this topic, so we didn't have the ability to post on it, I would. But, I have one more thing to say:
To my true friends, thank you for telling me what you feel. And, when you see this turn to pointing fingers, thank you for telling me. But, as far as I'm concerned, let them talk. For now, just let the other side have fun.
To those that want to make a huge deal because, Sarah Said It, just type on a blank screen, or send a PQN to your pals. Do what you want with this, because, I'm all out of things to say, that won't start an immature pissing match. This is your's now. Have a ball!
Blessings,
Sarah
Okay, let me get this straight: this topic was created by Sarah, who "was just saying what she needed to say." Yet, she apparently had this idea in her head when she created this topic that everyone would take up for her. Since things didn't go the way she anticipated, she's choosing to wine...when she's the one who created this topic in the first place! *Shakes head*.
Right, and we're just having a blast here, even though I've made several
posts wherein I suggeted changes and asked for thoughts, and got nothing but
dismissal in response. But, I'm guessing no one else is going to comment on
how biased that is.
Oh, and I think I actually will go back and look for where Sarah tried to end
this, because I honestly don't remember that happening. I remember her saying
she was going to ignore the people who disagreed with her, because fuck
intellectual discourse, am I right? But I don't remember her saying that she'd
ended the topic. Can anyone help me out there?
Nope, didn't notice it either.
But when you get in the kitchen...
Ok, I looked, and not once did sarah say anything even remotely related to
closing this topic. I was even being as liberal with my terms as I can be. She
never says "I'm done" or "I give up" or "agree to disagree" or "oh well" or
anything. People can go back and check my findings, but I can't find a single
instance where she does.
So, why am I making a big deal out of that? Well, its simple. It proves two
thinks, or at least I think it does, feel free to disagree with me on this. First, it
proves that sarah is just looking to be offended. Read her first post again. She
says "maybe I'm not rich enough", as if we're all floating in money and laughing
at her like Scrooge McDuck or something, or Scrooge McBlindyDuck. Look at her
posts in response to people's questions, she does nothing but accuse them of
prejudice and bias. She never even addresses anyone's question. And I'm not
even talking only about me here, she either entirely ignores someone, see
Holly's posts, or she insults them, see me, Chelsea et al. She also sometimes
agrees with someone, but then uses that to bash other people, see her
response to Leo.
Second, it proves that this really isn't that big an issue here. I'm not saying
people don't get offended, but if sarah has to go to those lengths to find
something to be offended by, I think we're doing pretty good. I mean, we don't
have any men's rights posts up yet that I know of. We haven't said that anyone
needs to be raped to death, which apparently is growing popularity on other
cites. We don't have people posting people's addresses and asking for them to
be killed or assaulted, also becoming more common. We don't have any of this.
And yet sarah feels the need to act as if we're all laughing at her because she's
not rich. Like the rest of us aren't also on some form of assistance.
So, why is this a big deal? well, I'll tell you unnamed reader I've given a
disembodied voice to. Its a big deal because of a problem I see on here a lot,
and its been pointed out on here before, but I think it needs to be outlined.
Now, if you went through these posts, and you looked at how I responded, you
will see that I start out politely. I don't call Sarah names. I don't talk about her
bank account, which apparently is a big thing for her. I don't talk about her
religion, her skin color, her hair color, her best friend's kitchen sink or the price
of tea in china. I talk about one thing, answering her post. And how does she
respond? she flings insults, bashes people, brings in entirely unrelated subjects,
and above all avoids any actual discussion of the topic. The only time she
actually contributed anything to the discussion is when she posted her first post.
after that, it was all complaining about how we're prejudiced against her for one
thing or another, and how she's going to ignore us.
This outlines a problem here, and I would argue a problem in society at large,
but lets not get carried away here. If you go through my posts, you will find me
starting out trying to help people. Very very rarely to I see a post, and my first
response to it is insulting, harsh, or even all that negative. I may point out
some incorrect positions, I may correct a few things, I may even, gasp, tell
people they're wrong about something, but I do not simply dismiss an idea.
Sometimes I'm even proven to be incorrect myself, bernadetta is famous, and
rather proud, for doing this many times over. But, the point is, I don't start out
my posts being as disagreeable as my reputation would suggest.
Why is that? Because I feel that all ideas are valuable. But, once an idea has
been proven lacking or incorrect, it needs to be done away with. its at that
point, at the point where people refuse to budge, which I become harsh.
Because then you're not having a conversation. at that point you're wanting an
echo chamber. So, take this post for example. Sarah put up this post, and then
did not engage with the responses at all. she wanted everyone to clap and say
how smart she is for coming up with such a brilliant idea. But that's not what
happened, so she entirely abandoned the discourse of ideas. That, to me, is the
height of dishonesty, and I can't stand it.
So, now we have people on this board and in publics, criticizing me for how I
act, and completely ignoring people like sarah, because don't think for a second
that Sarah is the only one. But, I ask you, whose worse, the person who wants
to disagree, grind down the ideas, find some facts and reach a good conclusion
based on the evidence even if a few feelings might get hurt along the way, or
the person who simply wants whatever they say to be accepted and never
questioned? Which one do you think is more harmful when they say things?
which one do you want to go to for advice on something you don't know the
answer to? Which one do you think is more trust worthy when it comes to
opinions and ideas and facts? Do you think its the person who wants nothing
they say questioned, or the person who wants everything they say questioned
until the truth has been found? I hope you say the latter. If not, I shudder for
you.
So, the next time you see me criticizing something, or saying something
harsh, don't automatically leap to the idea that Cody's just an asshole and that's
how /Cody is, question why I'm doing that. What has caused the conversation
to become that? Have I been beating my head against a brick wall trying to
demonstrate a fact? Have I been arguing against half a dozen people at once
who all think something is false when I've demonstrated that it isn't? Have I
been trying to show someone who asked for advice what the good choice of
action would be, when someone else has been trying to give them their false
sales pitch? I can guarantee you that it will almost always be one of these cases
or something similar.
I've been called an asshole, a troll, a jerk, all kinds of things on here. But I'm
not. What I am is an intelligent person, who loves to learn things. I learn things
like other people play musical instruments. Some people's favorite books are
fictional fantasy worlds, mine are historical tomes and medical texts, scientific
literature and theory books. Some people go on netflix and binge watch House
of cards. I go on netflix and binge watch documentaries on every subject I can
find that catches my interest. So when someone asks a question, there's a good
chance I'll know the answer, or know how to find the answer.
But I also have integrity. so if I see someone asking about, for example, a
question about algebra, I step back and let people who know better answer that
question, because I don't know.
So does that make me an asshole, a troll or a jerk? I don't think so. I try to
help people the best way I know how, and sometimes to do that you have to
crush a few beliefs. sometimes, the things you thought were true simply aren't.
Your star sign is meaningless. I'm sorry if you believe that, but its absolutely
meaningless. Homeopathy does not work, its never worked, and it never will
work. I'm sorry if you buy into it, but its simply not true. Vaccines save lives,
they don't hurt people unless there's some terrible accident of allergies or
something; they don't cause autism. The civil war was about slavery. I know
that most confederates didn't own slaves, but that doesn't change the fact that
the war was fought to preserve slavery. I'm sorry if you're from Mississippi and
you like your stars and bars. It doesn't make you right. Am I an asshole for
pointing these out, or am I simply a guy who knows things, and who wants the
rest of the people he knows to know them to? Is that so terrible?
Cody,
I was with you till near the end of your post. Without getting into mud-slinging, I'll say only that yes, you're very informative and helpful much of the time...but where I disagree is where you say you're not an asshole or a troll. Often you aren't, but sometimes you are. You have a way of being about eleven times harsher than I think is warranted sometimes, and I don't know if this is intentional or not but sometimes you have a way of writing that makes you seem as if you're looking down your nose at people. It doesn't get under my skin, I can give as good as I get in a firefight if I have to, but that's not true of everybody. With some people - I am not one of these, but they're around - such a rough-tongued reputation will stick no matter what else you say or do, and I think that's the case here.
Now, why am I posting a fairly personally aimed bit of analysis on a public board, you may ask? Because this does circle back to Sarah.
Sarah, forgive me, this might offend you.
I think this whole dynamic of Sarah getting defensive has to do with feeling inadequate and/or attacked. I have seen precisely this result many times in the past from people in my own life who have been argued into a corner, snarked at or otherwise provided with some sort of opposition they neither expected nor wanted. Sadly, I have been the provider of said opposition more than my fair share of times, and the recipient of the defensiveness and reciprocal attacks as well. To put it really bluntly, some people just don't do conflict well. They don't think things through rationally, they don't weigh every single word they say or write, and someone who does do those things will proceed to pounce all over them.
And it's a tricky business. I'm not suggesting that we all ought to be nice, and that we ought to give people like that a ton of slack at every turn. We shouldn't. But when we're particularly eloquent or harsh or judgmental, or when we've given off an air of superiority many times in the past whether we mean to or not...well, why is it so much to ask that we stop and think a moment? We ought to realize "Hey, this is an explosion waiting to happen; I could light it up, but why?". You know that thing you get told about "being the bigger person" and walking away? Sometimes I think many otherwise fine people, self included, would do well to remember how to do that just a bit more often.
This whole situation started off being a critique of the word "crazy" being flung around, and turned into a dogpile. Sarah, you didn't help yourself out too much by responding as you did, but neither did anyone else.
People are now saying Sarah's being immature for backing off. Actually, I think she has the right idea. This is a clusterfuck that shows no sign of being untangled, so she's disengaging. Her point originally was to bring up the fact that mental illness can be mocked more freely than other things, even indirectly, and she mostly succeeded. Anything after that was just needless complication, so she yanked the plug on it.
Not exactly.
She said she'd tried to back out several times, but she never did.
To back out, all she had to do is stop posting.
When you voice an opinion, you are likely to get disagreed with.
You have two options, state your case in the debate, or stop posting on it.
I've said this many times. How a person expresses themselves makes me no difference. We are having open debate, or conversation, and ideas, opinions, and expression will be shared.
I personally don't expect anyone to whatch how they say what they need to say. Bring it on in the manner you see fit, because that is what makes good debate, or open conversation.
You have the need to tell me my thinkings fucked up, say so, and tell me why exactly.
Also, if she knows she is easily hurt, engage in some self care and don't start the board in the first place.
I actually agreed with her initial point to an extent, not on the censorship as such but being mindful.
However, what I don't like is the way she flipped out and attacked everyone.
Yes, cody can be a dick. I'm friends with Cody and I'll happily say that. This isn't me sticking up for my friends. I do think sometimes he can say things in an overly condescending manner. But, having said that, it just wasn't necessary to call him a racist on this topic. It wasn't relevant, it was unkind, and it completely undermined her own point.
Also, I'm not sure why she mentioned not being rich. Surely she knows that a lot of us are either students or unemployed? Trust me, we're not rolling in money. It has nothing to do with the topic either.
I know in several posts that I've tried saying that we've really said all there is to be said. I'm walking away, because, Cody and Chelsea in particular, are turning this into an attack board. I worried this might happen, but I felt what was happening is wrong. And, you should see Chelsea all offended because someone didn't believe this disability, she made up.
Cody, if you aren't an asshole as you say, I'm not really blind.
Now, I'm just trying to answer anyone who thinks I'm being hipocritical. I've tried several times to tell Cody he's getting off topic, and he just doesn't pay attention. So, since this is mostly Cody and Chelsea trying to irritate me deliberately, I'm refusing to rise to your bait. This, I admit is something I've needed to do from the beginning. For those who had to read all this, I'm sorry I didn't try walking away long ago. I have one more point to make, and I'll shut up.
I see that my topic has done little good, as others are still going on that board, making fun of unusual disorders. The first time was sort of funny, but the second time was a seriously offensive one.
I was reading in an email where someone used to be told to "Shut up, and keep your place!"
In other words, to shut up and sit in the corner, "Like a good little blind person."
Well, I see that similar attitudes are here. It's really too bad, because, all I wanted in the first place was to make people feel more welcome.
Well, that's something I won't try again.
So, I'll walk away with what if any, dignity that remains.
Sorry I even brought this up, and for the one reason that jerks like Cody, can go on being as cruel as they are, thinking they're right. Well you're not.
Chelsea is using my comments to mock others, people with this BIID. Well, when I see you on other boards complaining, I'm not sure if I'll really be able to believe you're sincere.
So, I'm walking away, and you guys have fun laughing.
Blessings,
Sarah
I'm sorry, but I'm going to strongly disagree with this being a Cody and Chelsea attacking board.
Cody, for all his faults, was pretty reasonable in his first post. And Sarah responded saying that he thinks racism is ok. Now, I'm just going to throw out a question, who started attacking?
This is utterly ridiculous, but look I'm still posting so I guess I have something to say. It does bother me, that Sarah is doing this, I guess I've made that clear. I wish she would acknowledge that maybe she was the cause of this whole fucking mess, rather than playing the victim again.
Ok, this is a genuine question, wehre on this post have I bashed Sarah? I'm
really curious to know, because I don't feel that I have bashed her at all. Can
anyone help me out?
How am I suppose to walk away, when you find things to ask about? I'm not trying to be victim, just this is going nowhere. STOP, already!
If I dignify you with answers, you will just find my answers flawed. So, you win! Hope you are happy!
Nobody is forcing anyone to respond. In fact, cody's question wasn't even directed at you, but the rest of us. I'm sorry, but this is one of those situations where you make your own bed, lie in it.
Ok Sarah, I'm genuinely confused here. Where have I offended you on this
board? I've been polite on here I disagreed with you, but I did it politely. Why
are you so offended right now?
Hmm a couple things I guess.
First,, there's a difference between a word like fag and a word like spazz. I've
never seen a young gay kid laughing and hyping out saying "I'm a fag! I'm
being a fag!" It's always said to be aggressive to gays unless, like Johndy said
one gay says it of themselves or to another or something. But spas is more of a
lighthearted thing, except like the situation I mentioned where she has a
particular kind of condition, and even then she wasn't the one offended and still
isn't,, and others involved were just setting me straight.
Now there's a statement most don't seem to remember anymore:
No offense was taken where none was intended.
Some people are assholes and are intending to offend, but many times it seems
people are offended because it's trendy to be offended now. Everyone wants to
be in on the offended olympics. Well, certainly not some of us, but it's the going
thing right now. Kind of destroys discourse. Common courtesy goes a long way,
and being educated on something does also. But saying "I'm offended! Go
educate yourself!" is juvenile and pointless.
I get where Leo is coming from here. I'm going to refer back to what I think my first post was on this topic. If you see someone who says something that upsets you, maybe raise it with that person. A lot of the time, people say things without knowing why it might be problematic, like in Leo's example. Explaining that to them, in a polite way, can mean they won't use it in that situation again. Now, they also might, and then you've just got to walk away, because not everyone will change.
My biggest issue with this topic is that Sarah is kicking and screaming about being offended, and then saying rude things about the people that supposedly offend here. Realistically, are they going to even consider changing their behaviour if she does this?
What she could have done is sent Chelsea a message on here saying I know you probably didn't mean any harm with what you said, but your words hurt me for this reason. Chelsea might have replied saying tough luck, but either way the person who was offended would have tried to handle it the best way possible.
Insulting everyone who you feel has offended you won't get you anywhere though.
I like the offended olympics Leo! This kind of relates to another phrase I've heard on other platforms that I think applies here. This isn't the opression olympics. Again, another game I've seen Sarah play. Refering to money, as if we're all rich, talking about her past, talking about how she's dealt with things none of us could handle. It's just not relevant. Does this have to be a competition as to who has the hardest life? I really hope not. It's childish and adds nothing to the conversation.
Scarlet is right that if Sarah were to contact me telling me what I said that offended her and how exactly what I said offended her, I likely would've responded. And, in all honesty, I would've responded in kind. However, Sarah will never know that because she hasn't reached out to me and told me anything of the sort.
So I can't respond kindly when I have no earthly idea what I've said that is so wrong, hateful, ETC.
Well, given that you know Sarah is offended now, you could very easily reach out to her and try to set the record straight. You could be the bigger person. Cody, at least, is trying to do that by asking what he apparently did wrong this time. I don't really think he was out of line in this topic. But I also know my opinion doesn't really count for beans. Haha.
But...maybe this seems flippant, but why should Chelsea do that? I get that she would then be the adult in the situation, but Sarah has pretty much demonstrated she's not up for adult discussion with either Cody or Chelsea. So it sounds like they'd just be wasting their energy. Maybe I'm a synic :)
We could argue, then, that because of multiple previous examples where Sarah was at least semi-reasonable and either Cody or Chelsea weren't, Sarah is no longer required to be the bigger person. But that gets kind of stupid kind of quickly.
The reality is this. It's not a matter of what you should -have to do, not by any means. But if someone's actually sorry, or wants to build a bridge, they will pick up the hammer and nails first, so to speak. A flat unwillingness to do that translates to immaturity in my book. Having to do it over and over again gets tiring, mind you, but that's...not really on offer here.
I've seen Sarah get in someone's face a few times before, but I've seen Chelsea do it more, and I've seen Cody do it way, way more. What bothers me a little is that when Cody or Chelsea is an asshole, Cody especially, you basically only have people like me calling him out on it with any degree of...well, I suppose the best word would be clarity. I don't just attack back, I try and explain why being a jerk was overkill or whatnot. But now that someone else has done it (and no, it's not okay, remember that I said that), we have a dogpile. Kind of a backward standard here, where if you're certain people it's more permissible to be a jerk. Hell, I might well be in that group of certain people; I've no doubt been a jerk before.
No winning with the SJW's and oversensitive types. Walk away is definitely your
best bet.
Why is this about Cody and Chelsea when they aren't the only ones to state flatly the person on the other topic is crazy?
On this board, Chelsea and Cody aren't the only posters to disagree?
Sarah, you dislike them, but you'll have to understand, they aren't attacking you only expressing opinions.
Exactly right Wayne. However, I'm sure SW will come back here and say that Cody and I are the ones who "attack" people frequently because that's his answer for practically everything that Cody and I post as a whole, so that makes it right in his mind'.
I am with Cody on this all the way. Sue me.
Chelsea, thanks for misjudging me again, but I expected nothing different.
Frankly, if you actually read my posts you'll see that I'm not just attacking any given person here, whether it be you or Cody or Sarah. I've brought up issues on all three of you. And no, just because someone has been a jerk eighty-seven times in the past doesn't mean that their good deeds don't matter, and doesn't mean they should get jumped on when they're honestly trying to be good this time. I know that well; to do else is jumping the gun.
I can see both your points. SW, you do get on to Chelsea and I reather
frequently for not sticking to your particular brand of behavior. If we don't use
the phrasing you would use, you tend to discard a lot of what we say. Or, at the
most, you'll say you agree with us in one sentence, and then take twenty
sentences talking about how we could have said it better, or been less harsh, or
not sounded quite so aggressively.
That being said, Chelsea did jump to the gun in this case. SW hasn't done any
of that stuff yet. He's made reference to it, but that's all. Chelsea should at least
wait until the subject is brought up until she defends herself.
However, I think we're all guilty of this. I have criticized SW in the past for
pussyfooting around the issue so much in an attempt to not offend anyone, that
he destroys his credibility and his point by apologizing for it until he's blue in the
keyboard. This is just a difference of style. I like to speak my mind and I'll be
damned if I ever apologize for it. SW likes to slowly trickle out his points in little
spurts so as to hopefully never offend, and to always have wiggle room and a
path of retreat if he does. Chelsea is a bit closer to my side of the table than
SW's, but she seems to go off half-cocked a lot of the time.
None of these things, however, are what Sarah does, which is simply attack.
aS I said earlier, rarely do I ever simply attack someone when they post. about
the only person I can thik of who I will do that with is that mygodchosenbride
buy, and I think we can all excuse that one. Other than that, I don't start out
attacking, and I think that should be taken into consideration. SW usually starts
out apologizing, and chelsea often starts aggressively, but all of these should be
taken into consideration before we judge someone.
The long and the short of it is, if you want to call me and chelsea jerks or
assholes, you kinda have to admit that Sarah is a bigger one for what she does.
It's a matter of language. Well, in the case of the web, writing style. Cody pretty much stated it. Some people are more firm in the way they deal with others. That's just life.
Wait a minute, so let me get this straight if I say crazy, I'll get ban?I'm following her logic
here and it doesn't make any sense. I'm not trying to bash Sarah believe me, but
throwing a fit over someone saying crazy etc. that's a little bit over-the-top. Is it wrong
to make fun of mental illness? Sure absolutely it is. But you have to face facts there are a
lot of people here the best thing to do is ignore them if they offend you. I use the word
crazy all the time. I don't mean anything by it. I have even said that girl is crazy. I am not
bashing mental illness at all. I am just not understanding your logic Sarah.
I read Sarah's post at the very beginning of this topics page and at no point did I see where she said anything about any kind of blocking of disagreeable opinions. Sounds like to me that you people are just reading what you want to read in to it so you can have something to bitch about rather than really carefully think about what she's actually saying.
James
Its a mixture of extrapolation from her comments about the response to racist
and homophobic language, and a bit of sarcasm James. Though, in the past,
you have shown a remarkable inability to be anything other than religiously
literal. But if you read her post as saying that using ablist language should have
the same consequence as racist language, then she is calling for a ban. After all,
someone was banned for racist language a couple weeks ago on here. So that's
where it came from, not any imaginary need to be offended or insult. Believe
me, I can disagree perfectly well without having to make anything up.
I'm not sure if you're still following this board post, Sarah, but I want to point something out and make you and everyone else aware of three things you said here.
First of all, you are upset with how people display ignorance towards mental illness, but you proceed to call out Chelsea for her "depression issues". Regardless of whether or not she has depression, major depressive or otherwise, I would think that you understand how sensitive and confidential that is. What are you trying to gain by throwing out personal, confidential information about a person?
Secondly, you referenced attention-seaking behavior. Some mental, psychological disorders involve attention, including but not limited to ADHD and histrionic personality disorders, the latter being based on a need to be the center of attention. Don't you think that maybe a person with HPD would be offended by your reference to being an attention seaker?
Finally, I'd like to go back to your reference about hallucinating which could also be offensive to someone who has, say, schizophrenia. My point is to make you a little more aware of what you're saying, if you indeed want to be more sensitive to mental illness. It seems like you are just as guilty as the people you're accusing. For the record, I'm not a fan of calling people things like psycho or retarded either, but I don't believe it's more or less acceptable than any other derogatory terms, nor is it defined as discrimination unless you say something like, "he's a psycho. I'm not hiring that crazy bastard." People usually don't intend to belittle someone with a mental illness when they use these phrases out of context. I think making someone more self-aware could prevent this from happening, but censorship isn't the solution. That only provokes defiance.
For the record, I don't think it's really up to you whether or not you're an ass hole. That's just an opinion a person has about you. Louis C K said it best when he said something along the lines of, "it's not up to you whether you're an ass hole or not."
Sarah, when I use the word crazy, I do not mean "worthless" or any other type of negative connotation you are probably associating with those words. I, like Cody, use that phrasing all the time, because it's how I speak. It doesn't mean I'm saying mentally ill people are psychotic. If anything, you are the one using those words, not me or Cody.
I will accept that in some ways, the way I have written things in the past has probably been harsher than necessary at times--my intention has never been to pick fights or hurt anyone. I realize I have done both though, and I'm apologizing here and now for the harm I may have caused anyone.
That being said, like Cody, I take pride in speaking my mind--I firmly believe that if I don't speak my mind, if I pussyfoot around and don't know how to get straight to my point, no one will ever know where I stand or what I think about things.
In the case of this topic, if Sarah never asks me, which she still hasn't, what I mean when I use the expression "the woman is crazy," Sarah will never know that I am simply expressing my view. I am not saying I'd be unkind to anyone, harm them in any way, ETC. This, I think is what Cody has been trying to get across. People are quick to jump to conclusions without actually involving the person who supposedly offended him or her. It's easier to trash talk Cody and Chelsea, therefore that's what's being done. It's a lot harder to actually, you know, ask Chelsea or Cody why they use particular words or phrases, and face your own self.
I'm sure someone won't like the way I phrased that, but I'm not name-calling anyone. I feel I have been very clear how things should/could be handled, and that is all I can do.
Well put. Sarah, you and I usually see eye to eye but I take issue with you name dropping and calling people out. I understand you may be hurt but that's no reason to act this way.
Sometimes, things are just a part of every day language. If something doesn't seem right, how many times do you hear someone say, "Oh, that's so gay!" It doesn't necessarily have to mean that they're homophobic or even trying to belittle a gay person.
This conversation sort of brings to mind George Carlin's 7 dirty words you can't say where he picks apart words and by the end you have to ask yourself if the words are bad or, just maybe, you have to look at the context.
This idea of ablist language troubles me. I think its an absolutely pointless
thing to be offended by. I've actually seen writers say that if a news reporter
says that the president must be blind to invade syria, that they're being ablist.
That is, for lack of a better phrase, fucking stupid. No one is going to make the
logical leap between that phrase and treatment of blind people. and no one is
going to change the way they treat us because of a change in that phrase. She
could say that the president would have to be a potato to invade syria, and blind
people would be treated just the same.
Its the same with a lot of such phrases. If I say "man, that roller coaster was
crazy", I clearly don't mean it had mental issues or some mental disability. I
mean it was unexpectedly wild and unpredictable. If I say that joke was lame, I
don't mean it is in a wheelchair, I mean it was not funny. No logical person
would make a connection between those two phrases and actual mentally
disabled people, or people in wheelchairs. No one is that much of an idiot, and
that from someone who thinks most people are idiots. Which, coincidentally, is
also ablist language.
Man, I've gotten a kick out of this.
So, the same woman who has told myself and other atheists that she looks forward to being in heaven, so she can look down at us burning and screaming in hell for ever and ever... the same woman who talked about how all people practicing Islam in the middle east should be bombed for the good of the world...
Uh. That woman is asking us to take it easy on mental health issues?
You mean she told you Atheist you were mentally sick?
Smile.
This topic is, wait for it, wait for it, crazy.
Can somebody please link to where she said that about atheists?
She probably said that to the person in pqn's.
I am teasing.
ah gotya
public quicknotes a few years back.
That makes it a little impossible to link.
Oh well I doubt Sarah is reading this topic anymore.
That's unfortunate. And she's always been nice to me. If she really does feel that way then I guess she assumes I'm not an atheist.
what someone says a few years ago or even in the heat of battle may or may not be a true reflection of what he or she thinks today
It has no baring at all.