(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.

(11-06-2015, 05:11 AM)Verad Wrote:

(11-06-2015, 05:03 AM)McBeef™ Wrote: Just because something is not a slur does not mean it is a compliment. 

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 also 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." 

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.

(11-06-2015, 05:18 AM)McBeefâ„¢ Wrote:

(11-06-2015, 05:11 AM)Verad Wrote:

(11-06-2015, 05:03 AM)McBeef™ Wrote: Just because something is not a slur does not mean it is a compliment. 

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 also 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." 

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. 

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.

(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.

(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)McBeef™ Wrote: Just because something is not a slur does not mean it is a compliment. 

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 also 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." 

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. 

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.

(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  "Sex Work."

(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  "Sex Work."

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

(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.  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.

(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?

(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"... 

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

Or are you being hypocritical?