Yes, you can.Originally Posted by soldant
Yes, you can.
It might not, but then again it might. I'm not going to research into every group that might be offended by words that my instincts suggest might be such. It was an example, not a straw man.
If this definition is to be considered valid, the entire thread is moot. Not that I disagree with you.
Last edited by mickygor; 01-05-2012 at 03:07 PM. Reason: multiquote
mickygor, Battlefield 3
Otmer, League of Legends EUW
Bastiat, Planetside 2, Miller NC
How is this a debate? Saying rude things is a waste of everyone's time. So don't say things that are considered to be rude.
I'd like to amend this to Don't say things that are considered to be rude unless there's a good chance that the people you're talking to won't consider it rude, and there's some other word you could use instead, and it isn't too much of an inconvenience. Also don't say things that you don't really want to encourage other people to use.
And don't whine too much one way or the other, it's just irritating.
Irrelevant on further examination of the rest of the thread.
wupps, nonsense
That's forever walking on eggshells for no goddamn reason. If you worry that somebody might become offended by something you say on the internet, you're better off not being on the internet. Everything can be viewed as offensive and there are a fair number of people looking to take offense.
No, I'm sorry. We all have a reasonable idea of what is and what is not rude.
I didn't say "don't say things that someone somewhere might consider rude." Coz fuck them.
Don't be rude!
Irrelevant on further examination of the rest of the thread.
Your reasonable idea is not my reasonable idea. Either we go lowest-common-denominator or we just assume somebody's going to get offended.
Great then, so when I say "His zergling rush raped me" I'm saying that it wantonly destroyed me, not that it sexually assaulted me! Problem solved.
RPS Arma 2 community server!
Join us for tacticlol manshootery, explosions and helicopter crashes.
Yeah that wasn't actually what I said, I said you can't literally rape a land. The term is used figuratively when used in the context of land, which is exactly what your quoted definition says.
And yeah I think you actually just proved my point so... um, yeah.
Very interesting. I wonder if your experiences are reflective of broader trends.
I don't know. I suspect there's a correlation between the kinds of folks that are cavalier with the word 'rape' and the kinds of folks whose reaction to hearing about rape is some variation on "won't someone think of [anything but the victim]". And I wouldn't be inclined to accept that as a coincidence, although I'm certainly not asserting any causal relationship.
In that light I would be particularly interested to hear about casual use of 'rape' amongst women and how it compares to, say, the male-dominated online gaming contexts with which we are all familiar.
According to Etymonline the two meanings both date from roughly the 14th century. And of course if one considers the place of women in society back then, the difference between the two was perhaps not as significant as we might consider it today, i.e. one was a fairly simple derivation from the other.The context in which a term is used is clearly important. The malicious interpersonal act termed 'rape' has a different context than rape of the land [....] Clearly the use hasn't diminished its use in other contexts.
Indeed I suspect that the power we attach today to the word 'rape' used in contexts-other-than-sexual-violation does indeed derive directly from that primary context in which we use it. They cannot be separated, and there is no reason to think that the influence is other than omnidirectional, i.e. casual use of the term diminishing its significance in all contexts.
Last edited by Rii; 02-05-2012 at 01:49 AM.
For what it's worth, I wouldn't use the term when playing online with females, it'd be too uncomfortable. Though I have heard females use the term online jokingly, though they're pretty rough and seem to adopt more masculine personas. Maybe to fit in?
That's true because we're describing something a serious violation, and you're right that land and women were seen as a kind of property back when the term was in use, but there's a big difference between rape of a person and rape of a land. A person has (or is supposed to have) free well and self-determination, the right to refuse, to resist. The land cannot. It has no feelings. It's not sapient/sentient and doesn't have traumatic flashbacks or anything like that. But people have no problems differentiating between the two contexts; the fact that rape of a land is different from rape of a person doesn't diminish the impact it has on a person and recognition of it by others.
Again I don't agree with its overuse but I'm not seeing any evidence that it's diminishing the impact of the word in cases of crime. If anything the concept of rape and its illegality is increasing in recent years, to the point where the very issue of consent is becoming nebulous.
I'd be more concerned about sapient household appliances. Especially toilets. Man, if toilets could talk, they'd have a hell of a tale to tell.
So... it's a symbiotic relationship? They handle our waste, and we clean them? Maybe I have nothing to fear after all.
Oh sorry, tangent, back to land and rape and such.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
