RPC has moved! These pages have been kept for historical purposes

Kiera Hawkeye · **11-06-2015, 05:16 AM**

(11-06-2015, 05:15 AM)Teadrinker Wrote: This thread is like a car full of clowns that is on fire careening for a brick wall.

Let it careen, Tea. We can only watch and shake our heads in disappointment that they didn't listen to my wise words.

Mod Note: User was placed on post moderation for this post and subsequent posts.

Cato · **11-06-2015, 05:17 AM**

It's also worth noting that despite some causes being genuine in regards to changing and stifling the use of specific words there's a very vocal portion of people out there who take it too far and want to change any word that happens to offend them.

Where do people draw the line? There's people demanding that words such as 'he' and 'she' are removed from the dictionary and aren't used at all to describe somebody's gender. I'm not saying that this movement is that extreme but...there's some pretty solid reasons as to why a lot of people are reluctant to go along with these things.

There's also the risk that - at some point - people will have had enough and will simply roll their eyes and refuse to budge at all. There's only so many times people can 'cry wolf' about how specific words 'offend them' before it becomes a bit too much.

In other words? People need to be very careful about how this sort of thing.

McBeefâ„¢ · **11-06-2015, 05:18 AM**

(11-06-2015, 05:11 AM)Verad Wrote:
(11-06-2015, 05:03 AM)McBeefâ„¢ Wrote: Just because something is not a slur does not mean it is a compliment.Â

I question why someone a smart as you is resorting to petty semantics :c

A compliment cannot be a slur

A slur cannot be a compliment

That doesn't mean something that is not a slur has to be a compliment.

This is not petty semantics for me, but a conclusion drawn from the etymology of the word in both its original and continued use. The original term was a degrading term. In its noun form, it was alsoÂ a degrading term (the play in which it is first recorded as a description of the profession of sex work is literally called The Woman Hater, of all things). It's also not a term that I can reasonably call technical jargon or archaic where it has an innocent meaning that people miscontrue, like "niggardly."Â

That the noun form has somehow been neutered to be "clinical" is just a side-effect of its use in legal codes written by past generations, not because it's somehow "more technical" than "whore," and not an indication of any kind of linguistic truth.

But you're right, change requires work, and modifying your language is just too damn hard to do consciously unless someone is specifically asking you to do it.

I hate bringing out the same tired words but, 100 years ago, it would be very rude to call someone of african descent "Black" in the United States. 'Colored' was the most appropriate and respectable way of addressing them.

Now Black is considered respectable, and 'Colored' is the opposite.Â

Words change, what once could have been derogative is now clinical. Should it be the other way? Should the word move back to the pejorative? Possibly! However this thread and the opinion of one is not enough to convince me.

Verad · **11-06-2015, 05:19 AM**

(11-06-2015, 05:18 AM)McBeefâ„¢ Wrote:
(11-06-2015, 05:11 AM)Verad Wrote:
(11-06-2015, 05:03 AM)McBeefâ„¢ Wrote: Just because something is not a slur does not mean it is a compliment.Â

I question why someone a smart as you is resorting to petty semantics :c

A compliment cannot be a slur

A slur cannot be a compliment

That doesn't mean something that is not a slur has to be a compliment.

This is not petty semantics for me, but a conclusion drawn from the etymology of the word in both its original and continued use. The original term was a degrading term. In its noun form, it was alsoÂ a degrading term (the play in which it is first recorded as a description of the profession of sex work is literally called The Woman Hater, of all things). It's also not a term that I can reasonably call technical jargon or archaic where it has an innocent meaning that people miscontrue, like "niggardly."Â

That the noun form has somehow been neutered to be "clinical" is just a side-effect of its use in legal codes written by past generations, not because it's somehow "more technical" than "whore," and not an indication of any kind of linguistic truth.

But you're right, change requires work, and modifying your language is just too damn hard to do consciously unless someone is specifically asking you to do it.
I hate bringing out the same tired words but, 100 years ago, it would be very rude to call someone of african descent "Black" in the United States. 'Colored' was the most appropriate and respectable way of addressing them.

Now Black is considered respectable, and 'Colored' is the opposite.Â

Words change, what once could have been derogative is now clinical. Should it be the other way? Should the word move back to the pejorative? Possibly! However this thread and the opinion of one is not enough to convince me.

I will ask you what I asked Liadan: what is enough to convince you?

If you have no standard of evidence that can be met, then at least you will respect calling people "sex worker" if that's what they asked for.

LiadansWhisper · **11-06-2015, 05:19 AM**

(11-06-2015, 05:09 AM)Caspar Wrote: But the fact remains that military service is essentially the art of killing, primarily anyway, and sex work is not, so I don't see how anyone could perceive getting killed or harmed as an intrinsic part of sex work, and a risk that should be accepted as part of the job.

There are a lot of people who work in the military who never kill anyone and, in fact, it's not part of their MOS to engage in combat at all. Aircraft mechanics, doctors, nurses, dentists, dental hygienists, secretaries, reporters, the people who run the recreational sections, forest rangers (I'm not even joking - some bases have HUGE tracts of untouched forest), mechanics, gate guards, people who process documentation and never see deployment, Chaplains, finance/accounting people who track the money the military is using, HR people, quartermasters who make sure the right equipment gets to the right places, cooks, clothing/laundry repair techs, musicians, illustrators, public broadcasting (think anchors, but for military broadcasts), attorneys, firefighters, police officers, paralegals, computer techs, cable installers, linguists...

I mean I could go on.

The military is huge. My mother was in the Air Force and never served in a combat role. She was a secretary. My dad was never deployed to a combat zone, he was a cop. My brothers were both infantry in the Army and they both did tours in Afghanistan. But if you think they were heartless, or wanted to kill anyone, you're wrong. They joined the Army to honor my cousin who was killed in Iraq. The older one used to send regular letters home weeping for the children he met in Afghanistan because he couldn't do more, and it broke his heart to see little ones with so little.

Kiera Hawkeye · **11-06-2015, 05:23 AM**

And now we're talking about the military? Can we go back to when this thread just didn't exist? I think we were better that way.

Mod Note: User was placed on post moderation for this post and subsequent posts.

McBeefâ„¢ · **11-06-2015, 05:24 AM**

(11-06-2015, 05:19 AM)Verad Wrote:
(11-06-2015, 05:18 AM)McBeefâ„¢ Wrote:
(11-06-2015, 05:11 AM)Verad Wrote:
(11-06-2015, 05:03 AM)McBeefâ„¢ Wrote: Just because something is not a slur does not mean it is a compliment.Â

I question why someone a smart as you is resorting to petty semantics :c

A compliment cannot be a slur

A slur cannot be a compliment

That doesn't mean something that is not a slur has to be a compliment.

This is not petty semantics for me, but a conclusion drawn from the etymology of the word in both its original and continued use. The original term was a degrading term. In its noun form, it was alsoÂ a degrading term (the play in which it is first recorded as a description of the profession of sex work is literally called The Woman Hater, of all things). It's also not a term that I can reasonably call technical jargon or archaic where it has an innocent meaning that people miscontrue, like "niggardly."Â

That the noun form has somehow been neutered to be "clinical" is just a side-effect of its use in legal codes written by past generations, not because it's somehow "more technical" than "whore," and not an indication of any kind of linguistic truth.

But you're right, change requires work, and modifying your language is just too damn hard to do consciously unless someone is specifically asking you to do it.
I hate bringing out the same tired words but, 100 years ago, it would be very rude to call someone of african descent "Black" in the United States. 'Colored' was the most appropriate and respectable way of addressing them.

Now Black is considered respectable, and 'Colored' is the opposite.Â

Words change, what once could have been derogative is now clinical. Should it be the other way? Should the word move back to the pejorative? Possibly! However this thread and the opinion of one is not enough to convince me.

I will ask you what I asked Liadan: what is enough to convince you?

If you have no standard of evidence that can be met, then at least you will respect calling people "sex worker" if that's what they asked for.

YES!

I have said many times I have no issues calling people what they wish to be called. Fuck, I'm transgender, I of all people know what that's like.

However I also know that ONE PERSON DOES NOT SPEAK FOR ALL. And for now, unless I am told otherwise by an individual, I will refer to them with whatever word seems most generally acceptable. For now, for me, the most generally acceptable word for those who have sex for money is Prostitute. If they say "No, don't call me that" then that's fine, I'll call them whatever they wish.

It was never the personal preference of Pkthunda I took issue with, it was their leap of logic and arrogance that equated their personal preference with the personal preference of all who are involved with Â "Sex Work."

V'aleera · **11-06-2015, 05:25 AM**

Stating that the primary function of the military is the leverage of force for national benefit is not the same as saying that all soldiers are bloodlusting murderers-to-be.

Caspar's point was a valid one; the job of performing sexual services for someone does not inherently carry the risk of violence. Service within a national military does.

Verad · **11-06-2015, 05:26 AM**

(11-06-2015, 05:24 AM)McBeefâ„¢ Wrote: YES!

I have said many times I have no issues calling people what they wish to be called. Fuck, I'm transgender, I of all people know what that's like.

However I also know that ONE PERSON DOES NOT SPEAK FOR ALL. And for now, unless I am told otherwise by an individual, I will refer to them with whatever word seems most generally acceptable. For now, for me, the most generally acceptable word for those who have sex for money is Prostitute. If they say "No, don't call me that" then that's fine, I'll call them whatever they wish.

It was never the personal preference of Pkthunda I took issue with, it was their leap of logic and arrogance that equated their personal preference with the personal preference of all who are involved with Â "Sex Work."

That doesn't answer my question. What would convince you? Or are you saying nothing can convince you, ever?

McBeefâ„¢ · **11-06-2015, 05:30 AM**

(11-06-2015, 05:26 AM)Verad Wrote:
(11-06-2015, 05:24 AM)McBeefâ„¢ Wrote: YES!

I have said many times I have no issues calling people what they wish to be called. Fuck, I'm transgender, I of all people know what that's like.

However I also know that ONE PERSON DOES NOT SPEAK FOR ALL. And for now, unless I am told otherwise by an individual, I will refer to them with whatever word seems most generally acceptable. For now, for me, the most generally acceptable word for those who have sex for money is Prostitute. If they say "No, don't call me that" then that's fine, I'll call them whatever they wish.

It was never the personal preference of Pkthunda I took issue with, it was their leap of logic and arrogance that equated their personal preference with the personal preference of all who are involved with Â "Sex Work."

That doesn't answer my question. What would convince you? Or are you saying nothing can convince you, ever?

What would convince me that Prostitute is a slur?Â

If the majority of people I know who are involved in the industry told me as such.

Considering the fact that several current or former people involved in prostitution/sex work have chimed in on just this thread, and disagreed with the idea that 'Sex Worker' is the only appropriate term that should be used to refer to them, I think it's safe to say the jury is still out.

Do you contest that fact?

Alderique · **11-06-2015, 05:30 AM**

Everyone I have met in this line of work refers to themselves as "sex workers". I've never heard someone say they were a "prostitute." And these are people who have sex with others for payment.

Caspar · **11-06-2015, 05:31 AM**

(11-06-2015, 05:19 AM)LiadansWhisper Wrote:
(11-06-2015, 05:09 AM)Caspar Wrote: But the fact remains that military service is essentially the art of killing, primarily anyway, and sex work is not, so I don't see how anyone could perceive getting killed or harmed as an intrinsic part of sex work, and a risk that should be accepted as part of the job.

There are a lot of people who work in the military who never kill anyone and, in fact, it's not part of their MOS to engage in combat at all. Â Aircraft mechanics, doctors, nurses, dentists, dental hygienists, secretaries, reporters, the people who run the recreational sections, forest rangers (I'm not even joking - some bases have HUGE tracts of untouched forest), mechanics, gate guards, people who process documentation and never see deployment, Chaplains, finance/accounting people who track the money the military is using, HR people, quartermasters who make sure the right equipment gets to the right places, cooks, clothing/laundry repair techs, musicians, illustrators, public broadcasting (think anchors, but for military broadcasts), attorneys, firefighters, police officers, paralegals, computer techs, cable installers, linguists...

I mean I could go on.

The military is huge. Â My mother was in the Air Force and never served in a combat role. Â She was a secretary. Â My dad was never deployed to a combat zone, he was a cop. Â My brothers were both infantry in the Army and they both did tours in Afghanistan. Â But if you think they were heartless, or wanted to kill anyone, you're wrong. Â They joined the Army to honor my cousin who was killed in Iraq. Â The older one used to send regular letters home weeping for the children he met in Afghanistan because he couldn't do more, and it broke his heart to see little ones with so little.

This is an unnecessary digression. Appeals to emotion aside, I understand very well that the military does not only have active combat positions. Most of the people I know who work for the military are in infosec or supply, not active combat related jobs. I was speaking about active combat personnel specifically because that's the comparison with sex workers that was invoked. I was saying you can't make that comparison because it's speaking of harm incurred as an externality of the work rather than an intrinsic element of the work. I guess I didn't explain that well enough?

Though it's a moot point as I agree those jobs have nothing in common.

Lydia Lightfoot · **11-06-2015, 05:31 AM**

(11-06-2015, 05:26 AM)Verad Wrote: That doesn't answer my question. What would convince you? Or are you saying nothing can convince you, ever?

If one person wrote a lengthy diatribe on a forum denouncing the use of the word "sidewalk" because it is sometimes used by people with wheelchairs, Rascals, and other mobility devices utilized by people who can not walk... and so this one person expresses that, on behalf of all people who can't walk, they want everyone who reads the message to refer to sidewalks instead as "concrete path"...Â

...would you be convinced by that one person, and forever after use only the term "concrete path"?

Or are you being hypocritical?

Verad · **11-06-2015, 05:32 AM**

(11-06-2015, 05:31 AM)Calliope Cloverbloom Wrote:
(11-06-2015, 05:26 AM)Verad Wrote: That doesn't answer my question. What would convince you? Or are you saying nothing can convince you, ever?

If one person wrote a lengthy diatribe on a forum denouncing the use of the word "sidewalk" because it is sometimes used by people with wheelchairs, Rascals, and other mobility devices utilized by people who can not walk... and so this one person expresses that, on behalf of all people who can't walk, they want everyone who reads the message to refer to sidewalks instead as "concrete path"...Â

...would you be convinced by that one person, and forever after use only the term "concrete path"?

Or are you being hypocritical?

Sell me.

Kiera Hawkeye · **11-06-2015, 05:33 AM**

There's a mod on, right? I think this thread is done. Let's just stop.

Mod Note: User was placed on post moderation for this post and subsequent posts.

« Next Oldest \| Next Newest »
Thread Closed Pages (16): « Previous 1 … 9 10 11 12 13 … 16 Next » Jump to page:

Sex-work and Harmful Language

RPC has moved! These pages have been kept for historical purposes