# Tumblr Propaganda(?)



## ResolutionBlaze (May 19, 2018)

Here is a comic I found online.  I found it pretty similar to the kind of propaganda I find when I look at Tumblr.
-
This is not as an offense to the artist, but more to the concept itself that the artist and those like him hold; that "Trap" is a term that is offensive to transgender people.
-
Let's define what a "Trap" is first.  I'll use urban dictionary.  Trap has seven definitions according to it, but the relevant two are these; a pre-op transwoman who is passable and hot and/or a gay person who passes as a female and are mistaken for the opposite gender.
-
These definitions have likes and dislike; the far more widely accepted term is the latter.
-
So I must ask; since when has a Trap ever referred to a transwoman?  And what gives a trans person the right to the word when it's utilized for gay men appearing to be women?
-
Is this another Tumblr boogeyman?  Or is this an actual issue that I don't know about?


----------



## Kurgarra Lilitu (May 19, 2018)

This is a mix. My fiance loves traps and she's a trans woman and we both have so many trans friends it's not funny. Though many times they don't refer to a trap as a "gay person" so much as any guy who passes as a girl. In fact usually they hope they aren't gay, but instead bi, because they would want to date them and trans women are often adverse to dating gay guys just like my fiance wouldn't have wanted to be with me if I was a straight woman. 
There are some folks in the trans community that are trying to use trap for themselves, thankfully most of them realize that it is not a term that actually represents them and sort of... are misgendering themselves and calling themselves a trap as a form of... in community joke? I don't really get it to be honest. 
That said, trans women have been called traps in a different connotation for years before the other term came into popularity. A major argument people have tried to use against trans women is trying to say that they are all trying to trick people who wouldn't otherwise be interested in them into dating them and are thus a "trap". 
One reason it's a mix is because it is regionalized. If I were in Mississippi this would comic have some weight in reality to it.
But people who I see posting this on their Facebook who live and have always lived in Portland? They have _never _experienced this. 
The problem is people with different regional experiences will come together and real victims express their story, people who have never been thus victimized will hear and internalize the story and think themselves to be a victim as well. 
This happens in almost all groups nowadays too.
But I might not be the best to talk about this because I hate groups and group psychology and prefer to handle people on a person by person basis.


----------



## Yakamaru (May 19, 2018)

Here's a trap for you:
*Hideyoshi Kinoshita*
.





A trap as used in common language, is a male who looks like a female, with the behaviour and usually the attitude to go with it, although it can also go for females looking like males. I have never heard it being a reference to a trans person.


----------



## Infrarednexus (May 19, 2018)




----------



## Inkblooded (May 19, 2018)

trap is disrespectful and gross but not to transgender people. its gross because it implies that feminine boys (not trans or mtf) only exist to "trick" gay men into having sex with them or that being a feminine male is exclusively a gay sex thing. and "trap" or "femboy" porn is often very degrading and humiliating, always portrayed as inferior to masculine men.

but just ignore it... trans women on tumblr are incels in drag. they think everything is about them and everything is offensive to them even when they have the law, the media, and most of society under their thumb


----------



## quoting_mungo (May 20, 2018)

Reordering your statements, since answering makes more sense if the topics are covered in this order.


ResolutionBlaze said:


> So I must ask; since when has a Trap ever referred to a transwoman? And what gives a trans person the right to the word when it's utilized for gay men appearing to be women?


I'm not sure how you get "a trans person [having] the right to the word" out of the comic. Urban Dictionary is extremely hit-and-miss at the best of times; I have a suspicion that the addition of trans women to the definitions was not done by trans people, but transphobic (in a pretty literal sense - afraid to accidentally get a boner for a transwoman) straight guys. "Trap" to the best of my knowledge used to be a term applied to (drawn) visual media, and pretty exclusive to it; I'm most familiar with it being used for anime and video game characters that at first blush make straight guys go "whoa, hot!" 

Apparently TV Tropes cut its "Trap" page at some point, and redirected it to this. While there is overlap I don't particularly agree with the decision.


ResolutionBlaze said:


> This is not as an offense to the artist, but more to the concept itself that the artist and those like him hold; that "Trap" is a term that is offensive to transgender people.


_*She*_ has beef with the term being applied to trans women by other people. Of course that is offensive to trans* folks. Trans women are literally being told "you're not a woman; you're a guy passing for a girl to try to snare unsuspecting straight men".


----------



## Blythulu (May 20, 2018)

I've heard the term 'trap' used for trans girls very often. Mostly during the time between 2008-20014, but that was also when I hung out in 4chan. I doubt it's actually left the vernacular, it's just that I left the space where it was used.

Just because you haven't personally heard it doesn't mean it's not being used. Honestly, whenever I saw it used, it was used for transgender Asian girls, which added a healthy dose of racism to the mixture.

I'm not saying it's some sort of slur or that no one can use the word (though obviously don't use the word to describe _actual trans people_, but it sounds like most people are already on the same page with that), but don't think that just because you haven't heard it that the people expressing that they have are just making it up. I don't hear the N-word very often, but maybe that's because I'm not black? I don't think it's because no racists are using it to hurt people.

Always recognize that your perspective of the world is limited to your own experiences. Listen to others and their experiences, and try to come to a middle ground. You don't have to agree with them, but you also don't have to call them a liar, either.


----------



## Balskarr (May 20, 2018)

Well, OP. I don't really know myself so I'll just leave this bump here and watch the discussions if they start up.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 20, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> Reordering your statements, since answering makes more sense if the topics are covered in this order.
> 
> I'm not sure how you get "a trans person [having] the right to the word" out of the comic. Urban Dictionary is extremely hit-and-miss at the best of times; I have a suspicion that the addition of trans women to the definitions was not done by trans people, but transphobic (in a pretty literal sense - afraid to accidentally get a boner for a transwoman) straight guys. "Trap" to the best of my knowledge used to be a term applied to (drawn) visual media, and pretty exclusive to it; I'm most familiar with it being used for anime and video game characters that at first blush make straight guys go "whoa, hot!"
> 
> ...


Fair enough; but I've used the word "Trap" and now it seems Transgendered people feel like they have the power to silence me because I use the term.  Doesn't matter what context it's in.
The claimed it's "Slang against trans people" which it very well may be...... if used in that context.
But I never used it in such a context, yet they still felt the need to silence the word.  They shouldn't have that sort of linguistic control over something that doesn't even directly involve them.  That's my contention.


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (May 20, 2018)

I want chubby traps


----------



## Kurgarra Lilitu (May 20, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Fair enough; but I've used the word "Trap" and now it seems Transgendered people feel like they have the power to silence me because I use the term.  Doesn't matter what context it's in.
> The claimed it's "Slang against trans people" which it very well may be...... if used in that context.
> But I never used it in such a context, yet they still felt the need to silence the word.  They shouldn't have that sort of linguistic control over something that doesn't even directly involve them.  That's my contention.


Firstly, they don't have linguistic control over it. They can bemoan what you say all they want, but ultimately what you say is up to you and whether you give into the social pressures they put out.
Secondly, they don't have linguistic control over it. Neither do you. If your idea is they shouldn't be able to tell you what they think is the more compassionate choice of language in their regards and in regards to language you use around others, then you're being at the very least just as much restrictive as they are. I'm not saying you should cow down. Just don't be so surprised that other people might not like what you have to say either.
I think, from how my fiance has described the situation, for her and many others, trap represents something completely different and the usage really does depend on the context and whether you're trying to call a trans woman a trap or not.
But I also don't think there's anything wrong in these women saying,"Hey, that hurts, can you stop?" Which is something we allow people to say over such little things as saying "moist". Doesn't mean we stop saying moist, but we at least have a small grain of compassion for how the world feels icky to the person who hears moist, and trap can feel more than icky, it can trigger the (most of the time irrational) fear that someone is going to assault them.
And the art itself that you referenced?
It doesn't even seem to have the message that using the term trap is bad. The message seems to be that some of  the same people who love traps on the internet will bash trans women and/or put them into the "trap" category.
This part, is true and I've seen this done to my fiance back when she was in a more rural area in Oregon. 
And I'm not saying you're a bad person, in fact I am pretty sure you're a reasonable person or else I wouldn't engage you in conversation. I'm just very often baffled by things you say. Not offended or angry, just... baffled. Which in my mind only pushes me to try to converse with you more to gain an understanding.
TL;DR version: I'm not saying you have to lose the term, I'm just baffled that you can't imagine that it could ever be used to cause emotional harm to anyone and that people might want to not be harmed.


----------



## Cawdabra (May 20, 2018)

Blythulu said:


> I've heard the term 'trap' used for trans girls very often. Mostly during the time between 2008-20014, but that was also when I hung out in 4chan.


Strange, when I was on 4chan in 2007 it was mostly to refer to stuff like Bridget.


----------



## Le Chat Nécro (May 20, 2018)

I think... I think you're reading the comic wrong?

Like, what I got from it was not that "trap" was a dirty word, but that there's a double standard. People online will profess love for traps and make excuses for why it's not gay and actually really hot, but then in real life a trans person who visually shares the same traits will be _accused_ of being a "trap" and shunned for all the same reasons. Like, a penis on a trap is just a fun surprise, but on a trans girl it's gross.

So like, you can keep having the convo you're having, but your big example of "Tumblr Propaganda" is, uh, not actually that. Imo.


----------



## Blythulu (May 20, 2018)

Cawdabra said:


> Strange, when I was on 4chan in 2007 it was mostly to refer to stuff like Bridget.


Were you mostly in the anime and video game sections? Because that's how it was used in those areas, so I could see how that's the context you mostly saw it in.

_Outside_ of those two subs, like in the pornography subs, /pol/ (which is a cesspool anyway so tbh it's to be expected), all of the 'adult' boards, /cgl/ (which is the one I visited most at the time, and probably the worst offender because of the 'omg this cosplayer has a penis what a trap guys!!' posts that popped up basically every other day, but that could also be because it's the one I frequented the most) and *all* of the other japanese culture boards that weren't directly about anime, it was applied to real trans people pretty often.

It was also somewhat prevalent on youtube for a time, for any trans vloggers, and that's another one where I'm sure it's fallen out of favor for other insults, but I don't look at the comments these days so I can't be 100% sure. I remember a lot of memes that would post an anime trap on one side, and an actual trans person on the other (usually from youtube) with a caption about how 'they do exist!' and such. Very immature, honestly not even that hurtful, but it's the internet so that's to be expected. It's right up there with tweens crying 'yaoi' at actual homosexual men. It's demeaning more than hurtful, imo, but that doesn't mean it's a cool thing to do.

Again, just because you didn't directly see it doesn't mean it hasn't happened. That's the only point I was trying to make.


----------



## Oblique Lynx (May 20, 2018)

Le Chat Nécro said:


> I think... I think you're reading the comic wrong?
> 
> Like, what I got from it was not that "trap" was a dirty word, but that there's a double standard. People online will profess love for traps and make excuses for why it's not gay and actually really hot, but then in real life a trans person who visually shares the same traits will be _accused_ of being a "trap" and shunned for all the same reasons. Like, a penis on a trap is just a fun surprise, but on a trans girl it's gross.
> 
> So like, you can keep having the convo you're having, but your big example of "Tumblr Propaganda" is, uh, not actually that. Imo.


I think physical appearance plays a good role in. Online you can exaggerate features and make it largely ambiguous, while offline it's a fair bit harder to pull off making any kind of fantasy much more difficult to follow.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 20, 2018)

Kurgarra Lilitu said:


> Firstly, they don't have linguistic control over it. They can bemoan what you say all they want, but ultimately what you say is up to you and whether you give into the social pressures they put out.
> Secondly, they don't have linguistic control over it. Neither do you. If your idea is they shouldn't be able to tell you what they think is the more compassionate choice of language in their regards and in regards to language you use around others, then you're being at the very least just as much restrictive as they are. I'm not saying you should cow down. Just don't be so surprised that other people might not like what you have to say either.
> I think, from how my fiance has described the situation, for her and many others, trap represents something completely different and the usage really does depend on the context and whether you're trying to call a trans woman a trap or not.
> But I also don't think there's anything wrong in these women saying,"Hey, that hurts, can you stop?" Which is something we allow people to say over such little things as saying "moist". Doesn't mean we stop saying moist, but we at least have a small grain of compassion for how the world feels icky to the person who hears moist, and trap can feel more than icky, it can trigger the (most of the time irrational) fear that someone is going to assault them.
> ...



When did I ever say it couldn't be used to emotionally harm someone?

I'm saying that ignoring context to tell me a word is offensive is... fucking stupid.

It would be no different than if I were to say don't say "woman" around me because if it is used in a particular context it _could _be used to insult my intended gender in a different context.  It's the same level of absurdity we are talking about.

Granted woman is more often used than trap, but that doesn't really matter; ignoring context in language... makes language incomprehensible.  And if someone is so weak that they cannot handle even hearing a word like Trap despite having no association with them in the conversation, then sorry, you need to get a psychologist or something.

If you're trans, you're not a trap.  Why would you be offended by a word that has no association with you?


----------



## Blythulu (May 20, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> When did I ever say it couldn't be used to emotionally harm someone?
> 
> I'm saying that ignoring context to tell me a word is offensive is... fucking stupid.
> 
> ...


This post reads to me as 'yeah it can hurt feelings, but that's dumb'. Which doesn't actually contradict anything the person you are responding to said. You have a certain perspective as to what people "should" be offended by. If I called you a (cuck/bitch/whore/fat/ugly/stupid) you should not be offended by it because you know you are not a (cuck/bitch/whore/fat/ugly/stupid). (Using several examples to try to avoid any actual offense, obviously none of these are actually aimed at anyone). That doesn't mean it won't hurt, in context, to be called that thing. Then you add a lot of other negative feelings around it- like the concept of being trans and already having to deal with a lot and this person targeting a perceived 'weakness', and it hurts even more. It doesn't have to be logical to suck. On that same token, if you get offended by those words being used in general whether they are directed at you or not, you are probably being a bit overkill.

No one _here_ is making the argument that you shouldn't use the word, and no one _here_ is arguing that you should use the word for actual trans women. There actually seems to be very little people are actually disagreeing on except whether people do or don't do either of those things off of this forum. I bet both those things happen, because the internet is a big, stupid, often mean place. There are people who like to say that something is terrible and offensive and can never ever be used even when it can be debated that it really isn't that bad simply for the high of moral superiority, and there are people that throw out stupid niche anime slang at real people for the high of hurting someone.

Context matters. That's basically what everyone (here) is saying, for the most part. Sweeping statements like 'never use that word!' or 'that word could never hurt anyone!' are both unhelpful, and silly, and I don't think anyone is actually making those arguments but everyone thinks the other side of the discussion is.


----------



## quoting_mungo (May 20, 2018)

I think a pretty reasonable approach is "don't use it about real people unless they invite you to". Where by "they invite you to" I mean just that - if someone says you're welcome to call them a trap, it's no longer rude to.


----------



## Troj (May 20, 2018)

Quite simply, it's rude, cruel, and incredibly selfish to assume or imply that other people have built their (especially hard-won) identity and self-expression around a plot to "trap" or deceive _you. _This line of thinking has traditionally fueled the extremely dangerous "trans panic" defense, where someone claims they "had" to maim or kill a trans person who "tricked" or "surprised" them.


----------



## Imperial Impact (May 20, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> I want chubby traps
> View attachment 32656


----------



## pandasayori (May 21, 2018)

Personally I think it’s a dick move to refer to a trans woman as a “trap”. Traps are boys who happen to dress feminine or cross dress. A trap is not a trans woman.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 21, 2018)

Blythulu said:


> This post reads to me as 'yeah it can hurt feelings, but that's dumb'. Which doesn't actually contradict anything the person you are responding to said. You have a certain perspective as to what people "should" be offended by. If I called you a (cuck/bitch/whore/fat/ugly/stupid) you should not be offended by it because you know you are not a (cuck/bitch/whore/fat/ugly/stupid). (Using several examples to try to avoid any actual offense, obviously none of these are actually aimed at anyone). That doesn't mean it won't hurt, in context, to be called that thing. Then you add a lot of other negative feelings around it- like the concept of being trans and already having to deal with a lot and this person targeting a perceived 'weakness', and it hurts even more. It doesn't have to be logical to suck. On that same token, if you get offended by those words being used in general whether they are directed at you or not, you are probably being a bit overkill.
> 
> No one _here_ is making the argument that you shouldn't use the word, and no one _here_ is arguing that you should use the word for actual trans women. There actually seems to be very little people are actually disagreeing on except whether people do or don't do either of those things off of this forum. I bet both those things happen, because the internet is a big, stupid, often mean place. There are people who like to say that something is terrible and offensive and can never ever be used even when it can be debated that it really isn't that bad simply for the high of moral superiority, and there are people that throw out stupid niche anime slang at real people for the high of hurting someone.
> 
> Context matters. That's basically what everyone (here) is saying, for the most part. Sweeping statements like 'never use that word!' or 'that word could never hurt anyone!' are both unhelpful, and silly, and I don't think anyone is actually making those arguments but everyone thinks the other side of the discussion is.


>This post reads to me...
Right there you should have stopped typing.  If you're gonna say what you THINK someone else's post means, you should inquiry rather than assume that's what the person means and proceed to dismantle that interpretation.  Because none of what you said in the first paragraph was even close to what I was saying; I'm not entirely sure how you got that idea.
My whole post was trying to say that saying a word is offensive REGARDLESS of context is not even proper linguistics.  The English language, along with many languages, is HIGHLY dependent on context.  There's a reason me saying "fuck" in a friendly way to a buddy is different than me yelling "fuck" at someone for making me angry.  And there's also a reason you don't get to tell someone to "quit offending me" if you hear the word "fuck" uttered in a public context that had no association with you.  You don't march off across a bar and start hounding someone because they said the word shit at some point in their conversation.  Why would you get to do the same with any other word?
So why should someone get to hound me for so much as using the word "trap" because it "may at some point be used at a trans person"?  That was my contention, because that happened to me before.  That was my whole point.


----------



## TrishaCat (May 21, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Let's define what a "Trap" is first. I'll use urban dictionary. Trap has seven definitions according to it, but the relevant two are these; a pre-op transwoman who is passable and hot and/or a gay person who passes as a female and are mistaken for the opposite gender.


If this is what urban dictionary is saying then urban dictionary is full of normies.
"Trap" is a very weeb fetish term that is intended to refer to crossdressers that successfully appear to he the gender they aren't. That's it. Nothing else. Trans people aren't traps, and the very implication of such along with people's mistaken use of the term when referring to trans people is partially what made people consider it a slur in the first place. Because when you use such a term to refer to trans people, you are belittling actual humans down to a fetish whilst also implying that they're trying to trick people.

Trap does not refer to trans people. It was never meant to refer to such, and it wasn't suppose to imply sexuality like being gay either.


ResolutionBlaze said:


> So I must ask; since when has a Trap ever referred to a transwoman?


Some misguided people use it to refer to trans people. I've seen it happen myself.


ResolutionBlaze said:


> And what gives a trans person the right to the word when it's utilized for gay men appearing to be women?


Speaking very honestly, I am extremely salty at the implication of the term being a slur because it's a very old weeb term that caught too much popularity in the last couple years (most likely due to anime like Re Zero and Danganronpa). It in some ways feels like a term is being stolen from me because I like the idea of crossdressing and there isn't really an equivalent meaning term since searching just "crossdressing" doesn't imply the successfully appearing the opposite gender part.


----------



## Le Chat Nécro (May 21, 2018)

Oblique Lynx said:


> I think physical appearance plays a good role in. Online you can exaggerate features and make it largely ambiguous, while offline it's a fair bit harder to pull off making any kind of fantasy much more difficult to follow.


Well, trans people aren't trying to fulfill some weebs fantasy, and it's still a dick move to be like "I love traps" online and "ew, gross, a trap" in real life.


----------



## LogicNuke (May 21, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Here is a comic I found online.  I found it pretty similar to the kind of propaganda I find when I look at Tumblr.
> -
> This is not as an offense to the artist, but more to the concept itself that the artist and those like him hold; that "Trap" is a term that is offensive to transgender people.
> -
> ...


When I saw the title, I should've known you were the OP, Blaze. Only you would be _exceptional _enough to post a thread like this. You cannot be so dumb as to actually believe most trans people refer to themselves as traps, which implies that they've based their entire identity around tricking and ensnaring unsuspecting men. The fact that you tried to frame your OP as an innocent question shows how gutless you are.



Inkblooded said:


> trap is disrespectful and gross but not to transgender people. its gross because it implies that feminine boys (not trans or mtf) only exist to "trick" gay men into having sex with them or that being a feminine male is exclusively a gay sex thing. and "trap" or "femboy" porn is often very degrading and humiliating, always portrayed as inferior to masculine men.


I like how you personally take offense to the term "trap" here, or pretend to, and then ...


Inkblooded said:


> but just ignore it... trans women on tumblr are incels in drag. they think everything is about them and everything is offensive to them even when they have the law, the media, and most of society under their thumb


... have the balls to still insult trans women the most absurd way possible. Because if one group in society has control over the law, the media, and everything else, it's definitey trans woman.

I hope you're trolling, catboy, because if you're not you might be more exceptional than Blaze.



ResolutionBlaze said:


> Fair enough; but I've used the word "Trap" and now it seems Transgendered people feel like they have the power to silence me because I use the term. Doesn't matter what context it's in.
> The claimed it's "Slang against trans people" which it very well may be...... if used in that context.
> But I never used it in such a context, yet they still felt the need to silence the word. They shouldn't have that sort of linguistic control over something that doesn't even directly involve them. That's my contention.


This comment would be actually be somewhat reasonable if it wasn't in the middle of a thread to trigger trans people and anyone who might have the decency to defend them.



ResolutionBlaze said:


> Right there you should have stopped typing. If you're gonna say what you THINK someone else's post means, you should inquiry rather than assume that's what the person means and proceed to dismantle that interpretation. Because none of what you said in the first paragraph was even close to what I was saying; I'm not entirely sure how you got that idea.


I suppose he got the idea from the fact your motives for creating this thread are extremely transparent.


ResolutionBlaze said:


> My whole post was trying to say that saying a word is offensive REGARDLESS of context is not even proper linguistics. The English language, along with many languages, is HIGHLY dependent on context. There's a reason me saying "fuck" in a friendly way to a buddy is different than me yelling "fuck" at someone for making me angry. And there's also a reason you don't get to tell someone to "quit offending me" if you hear the word "fuck" uttered in a public context that had no association with you. You don't march off across a bar and start hounding someone because they said the word shit at some point in their conversation. Why would you get to do the same with any other word?


Last time I checked, "shit" and "fuck" weren't slurs that hurt a particular group of people. How basic could you be to use this as an example?


ResolutionBlaze said:


> So why should someone get to hound me for so much as using the word "trap" because it "may at some point be used at a trans person"? That was my contention, because that happened to me before. That was my whole point.


People are hounding you because you obviously are using the term "trap" to trigger people on this thread rather than in a side conversation where the term would even be remotely appropriate. Now you know.


----------



## Blythulu (May 21, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> >This post reads to me...
> Right there you should have stopped typing.



Without proper communication, you can't have a discussion. Telling you how I interpret your post is a way to communicate like adults. It was so you could elaborate further if I misinterpreted. Text is tricky, and I never want to assume if I am unclear. Sorry for trying to make sure the line of communication was open. If you don't want a discussion, don't post discussion threads. If I had said "Basically what you are saying is" then I could see your point, but as is it seems like you are just picking fights so you can yell about your moral philosophy, not so anyone can learn or be informed (least of all yourself). Beyond that one nitpick, we basically 100% agree with one another, but you still acted as though I were one of these people telling you you aren't allowed to use a word you like. Literally every word I said aligns with what you said. We agree context matters, but you are acting as though I don't because it's more fun to yell at people on a forum than agree with them even though they have a different standpoint than you. (Obviously I don't use the word 'trap' regularly and relate to people who might be hurt by the term, so I _must_ be telling you never to use it, even though I wrote three paragraphs about how context matters and neither extreme is good.)

On another note, I love the word 'fuck', but if I accidentally said it in front of a 2-year-old in public and the mom gave me a dirty look, guess what? I'm the asshole. It's happened before, and I have apologized for it.

You can disagree on where the line is, but just because you don't seem to have a line at all doesn't mean you get to dictate how the world feels. It means you have to suck it up and deal with the fact that you are probably going to upset people, which happens to everyone on every side. It seems like you're fine with that, so there's no point in you complaining except to start arguments so you can yell at people for having different opinions than you. It's ironic, because you seem so upset that the other side has a similar line of thinking, but you don't see the hypocrisy of the situation because you want to believe that the opposing side are all extremists. There are more people in the middle than online forums would have you believe. You just have to do what you believe is right, man. If you want to keep using the word trap, no one is stopping you, but yeah, you're going to get shit for it from some people. Some will care about the context, others won't. Most will, but if you decide that the extreme ones represent the whole, than you are going to be a very resentful person very quickly.


----------



## Judge Spear (May 21, 2018)

It's Tumblr. Who cares what they think?


----------



## Inkblooded (May 21, 2018)

@LogicNuke

lol what does me finding trap to be disrespectful have to do with calling out trans bullshit?


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 21, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> People are hounding you because you obviously are using the term "trap" to trigger people on this thread rather than in a side conversation where the term would even be remotely appropriate. Now you know.


I suppose since I'm_ obviously_ using the term to trigger people you must have some pretty_ obvious evidence_ that it is, in fact, my motive.  I didn't refer to anyone in this thread when I said "hounding" because nobody has actually done so in this thread.  I was referring to a separate instance in which that happened and making an inquiry about it; a fact you may have discovered if you bothered with the context of what I'm saying.



LogicNuke said:


> When I saw the title, I should've known you were the OP, Blaze. Only you would be _exceptional _enough to post a thread like this. You cannot be so dumb as to actually believe most trans people refer to themselves as traps, which implies that they've based their entire identity around tricking and ensnaring unsuspecting men. The fact that you tried to frame your OP as an innocent question shows how gutless you are.


I actually never claimed that Transgendered people refer to themselves as traps.  I have no clue how you reached THAT conclusion, especially since the fact is pretty obvious from my OP; I asked if others actually refer to transgendered people as traps.  I never even went into the REALM of suggesting that transgender people refer to themselves as traps.


LogicNuke said:


> This comment would be actually be somewhat reasonable if it wasn't in the middle of a thread to trigger trans people and anyone who might have the decency to defend them.


The only one who seems to be triggered here is you.


----------



## Le Chat Nécro (May 21, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> The only one who seems to be triggered here is you.


Actually your OP and some of your other posts sounded pretty triggered. 
/js


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 21, 2018)

Blythulu said:


> Without proper communication, you can't have a discussion. Telling you how I interpret your post is a way to communicate like adults. It was so you could elaborate further if I misinterpreted. Text is tricky, and I never want to assume if I am unclear. Sorry for trying to make sure the line of communication was open. If you don't want a discussion, don't post discussion threads. If I had said "Basically what you are saying is" then I could see your point, but as is it seems like you are just picking fights so you can yell about your moral philosophy, not so anyone can learn or be informed (least of all yourself). Beyond that one nitpick, we basically 100% agree with one another, but you still acted as though I were one of these people telling you you aren't allowed to use a word you like. Literally every word I said aligns with what you said. We agree context matters, but you are acting as though I don't because it's more fun to yell at people on a forum than agree with them even though they have a different standpoint than you. (Obviously I don't use the word 'trap' regularly and relate to people who might be hurt by the term, so I _must_ be telling you never to use it, even though I wrote three paragraphs about how context matters and neither extreme is good.)


That wasn't my point.  My point was if you're going to go off your own interpretation of something with the intent of meaningful discussion, you should frame it as an inquiry.  You should ask, "Correct me if I'm wrong, but is this what you mean?" Before going forward with a post.  That way you're not wasting your own time.  I'm doing you a solid here.  I'm not upset that you interpreted my text differently; my contention was that you assumed that's what I meant in order to make further claims about it, and that doesn't do anyone any good.  If you ask it as a question for clarification, you get an opportunity to take another look at what I was saying to be sure and get clarification before going forward.  If I sounded hostile about it I'm sorry.



Blythulu said:


> On another note, I love the word 'fuck', but if I accidentally said it in front of a 2-year-old in public and the mom gave me a dirty look, guess what? I'm the asshole. It's happened before, and I have apologized for it.
> 
> You can disagree on where the line is, but just because you don't seem to have a line at all doesn't mean you get to dictate how the world feels. It means you have to suck it up and deal with the fact that you are probably going to upset people, which happens to everyone on every side. It seems like you're fine with that, so there's no point in you complaining except to start arguments so you can yell at people for having different opinions than you. It's ironic, because you seem so upset that the other side has a similar line of thinking, but you don't see the hypocrisy of the situation because you want to believe that the opposing side are all extremists. There are more people in the middle than online forums would have you believe. You just have to do what you believe is right, man. If you want to keep using the word trap, no one is stopping you, but yeah, you're going to get shit for it from some people. Some will care about the context, others won't. Most will, but if you decide that the extreme ones represent the whole, than you are going to be a very resentful person very quickly.


Again, depends on context.  If you're at a bar or something you should expect swearing or casual chatter to be a common occurrence.  Thus a mother would have nobody to blame for taking a child to that environment.  How my parents mitigated this wasn't to hide me from swear words; it was to assure me that if I did swear there would be consequences.  But that's diving into a different realm; in any case, it'd be one thing if it were at, like, McDonald's Playhouse.  But at a Sports Bar or something?  Different story.  Of course, situational awareness should be a thing, but I don't think we can entirely put the blame on the person when the enviroment calls for a relaxed atmosphere for adults in particular.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 21, 2018)

Le Chat Nécro said:


> Actually your OP and some of your other posts sounded pretty triggered.
> /js


Such as?  And were they?


----------



## Le Chat Nécro (May 21, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Such as?


Well, a lot of times it sounds (and correct me if I'm wrong  ) like "triggered" is used to just mean being upset that someone has said something you don't like. For example, trans people are considered "triggered" by the term trap because they think it's derogatory towards them. 
But you're also complaining about people just saying things. It upsets you that people have voiced their feelings about the word and they don't line up with yours, so... by definition... triggered.

Also you went out of your way to find a comic that had nothing to do with the point you wanted to make just to whine online about trans people "stealing" your weeb term so... yeah.  

EDIT: reading through this again, I'm reminded that you were also "triggered" by someone having the gall to say "it sounds like you mean" instead of "do you mean".


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 21, 2018)

Le Chat Nécro said:


> Also you went out of your way to find a comic that had nothing to do with the point you wanted to make just to whine online about trans people "stealing" your weeb term so... yeah.


And you went out of your way to make this statement as slanderous toward me as possible, so I guess we're even.  But I never  actually went out of my way to find this comic; I just stumbled upon it on Twitter and decided to make a post about it.  So thanks for that.


Le Chat Nécro said:


> Well, a lot of times it sounds (and correct me if I'm wrong  ) like "triggered" is used to just mean being upset that someone has said something you don't like. For example, trans people are considered "triggered" by the term trap because they think it's derogatory towards them.


I never actually used the word triggered once in any of my posts.


Le Chat Nécro said:


> EDIT: reading through this again, I'm reminded that you were also "triggered" by someone having the gall to say "it sounds like you mean" instead of "do you mean".


My contention was that he made his own interpretation_ and proceeded to write an entire post based on that interpretation as though it were correct_.  But please keep up the slander.


----------



## Le Chat Nécro (May 21, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> And you went out of your way to make this statement as slanderous toward me as possible, so I guess we're even.  But I never  actually went out of my way to find this comic; I just stumbled upon it on Twitter and decided to make a post about it.  So thanks for that.


Dude... if you think this is slander... or that this is as slanderous as I could possibly make a post... I have some bad news for you. 
...
...
..
ya ready?
..
..
..
*whispers* you're dumb

For someone who was all "I just like to push people's buttons and am a huge shitposter" on Discord, you sure can't take it can you? haha. 



ResolutionBlaze said:


> I never actually used the word triggered once in any of my posts.


Never said you did. 



ResolutionBlaze said:


> My contention was that he made his own interpretation_ and proceeded to write an entire post based on that interpretation as though it were correct_. But please keep up the slander.


You also made your own [wrong] interpretation of a comic _and proceeded to write an entire post based on that interpretation as though it were correct. _But please keep telling me how this is my bad. 

Look, dude. I'm just saying that your jimmies seem to be rustled quite a bit over nothing.


----------



## Le Chat Nécro (May 21, 2018)

Also, it's been said in this very thread that "trap" is used by weebs, and you yourself have said that trans people are trying to "take linguistic control" over the term. 
So I'm not sure where I was wrong to say "trans people stealing your weeb term". Is weeb only slanderous when I say it?


----------



## Troj (May 21, 2018)

Why are we letting weebs dictate anything?


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 21, 2018)

Le Chat Nécro said:


> Dude... if you think this is slander... or that this is as slanderous as I could possibly make a post... I have some bad news for you.
> ...
> ...
> ..
> ...


Being mean =/= Slander.  Your post was slanderous because it framed something as true that was evidently false, aka that I made this post beforehand and just went and grabbed some comic later on.  I made the post around the comic.  Perhaps my interpretation was incorrect, and that's fine, there is another discussion that can be had, but regardless, it was slander because it was untrue.


Le Chat Nécro said:


> You also made your own [wrong] interpretation of a comic _and proceeded to write an entire post based on that interpretation as though it were correct. _But please keep telling me how this is my bad.


I made the post making inquiries wondering if I was correct.  The whole point was me asking a question about the comic.  Do you understand what you're arguing about?


Le Chat Nécro said:


> Never said you did.


Then what was your entire rant about "triggering" about?  EDIT: I realized you didn't say "triggering" you said "triggered" which changes the context of what you stated.  My bad.


Le Chat Nécro said:


> Also, it's been said in this very thread that "trap" is used by weebs, and you yourself have said that trans people are trying to "take linguistic control" over the term.
> So I'm not sure where I was wrong to say "trans people stealing your weeb term". Is weeb only slanderous when I say it?


I never claimed that trap was a weeb term; that was someone else.  I did claim that some transgender people are trying to gain linguistic control over the word because it can in some context be used in an offensive manner, therefore any use of the word is offensive.


----------



## TrishaCat (May 21, 2018)

Troj said:


> Why are we letting weebs dictate anything?


Wouldn't the people who best know things surrounding their own fandoms culture be said members of that fandom themselves?


----------



## Le Chat Nécro (May 21, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Being mean =/= Slander.  Your post was slanderous because it framed something as true that was evidently false, aka that I made this post beforehand and just went and grabbed some comic later on.  I made the post around the comic.  Perhaps my interpretation was incorrect, and that's fine, there is another discussion that can be had, but regardless, it was slander because it was untrue.
> 
> I made the post making inquiries wondering if I was correct.  The whole point was me asking a question about the comic.  Do you understand what you're arguing about?
> 
> ...


First, is this really damaging your reputation? Really?

Second, if what I was saying was slander, than you saying it was "as slanderous as possible" is also slander, because that is evidently false. Very much so. But I'm glad to know that you admit to being mean.  

Third, I did not "rant" (which I am also calling slander now, jsyk). You claimed Logic was the *only* person being triggered here. I said, no. You asked why. I explained. I never said you said the words "triggered", but the general sense of the term used on this site and in this thread is "being mad at someone for saying something you don't like". Which.. well... here we are.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 21, 2018)

Le Chat Nécro said:


> First, is this really damaging your reputation? Really?
> 
> Second, if what I was saying was slander, than you saying it was "as slanderous as possible" is also slander, because that is evidently false. Very much so. But I'm glad to know that you admit to being mean.
> 
> Third, I did not "rant" (which I am also calling slander now, jsyk). You claimed Logic was the *only* person being triggered here. I said, no. You asked why. I explained. I never said you said the words "triggered", but the general sense of the term used on this site and in this thread is "being mad at someone for saying something you don't like". Which.. well... here we are.


Who was I mad at here?  When did I say it was damaging my reputation?  When did I admit that *I* was being mean?


----------



## Le Chat Nécro (May 21, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Who was I mad at here?  When did I say it was damaging my reputation?  When did I admit that *I* was being mean?


slan·der
ˈslandər/
_noun_
LAW

1.
the action or crime of making a false spoken statement *damaging to a person's reputation*.
"he is suing the TV network for slander"

If you weren't admitting to being mean, what was the point of saying "Being mean =/= Slander" in response to me saying that for a shitposter you can't take shit?


----------



## Attaman (May 21, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> So I must ask; since when has a Trap ever referred to a transwoman?


 Quite a few years on a fair deal of image boards, in the very least. This is, for that matter, merely two examples taken from one site without dipping my hands into its in-thread discussions about "mentally damaged" trans-persons, its sister threads (Various CYOA's using "Trap" synonymously for "Trans"), its sister sites (7chan, 8chan, etc), its usage on various booru's and writing sites (both dedicated and forums with User Fiction sub-sections)... oh, and for that matter without touching upon how Shemale (another term you can see in one of the album's images) is _itself_ a slur.

If you don't keep track of -chan culture, more power to you: It's depressing as fuck (even without including the rampant racism and antisemitism and the like, there's the "lol trick people into making chlorine gas" and "here's how to SWAT somebody" shit) and it's something many people aren't aware of anyways. But there _*are*_ various online groups, communities, and so-on that have taken to using "Trap" as a catch-all for "Anyone either with a physique, outfit, or even demeanor / identification resemblant of another sex". A use which, combined with what the word "Trap" infers (especially when, coincidentally, used predominantly by people who will scream until Ragnarök how there's only two genders and trans-persons are mentally ill), provides a practical open-and-shut case for "It's a slur".

Also, while the word is rarely used _directly _in such cases, "trap" _has_ been used to justify _literal murder_ of LGBTQ+ individuals under the pretense of "I didn't realize that the person hitting on me / the person I was steady with was trans, and when I learned of _*their deception*_ something snapped and I accident murdered them". 



ResolutionBlaze said:


> Or is this an actual issue that I don't know about?


It very much is.


----------



## Troj (May 21, 2018)

The problem is that stuff like this is regularly employed as a kind of "motte-and-bailey."

So, someone will imply something vile about trans people under the guise of just foolin' around about anime characters and tropes.

People who missed the full memo about all of us just foolin' around may then internalize/absorb these jokes or sneers, and then repeat or otherwise act on them.

So, that's the piece we have to guard against.



Battlechili said:


> Wouldn't the people who best know things surrounding their own fandoms culture be said members of that fandom themselves?



I was being glib. 

Yes, people do get to dictate and explain things about their own fandoms.

But, they _don't _necessarily hold a monopoly and/or have the final word on the consequences, implications, and/or deeper meaning of the products and goings-on of their fandom, especially if they haven't put any real, genuine thought into these things.


----------



## Kurgarra Lilitu (May 21, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> My contention was that he made his own interpretation_ and proceeded to write an entire post based on that interpretation as though it were correct_.  But please keep up the slander.


... It's... um... common defuse language to try to say "it sounds like your saying" or "I'm hearing" or "how this reads to me is" because many people find such use of such phrases calming and allowing of the person to make a statement of the subject matter _without _the assumption that what they've  read or heard things 100% correctly.
And I've had lots of college kids who were communication majors constantly hounding me with things like this and telling me that this is the "right" way to speak to people (because I apparently sound too _direct _too _brazen_ about everything I say irl) and these were some suggestions they had. I responded that the way I speak is how I think and fully expressing my thoughts as they are is a more true and raw communication pattern that helps me to find people who can form closer bonds with me and drives away those who don't like me; acting to naturally filter people I don't want in my life out of my life.
Point is, seems to me more like the person was trying to make sure jimmies weren't russled with that language, but you used it instead to commence the russleage. Given the prevalence of the language usage in this way to try to defuse things, I am getting uneasy about this thread and fearful that you might take offense to any opinion outside of your own. I'm _not sure_ that's the case, I certainly _hope_ that's not the case.



Le Chat Nécro said:


> For someone who was all "I just like to push people's buttons and am a huge shitposter" on Discord, you sure can't take it can you? haha.


I don't like to quote what others say about a person as evidence of a personality profile, but that quote sounds eerily within the aspects of personality that I was afraid you might exhibit. Any confirmation that you said this would have me... heavily disappointed. As this means any points of view I might have shared might as well have been pontification to the empty air.

I understand that what I am saying could be disconcerting, because I am having an uneasiness about your very character, but if you would, I would ask you to try to step back, see if you need more objective re-grounding (if you don't think so, I understand), and tell me if I am being unreasonable in my concerns. If I am, I can understand that, because I admit to having certain biases, as all persons have. And while I don't consider text on a page to be any danger, I will also add to my admitted biases that I have a higher than normal danger response.


----------



## Yakamaru (May 21, 2018)

Troj said:


> Why are we letting weebs dictate anything?


"Why are we letting trans people dictate anything?"

See what I did there? 

These people are minorities inside minorities. They have a right to their opinion. What they don't have a right to is control how a word is used and it what context.

Though people using the word to attack trans people is quite frankly, asshole-y.


----------



## Attaman (May 21, 2018)

Yakamaru said:


> These people are minorities inside minorities. They have a right to their opinion. What they don't have a right to is control how a word is used and it what context.


Just so as to avoid any confusion about your position for one moment: You are of the stance that minorities of sufficiently small sizes (in this case .3-.6%, of the general population, assuming for the moment a US-centric demographic ratio) are allowed to be offended by slurs and dogwhistles... but cannot take any action in response to as much or even share the offensiveness of such words to them?

Hm. If I may ask a follow up to the above, what is your stance on American Indian / Alaskan Native, Pacific Islander, mixed-race, Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, and similar demographics within the United States, specifically in relation to dogwhistles and slurs? Or to jump to the UK: Chinese, Sikh, Jewish, and Buddhist slurs? Are you similarly of the opinion that, while it's darn rude of people to loudly and casually throw slurs at 'em, those special snowflakes better suck it up because heaven forbid people work the two braincells they were fortunate enough to be born with to differentiate the context between talking about sexy lizard people on FA and secret (((lizard people))) conspiracies to take over the world?

Because whether you mean it or not, that's _exactly_ what you're arguing.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 21, 2018)

Attaman said:


> Just so as to avoid any confusion about your position for one moment: You are of the stance that minorities of sufficiently small sizes (in this case .3-.6%, of the general population, assuming for the moment a US-centric demographic ratio) are allowed to be offended by slurs and dogwhistles... but cannot take any action in response to as much or even share the offensiveness of such words to them?
> 
> Hm. If I may ask a follow up to the above, what is your stance on American Indian / Alaskan Native, Pacific Islander, mixed-race, Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, and similar demographics within the United States, specifically in relation to dogwhistles and slurs? Or to jump to the UK: Chinese, Sikh, Jewish, and Buddhist slurs? Are you similarly of the opinion that, while it's darn rude of people to loudly and casually throw slurs at 'em, those special snowflakes better suck it up because heaven forbid people work the two braincells they were fortunate enough to be born with to differentiate the context between talking about sexy lizard people on FA and secret (((lizard people))) conspiracies to take over the world?
> 
> Because whether you mean it or not, that's _exactly_ what you're arguing.


That's.... literally NOTHING like what he was saying.


----------



## Yakamaru (May 21, 2018)

Attaman said:


> Just so as to avoid any confusion about your position for one moment: You are of the stance that minorities of sufficiently small sizes (in this case .3-.6%, of the general population, assuming for the moment a US-centric demographic ratio) are allowed to be offended by slurs and dogwhistles... but cannot take any action in response to as much or even share the offensiveness of such words to them?
> 
> Hm. If I may ask a follow up to the above, what is your stance on American Indian / Alaskan Native, Pacific Islander, mixed-race, Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, and similar demographics within the United States, specifically in relation to dogwhistles and slurs? Or to jump to the UK: Chinese, Sikh, Jewish, and Buddhist slurs? Are you similarly of the opinion that, while it's darn rude of people to loudly and casually throw slurs at 'em, those special snowflakes better suck it up because heaven forbid people work the two braincells they were fortunate enough to be born with to differentiate the context between talking about sexy lizard people on FA and secret (((lizard people))) conspiracies to take over the world?
> 
> Because whether you mean it or not, that's _exactly_ what you're arguing.


I honestly have no clue on what you're talking about. Feel free to read what you're quoting once more, please.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 21, 2018)

Kurgarra Lilitu said:


> ... It's... um... common defuse language to try to say "it sounds like your saying" or "I'm hearing" or "how this reads to me is" because many people find such use of such phrases calming and allowing of the person to make a statement of the subject matter _without _the assumption that what they've  read or heard things 100% correctly.
> And I've had lots of college kids who were communication majors constantly hounding me with things like this and telling me that this is the "right" way to speak to people (because I apparently sound too _direct _too _brazen_ about everything I say irl) and these were some suggestions they had. I responded that the way I speak is how I think and fully expressing my thoughts as they are is a more true and raw communication pattern that helps me to find people who can form closer bonds with me and drives away those who don't like me; acting to naturally filter people I don't want in my life out of my life.
> Point is, seems to me more like the person was trying to make sure jimmies weren't russled with that language, but you used it instead to commence the russleage. Given the prevalence of the language usage in this way to try to defuse things, I am getting uneasy about this thread and fearful that you might take offense to any opinion outside of your own. I'm _not sure_ that's the case, I certainly _hope_ that's not the case.


This thread was going just fine.  People held their opinions, few of which I actually contended with.  Now all of the sudden everyone is accusing me of being hostile to everyone.  The only ones thus far I have been hostile to anyone around here is LogicNuke and Le Chat, both of whom accused me of things that weren't true.  Now that I contend with those two, all of the sudden I'm getting everything turned around onto me despite me not having done anything to show that I am diffusing anyone's opinions.
-
I clarify one thing to someone about being careful about word usage; don't say something with surety if you aren't sure.  Now it's being confused with me dismissing people's opinions.  What the hell is going on?


----------



## pandasayori (May 21, 2018)

Yakamaru said:


> Though people using the word to attack trans people is quite frankly, asshole-y.



This is the part I agree with, but I also feel like there is a lot more to how words are used. People are within their rights to take offense to something if they deem it offensive. Just like anyone is within their rights to act by explaining how a word was taken offensively. I think (and I can very easily be wrong so feel free to correct me!) what Yakamaru might have meant was that the person receiving the slur has no control over how person X uses the slur towards them.

X calls Y a slur, but Y has no control over the slur coming from X. Either way X is a shitty person for saying that towards Y.

Again if I interpreted that the wrong way, just let me know!


----------



## Attaman (May 21, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> That's.... literally NOTHING like what he was saying.





Yakamaru said:


> I honestly have no clue on what you're talking about. Feel free to read what you're quoting once more, please.


I am re-reading it, and my drawn conclusion remains the same. "They are allowed to be offended, and people using the slur against them are acting asshole-_*y*_, but as minorities inside minorities they can't tell us how not to use the word (specifically: to refer to them as traps)." Or more concise, "It has uses that aren't slurs so people can say it freely". 

Let me spin this situation on its head for a moment: You can say that there is a chink in somebody's armor. That there is a chink in the cavern wall allowing light through. Now, if a Chinese person in the UK told you that they were _directly referred to by that word_, would your response be "Yeah they were being an ass and it's alright you got offended, but don't tell me I can't use it to refer to you or in other - comparable - contexts"?


----------



## Yakamaru (May 21, 2018)

pandasayori said:


> This is the part I agree with, but I also feel like there is a lot more to how words are used. People are within their rights to take offense to something if they deem it offensive. Just like anyone is within their rights to act by explaining how a word was taken offensively. I think (and I can very easily be wrong so feel free to correct me!) what Yakamaru might have meant was that the person receiving the slur has no control over how person X uses the slur towards them.
> 
> X calls Y a slur, but Y has no control over the slur coming from X. Either way X is a shitty person for saying that towards Y.
> 
> Again if I interpreted that the wrong way, just let me know!


^ This.

You have a right to be offended the same way you have a right to be offensive. X person is an asshole, but they are within their rights to be one, the same way you are within your rights to call someone out on them being an asshole. Being part of a minority does not exclude you in any way, shape or form.

Even then, it could be *perceived* as a slur, despite possibly not being one. Context always matters.



Attaman said:


> I am re-reading it, and my drawn conclusion remains the same. "They are allowed to be offended, and people using the slur against them are acting asshole-_*y*_, but as minorities inside minorities they can't tell us how not to use the word (specifically: to refer to them as traps)." Or more concise, "It has uses that aren't slurs so people can say it freely".
> 
> Let me spin this situation on its head for a moment: You can say that there is a chink in somebody's armor. That there is a chink in the cavern wall allowing light through. Now, if a Chinese person in the UK told you that they were _directly referred to by that word_, would your response be "Yeah they were being an ass and it's alright you got offended, but don't tell me I can't use it to refer to you or in other - comparable - contexts"?


A word used in some situations does not mean the same in others. In this case, those interested in Anime tend to use the word "trap" differently than assholes trying to use it to smear trans people, the latter making them, well, assholes towards trans people.

The former definition have been used for many years and is pretty much an established word in those circles, even a decent amount of people outside those circles knows what it means. The latter I have not even seen being used in a negative connotation until it was brought up in this thread by the OP in the comic.

You do not control the context of a word, only the person using it does. No one likes speech police. It only makes you as much of an asshole if not a bigger one than the one you're supposedly criticizing.

You suggested taking actions. What actions would you suggest we take in such a case?


----------



## Attaman (May 21, 2018)

Yakamaru said:


> ^ This.
> 
> *You have a right to be offended the same way you have a right to be offensive*.


 Considering this "right to be offensive / an asshole" is specifically in relation to hurling targeted slurs at people... uh, good on you I guess for answering my prior question at least?  



Yakamaru said:


> Even then, it could be *perceived* as a slur, despite possibly not being one. Context always matters.


 Protip: When your posts are not only more willing to give the benefit of the doubt to people throwing slurs than the targets of them, but _also_ slip in an insinuation that aforementioned minorities are just "seeing things" / "overreacting", you aren't exactly digging _up_.



Yakamaru said:


> A word used in some situations does not mean the same in others. In this case, those interested in Anime tend to use the word "trap" differently than assholes trying to use it to smear trans people, the latter making them, well, assholes towards trans people.
> 
> The former definition have been used for many years


 As a catch-all that has also included transgender characters, yes. Again, "trap" does not specifically refer to only "People cross-dressing solely with the intent of playfully tricking people and_ nothing more to the context or situation_". It is used _also _to refer to a fair number of people, including specific _builds_, particularly masculine or feminine (or androgynous) features, _literally_ transgender persons / characters, and so-on. 



Yakamaru said:


> The latter I have not even seen being used in a negative connotation until it was brought up in this thread by the OP in the comic.


 You are familiar with the term "dogwhistle", yes? 



Yakamaru said:


> You do not control the context of a word, only the person using it does. No one likes speech police. It only makes you as much of an asshole if not a bigger one than the one you're supposedly criticizing.
> 
> You suggested taking actions. What actions would you suggest we take in such a case?


For starters, people can stop thumping their chests about their "right to be assholes" (I've yet to see _*anyone*_ put forward this right for good cause and even punch sideways, let alone up instead of down) and... well, when a minority almost unanimously says "This word is a derogatory slur / dangerous to us" _*listen to them*_ and _*not use it as casual short-hand to refer to them*_. You can still call a bear trap a bear trap. You can still say the color black in Spanish. You can talk about how sexy Lizalfos and Dragonborn are. But maybe - just maybe - if you insist the word "trap" is _totally_ just a word meant to refer to men (or, in the case of "reverse trap", women) who are wearing clothes of the opposite sex and is in no way a stance on gender, physique / features (Shall I bring up "reverse-trap"s use for women who dare to have small busts and find that having actual pockets to their pants is useful?), or so-on, you can... actually chide the people who use it in other manners (instead of defending them from those over-reacting SJWs) and perhaps even try to find or use words that _don't_ have negative connotations for disadvantaged demographics (such as, for example, "crossdressing")?


----------



## Yakamaru (May 21, 2018)

Attaman said:


> Considering this "right to be offensive / an asshole" is specifically in relation to hurling targeted slurs at people... uh, good on you I guess for answering my prior question at least?
> 
> Protip: When your posts are not only more willing to give the benefit of the doubt to people throwing slurs than the targets of them, but _also_ slip in an insinuation that aforementioned minorities are just "seeing things" / "overreacting", you aren't exactly digging _up_.
> 
> ...


A like for the attempted effort at twisting my words. You should take up a job in CNN, FOX or MSNBC. It'll fit you perfectly. <3


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 21, 2018)

Attaman said:


> For starters, people can stop thumping their chests about their "right to be assholes" (I've yet to see _*anyone*_ put forward this right for good cause and even punch sideways, let alone up instead of down) and... well, when a minority almost unanimously says "This word is a derogatory slur / dangerous to us" _*listen to them*_ and _*not use it as casual short-hand to refer to them*_. You can still call a bear trap a bear trap. You can still say the color black in Spanish. You can talk about how sexy Lizalfos and Dragonborn are. But maybe - just maybe - if you insist the word "trap" is _totally_ just a word meant to refer to men (or, in the case of "reverse trap", women) who are wearing clothes of the opposite sex and is in no way a stance on gender, physique / features (Shall I bring up "reverse-trap"s use for women who dare to have small busts and find that having actual pockets to their pants is useful?), or so-on, you can... actually chide the people who use it in other manners (instead of defending them from those over-reacting SJWs) and perhaps even try to find or use words that _don't_ have negative connotations for disadvantaged demographics (such as, for example, "crossdressing")?


Is your argument that we should simply... take their word for it?


----------



## quoting_mungo (May 21, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> Last time I checked, "shit" and "fuck" weren't slurs that hurt a particular group of people. How basic could you be to use this as an example?


To be fair, I _have_ been chewed out by a random stranger for saying "fuck" in public (in the presence of her children, which were sitting in a pram out of my line of sight or I probably _wouldn't_ have cursed in the first place) in the past. While I think she was over the top by chewing me out over it, if she'd just said "excuse me, I have my kids with me, would you mind watching your language?" that would have been totally reasonable in my book. 



Attaman said:


> But maybe - just maybe - if you insist the word "trap" is _totally_ just a word meant to refer to men (or, in the case of "reverse trap", women) who are wearing clothes of the opposite sex and is in no way a stance on gender, physique / features (Shall I bring up "reverse-trap"s use for women who dare to have small busts and find that having actual pockets to their pants is useful?), or so-on, you can... actually chide the people who use it in other manners (instead of defending them from those over-reacting SJWs) and perhaps even try to find or use words that _don't_ have negative connotations for disadvantaged demographics (such as, for example, "crossdressing")?


Another aspect here, that's pretty important, is that while using problematic terms for certain archetypes for expediency can be motivated and defensible, is that _if_ you're going to do so, you make sure you do it in a closed group where everyone is on the same page regarding the usage. If I'm discussing a character concept that fits the "trap" trope with a known group of friends, using it instead of spending two paragraphs' worth of words describing the trope saves time. 

Part of the problem we're seeing in this thread I believe comes from how freaking _weird_ online communication is - we're speaking as though we're chatting with a smallish group of friends in relative privacy, but our words have permanence and are available for any passer-by to read days, weeks, months later. Social norms for handling this aren't fully formed yet. Personally I think the nature of most online communication calls for increased awareness of what we say, and taking personal responsibility for our words; hurting someone else's feelings, even if you disagree with their perception that what you said was hurtful, should damn well be considered undesirable.


----------



## LogicNuke (May 21, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> This thread was going just fine.  People held their opinions, few of which I actually contended with.  Now all of the sudden everyone is accusing me of being hostile to everyone.  The only ones thus far I have been hostile to anyone around here is LogicNuke and Le Chat, both of whom accused me of things that weren't true.  Now that I contend with those two, all of the sudden I'm getting everything turned around onto me despite me not having done anything to show that I am diffusing anyone's opinions.
> -
> I clarify one thing to someone about being careful about word usage; don't say something with surety if you aren't sure.  Now it's being confused with me dismissing people's opinions.  What the hell is going on?


I wanted to come back to this thread sooner, but thankfully @Troj , @Le Chat Nécro , @Attaman , @Kurgarra Lilitu , @Blythulu , @pandasayori said what needed to be said. You made this thread to trigger some people, but it backfired on you. Even when most people on thread were telling you in no uncertain terms that you words were hurtful, you still kept going. Stop now and apologize or just end the thread. You're not helping your case.


----------



## LogicNuke (May 21, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Is your argument that we should simply... take their word for it?


Yes, Blaze, maybe we should actually listen to the people who are being hurt when this word is used as slur.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 21, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> I wanted to come back to this thread sooner, but thankfully @Troj , @Le Chat Nécro , @Attaman , @Kurgarra Lilitu , @Blythulu , @pandasayori said what needed to be said. You made this thread to trigger some people, but it backfired on you. Even when most people on thread were telling you in no uncertain terms that you words were hurtful, you still kept going. Stop now and apologize or just end the thread. You're not helping your case.


If this were a "case", you would have evidence against me.  Since you refuse to pin evidence of a motive tied to "triggering people" (which your constant devaluing of the word is pretty disgusting unless you suggest people have been genuinely harmed by what was stated here, which you also cannot prove) I have no reason to take you seriously at this time.
-
You can take your accusations and leave my thread.  You've ruined it enough.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 21, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> Yes, Blaze, maybe we should actually listen to the people who are being hurt when this word is used as slur.


Define hurt.  Because I was recently in a discord where, as I stated before, they wouldn't let me so much as use the word "trap" because it could be offensive to people.  When I stated the context and showed the context of what I was saying, it was ignored and they insisted that I shouldn't say it.


----------



## pandasayori (May 21, 2018)

Personally I feel like this entire thread can be summed up as:

It's a basic understanding that using slurs against people is wrong and a low blow.

Referring to a transwoman as a trap is flat out disrespectful.
If someone is offended by having a slur used against them, they are within their rights to feel that way.
^ they are also within their rights to explain or debate their feelings about said slur.
Discord admins have their rules and regulations for a reason. Same goes for deciding what is and what isn't appropriate to be said on _their_ server. If you can't follow what they decide, then you're kinda out of luck there.
^^^ Or go wild and make your own server? That would save a lot of grief in my opinion.
If you wish to discuss trap related art, writings, etc, best to go more in depth with your own private, like-minded circle. It would also save a lot of grief.


----------



## LogicNuke (May 21, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> If this were a "case", you would have evidence against me.  Since you refuse to pin evidence of a motive tied to "triggering people" (which your constant devaluing of the word is pretty disgusting unless you suggest people have been genuinely harmed by what was stated here, which you also cannot prove) I have no reason to take you seriously at this time.


How about this? Someone in thread who had unique insight into why the word "trap" can be hurtful when used to refer to trans-people and who indeed would take exception to you using the word in that manner told that it was inappropriate, you proceeded to defend your right use that word however you wanted. That was a supreme dick move on your part.


ResolutionBlaze said:


> Define hurt. Because I was recently in a discord where, as I stated before, they wouldn't let me so much as use the word "trap" because it could be offensive to people. When I stated the context and showed the context of what I was saying, it was ignored and they insisted that I shouldn't say it.


If you need me to define hurt, you're a bigger fool than I took you for, which I believe you're not. Don't shatter this impression.

Perhaps you should listen to all the people telling you not to be a dick.


----------



## pandasayori (May 21, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> You can take your accusations and leave my thread.  You've ruined it enough.



....Then why make this a public thread where anyone can respond? It's not like Discord where you can ban someone from replying to the server. It's a public forum.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 21, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> How about this? Someone in thread who had unique insight into why the word "trap" can be hurtful when used to refer to trans-people and who indeed would take exception to you using the word in that manner told that it was inappropriate, you proceeded to defend your right use that word however you wanted. That was a supreme dick move on your part.


When did I defend someone's right to use the word "however they pleased"?  Please quote me where I stated that, because I can't seem to find this imaginary person you're referring to, because you're obviously not referring to me.


LogicNuke said:


> If you need me to define hurt, you're a bigger fool than I took you for, which I believe you're not. Don't shatter this impression.
> 
> Perhaps you should listen to all the people telling you not to be a dick.


Good job avoiding the question and twisting it to try and make me look bad.  Yes, I want you to define what you mean by hurt.  Do you simply mean offense?  In what way do they need to be hurt before it's not okay?  If its any degree of hurt, then how can we have any conversations about anything important?  If its a specific degree, at what point is it unacceptable?  How much of that hurt can be attributed to themselves and how much can be attributed to me?  See, you can't talk about "hurt" like it's a precise thing, because it's not.
-
Also, you should take the same advice Logic but you never do because it's not "your people" telling you to stop.  Even then I'm not sure you'd stop even if people who generally agreed with you said so.  All you did in this thread was accuse me of baseless things and contributed little to the conversation, and when you did, it was usually to try and twist it around to make me look foolish or to call me names, despite me having done little in return to you.


pandasayori said:


> ....Then why make this a public thread where anyone can respond? It's not like Discord where you can ban someone from replying to the server. It's a public forum.


I'm being hyperbolic to prove a point; to say that I do not respect his presence in my thread because his actions have contributed little to the conversation, and all his efforts were dedicated to demonizing me.  I don't like having control over conversations, that's why I don't have discussions on Discord unless I know I am able to have them with reasonable moderators.
-
Just because LogicNuke is free to post here doesn't mean I have to like it.


----------



## DJLab (May 21, 2018)

Using trap is fine as long as it relates to a crossdresser with feminine features and not a transwoman. The idea that this has to be said is like bringing up old songs and literature and prescribing the word "gay" to mean homosexual. Context matters and the idea of people ignoring it to feel personally attacked shows that *they* have the problem, not you. Don't apologize if you use the words innocently.


----------



## Saiko (May 21, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> >This post reads to me...
> Right there you should have stopped typing.  If you're gonna say what you THINK someone else's post means, you should inquiry rather than assume that's what the person means and proceed to dismantle that interpretation.


Or you can respond respectfully by clarifying that you didn’t intend to come across the way they misinterpreted you, perhaps agree with their points that very well might have been correct had they interpreted you correctly, reword your point, and avoid the entire shitfest that has been this thread.



> So why should someone get to hound me for so much as using the word "trap" because it "may at some point be used at a trans person"?  That was my contention, because that happened to me before.


Assuming you yourself didn’t misinterpret the person, congratulations. You met an annoying idiot. Obviously they don’t get to ban the use of the word “trap” from general usage or in reference to the cross-dressing trope. There’s not much to discuss here.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 21, 2018)

Saiko said:


> Assuming you yourself didn’t misinterpret the person, congratulations. You met an annoying idiot. Obviously they don’t get to ban the use of the word “trap” from general usage or in reference to the cross-dressing trope. There’s not much to discuss here.


It clearly isn't obvious enough; just today I saw a post on Twitter about someone saying that using the word "trap" is offensive and that people should stop using the word.


Saiko said:


> Or you can respond respectfully by clarifying that you didn’t intend to come across the way they misinterpreted you, perhaps agree with their points that very well might have been correct had they interpreted you correctly, reword your point, and avoid the entire shitfest that has been this thread.


I could have done that and I could have responded better.  But I won't admit to steering this thread wrong just because a couple wanted to try to capitalize off of what I'm saying as a form of character assassination, which LogicNuke tends to do regularly and which he has evidently done as soon as he has entered the thread.


----------



## pandasayori (May 21, 2018)

I don’t think anyone is trying to capitalize off of anything. People are just doing what’s expected in forums: replying to posts and giving their opinions in response to others. Giving opinions on the topic started is basically what every commenter has been doing. Not sure how that counts as capitalizing?


----------



## Kurgarra Lilitu (May 21, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> I clarify one thing to someone about being careful about word usage; don't say something with surety if you aren't sure.  Now it's being confused with me dismissing people's opinions.  What the hell is going on?


The person in question clarified the intended purpose to try to get clarity in case they were wrong in a post that was in response to you, apologized, yet you continued and still continue to treat what they said as if they were saying it was certain. 



Attaman said:


> Just so as to avoid any confusion about your position for one moment: You are of the stance that minorities of sufficiently small sizes (in this case .3-.6%, of the general population, assuming for the moment a US-centric demographic ratio) are allowed to be offended by slurs and dogwhistles... but cannot take any action in response to as much or even share the offensiveness of such words to them?
> 
> Hm. If I may ask a follow up to the above, what is your stance on American Indian / Alaskan Native, Pacific Islander, mixed-race, Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, and similar demographics within the United States, specifically in relation to dogwhistles and slurs? Or to jump to the UK: Chinese, Sikh, Jewish, and Buddhist slurs? Are you similarly of the opinion that, while it's darn rude of people to loudly and casually throw slurs at 'em, those special snowflakes better suck it up because heaven forbid people work the two braincells they were fortunate enough to be born with to differentiate the context between talking about sexy lizard people on FA and secret (((lizard people))) conspiracies to take over the world?
> 
> Because whether you mean it or not, that's _exactly_ what you're arguing.


I would be remiss to point out one "side" having some inconsistencies without pointing out the other side. Yakamaru's post didn't intend to say that.
If I am to understand him correctly, he is simply saying that terminology that is co-opted by assholes as insults to a group does not mean that the terminology is inherently evil. 
I personally will not use the term "trap" when there is a trans woman around who is harmed by the term, but I understand why it exists, why it is used, and why, theoretically and self contained without considering associations caused by assholes, it should not be an offensive term. If only human personal experiences fell sway to the tyranny of the "shoulds" the same way human minds do.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 21, 2018)

Kurgarra Lilitu said:


> The person in question clarified the intended purpose to try to get clarity in case they were wrong in a post that was in response to you, apologized, yet you continued and still continue to treat what they said as if they were saying it was certain.


I did not.  I apologized after in case I came off as hostile.


ResolutionBlaze said:


> That wasn't my point.  My point was if you're going to go off your own interpretation of something with the intent of meaningful discussion, you should frame it as an inquiry.  You should ask, "Correct me if I'm wrong, but is this what you mean?" Before going forward with a post.  That way you're not wasting your own time.  I'm doing you a solid here.  I'm not upset that you interpreted my text differently; my contention was that you assumed that's what I meant in order to make further claims about it, and that doesn't do anyone any good.  If you ask it as a question for clarification, you get an opportunity to take another look at what I was saying to be sure and get clarification before going forward. * If I sounded hostile about it I'm sorry.*


In retrospect, I did sound very hostile, but none of our exchanges seemed particularly aggressive toward each other.  I don't know why people had to come in and start demanding I apologize (when I did) to someone who didn't even seem to take offense to it.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 21, 2018)

pandasayori said:


> I don’t think anyone is trying to capitalize off of anything. People are just doing what’s expected in forums: replying to posts and giving their opinions in response to others. Giving opinions on the topic started is basically what every commenter has been doing. Not sure how that counts as capitalizing?


You misunderstand;


LogicNuke said:


> When I saw the title, I should've known you were the OP, Blaze. Only you would be _exceptional _enough to post a thread like this. You cannot be so dumb as to actually believe most trans people refer to themselves as traps, which implies that they've based their entire identity around tricking and ensnaring unsuspecting men. The fact that you tried to frame your OP as an innocent question shows how gutless you are.


This, while is an opinion and is related to the subject (despite being a horrid misrepresentation of my comments), involves assaulting someone else's character.  "_Of course_ Blaze would make a post like this."  You see?


----------



## Kurgarra Lilitu (May 21, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> I did not.  I apologized after in case I came off as hostile.


You apologized after in case you came across as hostile, but I am not accusing you of hostility.  I see this:


ResolutionBlaze said:


> If I sounded hostile about it I'm sorry.


But that doesn't eliminate all of this:


ResolutionBlaze said:


> That wasn't my point.  My point was if you're going to go off your own interpretation of something with the intent of meaningful discussion, you should frame it as an inquiry.  You should ask, "Correct me if I'm wrong, but is this what you mean?" Before going forward with a post.  That way you're not wasting your own time.  I'm doing you a solid here.  I'm not upset that you interpreted my text differently; my contention was that *you assumed that's what I meant in order to make further claims about it, and that doesn't do anyone any good.*  If you ask it as a question for clarification, you get an opportunity to take another look at what I was saying to be sure and get clarification before going forward.


That came before it.
And this reaction embodies what I said before. I don't know how to explain it any better way. I mean I have the words right here. If you deny events that transpired then I really am at a loss as what to say.
I mean I questioned myself, I really did, when you said you had not. I have memory problems, it could have been a false memory, but... it's right here. 

I'm legitimately wracking my brain as to how this is not you continuing to assert that the person treated what they thought might be the case as if were certain. 

And these tin-foil hat excuses for "character assassination" Blaze...  Le Chat may have been directly harsh on you, but Logic seemed to be using... well... logic...

I want to give you the benefit of the doubt here, you know? Maybe you're just flustered because it _feels _ like you are being cornered. That's an explanation for the erratic responses that makes sense to me without saying anything negative about your character. Because I don't know you, I will make that assumption and give you that benefit of the doubt. If for no reason because... gods be damned, I can't bear to think such an eloquent worded person with thoughts complex, though different in opinion than mine, might have had such boring intent of simply pushing the buttons of others.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 21, 2018)

Kurgarra Lilitu said:


> And these tin-foil hat excuses for "character assassination" Blaze...  Le Chat may have been directly harsh on you, but Logic seemed to be using... well... logic...
> 
> I want to give you the benefit of the doubt here, you know? Maybe you're just flustered because it _feels _ like you are being cornered. That's an explanation for the erratic responses that makes sense to me without saying anything negative about your character. Because I don't know you, I will make that assumption and give you that benefit of the doubt. If for no reason because... gods be damned, I can't bear to think such an eloquent worded person with thoughts complex, though different in opinion than mine, might have had such boring intent of simply pushing the buttons of others.


If I wanted to push buttons, I would have made a far worse OP.  Enough to grant me an open thread but enough to cause a shitshow.  That's not what I'm doing here.  I'm genuinely curious as to how others feel about something and I genuinely want my opinions to be challenged; I wouldn't post any of them here otherwise.
-
I guess I'm in a bit of a pickle.  If I retract on what I say, I'm afraid people will use that as an excuse to "call me out" so to speak.  If I admit to doing one thing wrong, all the sudden I'll become the thing that went wrong for this entire thread.  I don't accept that responsibility because I don't believe it was my fault for the thread going astray.
-
That being said, I think perhaps letting my pride get the better of me would ultimately be a far greater sacrifice of my character than anything anyone else can say.
-
For that, @Blythulu I want to genuinely say I am sorry for my aggressive responses.  My tendency toward making a point can get the better of me, and as a result, I can come across as colder than I intended.


----------



## Blythulu (May 22, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> If I wanted to push buttons, I would have made a far worse OP.  Enough to grant me an open thread but enough to cause a shitshow.  That's not what I'm doing here.  I'm genuinely curious as to how others feel about something and I genuinely want my opinions to be challenged; I wouldn't post any of them here otherwise.
> -
> I guess I'm in a bit of a pickle.  If I retract on what I say, I'm afraid people will use that as an excuse to "call me out" so to speak.  If I admit to doing one thing wrong, all the sudden I'll become the thing that went wrong for this entire thread.  I don't accept that responsibility because I don't believe it was my fault for the thread going astray.
> -
> ...


It's okay. I totally understand. I've been on that end of things on forums plenty of times myself, so I get where you are coming from. It can be frustrating, and sometimes I don't even realize how I'm letting text on a screen from a total stranger seriously rile me. That's why I tend to opt out of conversations when I _do_ notice that it's effecting me and either 1) I don't think the person I'm talking to is worth talking to anymore (ie: trolls or people who refuse to listen/twist words/only respond to small parts of arguements) or 2) I don't think it's moving anywhere productive even if the person I'm talking to is being mostly reasonable or 3) It's actually making me feel anxiety in real life, which happens more than I care to admit, lol. (Or 4, it's a total dog pile onto one person. I don't like that very much, either.)

That said, I also don't think it's weakness to admit that you were wrong or change your position on something. Like you said, you want your opinions to be challenged. That shouldn't be so that you can solidify them and make them stronger, it should be so you can be more informed on the topic in general and maybe, if you have a change of heart, move forward with a new perspective. If that's the case, finding out where you could be 'wrong' is a part of that process.

It harkens back to the extremist thing I mentioned before. For a very long time, I only watched content created by left-leaning people who only showcased the arguments of the far right to respond to. Obviously I agreed with the left-leaning people, and even though I knew deep down the far right weren't all the extremists I was being exposed to, I realized eventually that I was in a box of my own design. That's when I started seeking out moderates who leaned both ways and make an effort to keep myself informed on both sides to everything. I'm still left-leaning on basically every topic, but I don't demonize the right like I used to, and I can respect people's opinions more even if I don't agree.

It's important to always question yourself and try to grow. You can't grow without being wrong sometimes, and it's a good thing to accept that past mistake on the chin and grow from it. If nothing else, it sets a good example for others. It also doesn't mean you accept the blame for _everything_ in this thread. I'd like to hope that the majority of people here are fair-minded enough to know that everyone makes their own choices. (I can't say that with 100% certainty since I haven't been keeping up with it today.  )

I also apologize for my part in the misunderstanding. You are right, it would have been clearer if I had phrased my interpretation as a question. That's actually something I've been trying to work on in real life, too, so it's hardcore noted for the future.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 22, 2018)

Blythulu said:


> I also apologize for my part in the misunderstanding. You are right, it would have been clearer if I had phrased my interpretation as a question. That's actually something I've been trying to work on in real life, too, so it's hardcore noted for the future.


It's not unique to you, believe me; though alleviating that can help reduce the number of times it actually happens.


----------



## quoting_mungo (May 22, 2018)

DJLab said:


> Using trap is fine as long as it relates to a crossdresser with feminine features and not a transwoman.


Not really; using it about real people at all is dickish as hell. When used about fictional art/game characters (such as trope poster child Bridget), it can be interpreted as tricking or "trapping" straight guys into thinking a dude is hot. Since the character does not exist in the flesh, it ends there; the character's sex becomes a "gotcha" and the worst hurt feelings that can realistically come out of it (excluding collateral hurt from third-party bystanders) are the guy being a bit embarrassed about thinking a dude was waifu material.

If you call a RL crossdresser "trap", their existence as actual physical human beings changes the dynamics of the situation. At that point, the use of "trap" suggests the crossdresser's intent is to lure in unsuspecting straight guys who will be surprised by penis when clothes come off. It ends up casting the crossdressing individual in a predatory light, and is, as some other people have previously mentioned upthread, dangerously closely related to common justifications for violence against trans/crossdressing/gender-nonconforming individuals.

Obviously if someone tells you they're okay with being called/joked about as a trap, that supercedes the above in the specific case. But overall, it's something to be restrictive with using.


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (May 22, 2018)

I generally don't care about the subject but I feel like I should know what the current status quo of the discussion.
Anyone can give me a TLDR of what's happening in this thread? I'm lazy


----------



## Balskarr (May 22, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> I generally don't care about the subject but I feel like I should know what the current status quo of the discussion.
> Anyone can give me a TLDR of what's happening in this thread? I'm lazy


Cutting out all the bullshit and arguing, the general consensus seems to be that "trap" is a term that you should only use around your friends and in private. And if it used around those it could apply to in a general sense? Make sure they're alright with it.

My two cents?
I'm ok with this consensus despite having a bit of enjoyment using the term. Even my girlfriend (A transwoman) is alright with the term in a joking sense. I'll just be mindful of those who aren't as accepting of it even as a joke.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 22, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> Not really; using it about real people at all is dickish as hell. When used about fictional art/game characters (such as trope poster child Bridget), it can be interpreted as tricking or "trapping" straight guys into thinking a dude is hot. Since the character does not exist in the flesh, it ends there; the character's sex becomes a "gotcha" and the worst hurt feelings that can realistically come out of it (excluding collateral hurt from third-party bystanders) are the guy being a bit embarrassed about thinking a dude was waifu material.
> 
> ...
> 
> Obviously if someone tells you they're okay with being called/joked about as a trap, that supercedes the above in the specific case. But overall, it's something to be restrictive with using.



In my experience crossdressers are more likely to call themselves traps than other people.  Besides, a convincing one will likely have to tell you they're a trap or a crossdresser.  A lot see it as a reinforcement of how convincing they are, not an insult.  Hence why I don't like it when people say "You can't say _____ to ______" despite not acting as a proper representative.  

Yes obviously you don't wanna go around calling people traps but as mentioned above a lot enjoy being called one or call themselves one.


----------



## TrishaCat (May 22, 2018)

You know I was saying earlier that the term shouldn't and isn't meant to apply to trans people? I remembered something that complicated this: some people consider characters to be trans even if they aren't said to be. For example, I've seen claims that characters like Chihiro Fujisaki are trans. The game does not imply this imo, but some people will fight tooth and nail that the character is. I think there was controversy surrounding the police girl in Persona 4 as with claims as such.

So, hypothetically, a person might refer to the character as a trap believing them to be an effeminate cross dressing character, and one person might take it to imply that trans people are traps as they'll believe the character is trans. So this winds up making it a trans slur even when it isn't meant to be.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 22, 2018)

Battlechili said:


> You know I was saying earlier that the term shouldn't and isn't meant to apply to trans people? I remembered something that complicated this: some people consider characters to be trans even if they aren't said to be. For example, I've seen claims that characters like Chihiro Fujisaki are trans. The game does not imply this imo, but some people will fight tooth and nail that the character is. I think there was controversy surrounding the police girl in Persona 4 as with claims as such.
> 
> So, hypothetically, a person might refer to the character as a trap believing them to be an effeminate cross dressing character, and one person might take it to imply that trans people are traps as they'll believe the character is trans. So this winds up making it a trans slur even when it isn't meant to be.


Misusing a word doesn't make something a slur.


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (May 22, 2018)

If trap can be construed as a slur to whoever is hearing it.. then don't use it. If you're not sure, just ask first. Hot button labels can mean different things to different poeple.. which is why I try to avoid them (if I can) - and use more nuetral terms, that can't offend.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 22, 2018)

Connor J. Coyote said:


> If trap can be construed as a slur to whoever is hearing it.. then don't use it.


You don't get to pick a word that has no association with you and pretend its a slur just because someone can use it in an incorrect connection against you and ignore any context whatsoever regarding the term in order to make the word as a whole seem derogatory.


----------



## pandasayori (May 22, 2018)

Even if the person on the receiving end of the slur knows the meaning of it, they can still view it as a slur. If it’s directed towards / used against them and _they_ perceive it to be a slur: then it’s a slur regardless of what anyone says. Even if someone doesn’t associate with the word, if someone being called that thinks it’s a slur, then it’s a slur in their opinion.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

pandasayori said:


> Even if the person on the receiving end of the slur knows the meaning of it, they can still view it as a slur. If it’s directed towards / used against them and _they_ perceive it to be a slur: then it’s a slur regardless of what anyone says. Even if someone doesn’t associate with the word, if someone being called that thinks it’s a slur, then it’s a slur in their opinion.


Sure, it can be a slur in that context; that doesn't mean it's now a "trans slur" just because it can be utilized against a trans person.  After all, what is a slur?  It's just a fancy way of saying "derogatory word" toward someone, and some groups have slurs that have been specified to them.  Hence Black people and the word n**ger.  Even n**ger can be utilized in a context that is not derogatory, such as song lyrics.
-
It's one thing to see something as offensive when it's directed AT you.  The problem arises when you believe it's your "Your group's N word" just because it CAN be utilized (albeit incorrectly) against you.
-
Context.  Matters.  I'm not saying Trap can't be used against trans people as a slur; I'm saying that doesn't magically make it explicitly a "trans slur".


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (May 23, 2018)

pandasayori said:


> Even if the person on the receiving end of the slur knows the meaning of it, they can still view it as a slur. If it’s directed towards / used against them and _they_ perceive it to be a slur: then it’s a slur regardless of what anyone says. Even if someone doesn’t associate with the word, if someone being called that thinks it’s a slur, then it’s a slur in their opinion.



Yes; (the semantics aside) - it's how one views the term and the connotations with it, (when the word is used around them) - that matters the most.


----------



## pandasayori (May 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Hence Black people and the word n**ger.  Even n**ger can be utilized in a context that is not derogatory, such as song lyrics.
> -
> It's one thing to see something as offensive when it's directed AT you.  The problem arises when you believe it's your "Your group's N word" just because it CAN be utilized (albeit incorrectly) against you.



Black person here, and I’m personally not a fan of the word regardless of it’s context. Perception of a word being used varies from person to person. Hard R or soft A, I’m not a fan either way. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

But this discussion is about traps, so the n word talk be it’s own discussion for another day.


----------



## Lexiand (May 23, 2018)

Funny story so My sister had a friend who was showing me some furry shit  in a mmo game
and the guys character was a female and I thought this guy was a girl
until my sister told me the guy was a boy.
I was like

oh shit.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

pandasayori said:


> Black person here, and I’m personally not a fan of the word regardless of it’s context. Perception of a word being used varies from person to person. Hard R or soft A, I’m not a fan either way. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> 
> But this discussion is about traps, so the n word talk be it’s own discussion for another day.


I didn't inquiry whether anyone was a fan of the word or not; simply that the word can be utilized in a non-deragatory way.


----------



## LogicNuke (May 23, 2018)

What exactly are you trying to accomplish here, Blaze? I ask this honestly.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> What exactly are you trying to accomplish here, Blaze? I ask this honestly.


I'm not trying to accomplish anything.  I don't have a motive.  I'm having a conversation.


----------



## pandasayori (May 23, 2018)

We’re on page four and I no longer understand the point of this thread.


----------



## LogicNuke (May 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> I'm not trying to accomplish anything.  I don't have a motive.  I'm having a conversation.


And what are you trying to accomplish with this conversation? Is there a point you're attempting to reach?


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

pandasayori said:


> We’re on page four and I no longer understand the point of this thread.


It's simple:
The intended point of the thread was asking whether or not its true that trap has been used as a transgender insult.  We agreed upon yes.  We are now arguing about whether a trans person has say over a word that was never originally applicable to them.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> And what are you trying to accomplish with this conversation? Is there a point you're attempting to reach?


The point is this;
Transgender people can have the word Trap used against them in a derogatory manner, despite it being an incorrect phrase to utilize.  However, I also do not believe that transgender people have sway over the word in general as "their slur" and attempt to censor it in any context.


----------



## pandasayori (May 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> However, I also do not believe that transgender people have sway over the word in general as "their slur" and attempt to censor it in any context.



.....Literally anyone who has anything being used towards them can perceive it as a slur regardless of their background. Example: someone calls me a slur that was originally directed towards X group. Even though it has absolutely nothing to do with me, I can still view it as a slur.

A slur can be said to anyone, just as anyone can view something as a slur. If a trans person happens to view being called a “trap” a slur, then it’s a slur to that particular trans person. It all boils down to being a case by case basis, but the safest option would be to never refer to a trans person as a trap. It’s just that simple.


----------



## LogicNuke (May 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Transgender people can have the word Trap used against them in a derogatory manner, despite it being an incorrect phrase to utilize.


I understand this and we are in agreement here.


ResolutionBlaze said:


> However, I also do not believe that transgender people have sway over the word in general as "their slur" and attempt to censor it in any context.


Here do you mean that they _do _not have sway over the word in general or that they _should _not have sway over the word in general? Note the italicized words.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

pandasayori said:


> .....Literally anyone who has anything being used towards them can perceive it as a slur regardless of their background. Example: someone calls me a slur that was originally directed towards X group. Even though it has absolutely nothing to do with me, I can still view it as a slur.
> 
> A slur can be said to anyone, just as anyone can view something as a slur. If a trans person happens to view being called a “trap” a slur, then it’s a slur to that particular trans person. It all boils down to being a case by case basis, but the safest option would be to never refer to a trans person as a trap. It’s just that simple.


I never said you COULDN'T view it as a slur.  That's not the point.  What I'm trying to say is that trans people can't take the word and say "it was always a slur against Trans people" like the N word was for black people.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> I understand this and we are in agreement here.
> 
> Here do you mean that they _do _not have sway over the word in general or that they _should _not have sway over the word in general? Note the italicized words.


See above post


----------



## LogicNuke (May 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> I never said you COULDN'T view it as a slur. That's not the point. What I'm trying to say is that trans people can't take the word and say "it was always a slur against Trans people" like the N word was for black people.


Several users on this thread have either _that transpeople either have a right to view trap as a slur and that it shouldn't be used at al_l or _that while trap is offensive to transpeople, it can still be used to refer to fictional characters fitting certain criteria_. 

Which one do you agree with?


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> Several users on this thread have either _that transpeople either have a right to view trap as a slur and that it shouldn't be used at al_l or _that while trap is offensive to transpeople, it can still be used to refer to fictional characters fitting certain criteria_.
> 
> Which one do you agree with?


If you reversed the statement of the second to "While trap refers to a fictional character fitting a specific criteria, it can be used to offend transpeople".
-
It may seem like a small thing but the latter sounds like that the offensiveness to transpeople is the default state of the word.


----------



## LogicNuke (May 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> If you reversed the statement of the second to "While trap refers to a fictional character fitting a specific criteria, it can be used to offend transpeople".


And you definitely agree with this statement?


ResolutionBlaze said:


> It may seem like a small thing but the latter sounds like that the offensiveness to transpeople is the default state of the word.


I take this to mean you agree that the word trap's offensiveness is not the default state of the word. Am I wrong?


----------



## Le Chat Nécro (May 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> We are now arguing about whether a trans person has say over a word that was never originally applicable to them.


Would you say a gay person has say over "faggot"?
What about lesbians and "dyke"?
Or women and "bitch"?
How about "bastard"?

Cause none of those were "originally applicable" as swears and slurs. Well, except for bastard but not as we use it today. Language changes.


----------



## WithMyBearHands (May 23, 2018)

Gosh, I don’t even know where to begin with this train wreck.  I’m pretty sure the comic you used in the OP is a shitty segue into your terrible opinion of “hurrrdurrr people shouldn’t be upset by slurs”.  What the fuck is your goal here, dude?  Because you’re doing nothing but stirring shit right here.


----------



## WithMyBearHands (May 23, 2018)

Oh and btw it really doesn’t matter what the word _originally _meant.  What matters is what it means now.  That’s like saying it’s cool to wear a swastika because it used to be a symbol of peace.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

Le Chat Nécro said:


> Would you say a gay person has say over "faggot"?
> What about lesbians and "dyke"?
> Or women and "bitch"?
> How about "bastard"?
> ...


None of those words involved groups of people.  Traps exist you know.  And people who proclaim themselves as traps exist, as a part of their identity.  You're basically appropriating someone else's term because one person used it to offend you.  Go ahead and do that and see what happens; languages make inconsequential changes, but using it as an excuse to appropriate someone else's title because you don't want to bother with context is pretty silly in my opinion.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

WithMyBearHands said:


> Oh and btw it really doesn’t matter what the word _originally _meant.  What matters is what it means now.  That’s like saying it’s cool to wear a swastika because it used to be a symbol of peace.


Trap has always meant what it meant..... It's never changed.  It's always meant a crossdresser, specifically a convincing crossdresser.  Are you really gonna take their term and make it exclusively about trans people?


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

WithMyBearHands said:


> Gosh, I don’t even know where to begin with this train wreck.  I’m pretty sure the comic you used in the OP is a shitty segue into your terrible opinion of “hurrrdurrr people shouldn’t be upset by slurs”.  What the fuck is your goal here, dude?  Because you’re doing nothing but stirring shit right here.


Lemme ask why_ you're_ here.  Nobody forced you to come here and talk about my "terrible opinions".


----------



## WithMyBearHands (May 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Trap has always meant what it meant..... It's never changed.  It's always meant a crossdresser, specifically a convincing crossdresser.  Are you really gonna take their term and make it exclusively about trans people?


You’re making two different arguments.  You’re saying that people shouldn’t be offended by slurs, yet also trying to clarify a difference.  I get it.  There’s a difference between trans people and people who crossdress.  I’m addressing both by telling you that it is used as a slur for trans people and the trans people I know find it tasteless and tacky, at the very least.


----------



## WithMyBearHands (May 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Lemme ask why_ you're_ here.  Nobody forced you to come here and talk about my "terrible opinions".


Nobody asked you to fuckin post this garbage either yet here you are.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

WithMyBearHands said:


> Nobody asked you to fuckin post this garbage either yet here you are.


You're needlessly angry and I have no idea why.


----------



## WithMyBearHands (May 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> You're needlessly angry and I have no idea why.


Because you’re starting shit for no reason.  Like why are you doing this


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

WithMyBearHands said:


> You’re making two different arguments.  You’re saying that people shouldn’t be offended by slurs, yet also trying to clarify a difference.  I get it.  There’s a difference between trans people and people who crossdress.  I’m addressing both by telling you that it is used as a slur for trans people and the trans people I know find it tasteless and tacky, at the very least.


I never said people shouldn't be offended by slurs.  Quite the opposite if you paid attention to the thread thus far.  The only thing I reject is the notion that trans people get to lay claim over who gets to use the term despite context; a term that describes an entirely different group of people.


----------



## WithMyBearHands (May 23, 2018)

Again, I’ve asked you what your goal is and you still haven’t bothered to answer that.  You’re just stating something and then wonder why people don’t agree with you.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

WithMyBearHands said:


> Because you’re starting shit for no reason.  Like why are you doing this


It's called "disagreements"
-
Such things tend cause aggression.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

WithMyBearHands said:


> Again, I’ve asked you what your goal is and you still haven’t bothered to answer that.  You’re just stating something and then wonder why people don’t agree with you.


Why do I need to justify myself to you?


----------



## WithMyBearHands (May 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> It's called "disagreements"
> -
> Such things tend cause aggression.


It’s called “your thread has no substance besides your opinion and it can be freely disputed”


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

WithMyBearHands said:


> It’s called “your thread has no substance besides your opinion and it can be freely disputed”


And it has been, obviously.  What your point?


----------



## WithMyBearHands (May 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Why do I need to justify myself to you?


Because you know you’re only trying to start drama with a thread like this.  This is fucking childish.  You don’t have the nads to give an actual reason.  You’re just a shit starter.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

WithMyBearHands said:


> Because you know you’re only trying to start drama with a thread like this.  This is fucking childish.  You don’t have the nads to give an actual reason.  You’re just a shit starter.


Well, no, because I presented a genuine question to the thread; is this a real issue trans people go through?  Clickbaity title aside, I don't see how the OP was a shit starting thread to begin with.  The worst I did was misinterpreted a comic.  So how am I a shit starter?


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (May 23, 2018)

WithMyBearHands said:


> Because you know you’re only trying to start drama with a thread like this.  This is fucking childish.  You don’t have the nads to give an actual reason.  You’re just a shit starter.


Well personally.. I don't see this as drama. It is a good topic to touch on and as such there should be difference in opinion.

It's not bad challenging each others idea


----------



## WithMyBearHands (May 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Well, no, because I presented a genuine question to the thread; is this a real issue trans people go through?  Clickbaity title aside, I don't see how the OP was a shit starting thread to begin with.  The worst I did was misinterpreted a comic.  So how am I a shit starter?


I wasn’t born yesterday, dude.  I’m not stupid.   You know damn well what this is.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

WithMyBearHands said:


> I wasn’t born yesterday, dude.  I’m not stupid.   You know damn well what this is.


Let's suppose I did know damn well what it was; what excuse does that give you to avoid the question?


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

WithMyBearHands said:


> I wasn’t born yesterday, dude.  I’m not stupid.   You know damn well what this is.



I genuinely wanna know what upset you here.


----------



## LogicNuke (May 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Traps exist you know. And people who proclaim themselves as traps exist, as a part of their identity. You're basically appropriating someone else's term because one person used it to offend you. Go ahead and do that and see what happens; languages make inconsequential changes, but using it as an excuse to appropriate someone else's title because you don't want to bother with context is pretty silly in my opinion.


Blaze, you clearly have a specific view that you hold, which leads me ask, why continue with this thread? To trigger people?


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> Blaze, you clearly have a specific view that you hold, which leads me ask, why continue with this thread? To trigger people?



Because people keep responding with things I want to respond to.  But whenever I do that I get ten more messages about how horrible I am.

If you guys despise this thread so much why do you keep responding to it?


----------



## LogicNuke (May 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Because people keep responding with things I want to respond to.  But whenever I do that I get ten more messages about how horrible I am.
> 
> If you guys despise this thread so much why do you keep responding to it?


Because someone needs to counterbalance your vile stupidity.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> Because someone needs to counterbalance your vile stupidity.



I don't know why youre such an asshole.


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (May 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> I don't know why youre such an asshole.


PMS.


----------



## LogicNuke (May 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> I don't know why youre such an asshole.


Because you've clearly admitted you've received an answer that was satisfactory to you, but yet you continue to reiterate the same point over and over, despite the fact that virtually every poster disagree with you. If this was a political issues, fine, you're entitled to your opinion, but this is a topic about a word used as a slur against the trans-community. Explain where it is absolutely necessary for you to use the word trap? 


Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> PMS


I would think you of all people would be more sensitive to this issue, especially as a gay man in Japan.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> Because you've clearly admitted you've received an answer that was satisfactory to you, but yet you continue to reiterate the same point over and over, despite the fact that virtually every poster disagree with you. If this was a political issues, fine, you're entitled to your opinion, but this is a topic about a word used as a slur against the trans-community. Explain where it is absolutely necessary for you to use the word trap?



It's necessary because it's a group of people, an identity people hold.  It's not like describing a bundle of sticks; people use this word as their identity.  Appropriating it and putting a social ban on it in all contexts is unfair for those who identify as that particular group.


----------



## LogicNuke (May 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> It's necessary because it's a group of people, an identity people hold.  It's not like describing a bundle of sticks; people use this word as their identity.  Appropriating it and putting a social ban on it in all contexts is unfair for those who identify as that particular group.


Are you a trap? Answer seriously.


----------



## quoting_mungo (May 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> In my experience crossdressers are more likely to call themselves traps than other people.  Besides, a convincing one will likely have to tell you they're a trap or a crossdresser.  A lot see it as a reinforcement of how convincing they are, not an insult.  Hence why I don't like it when people say "You can't say _____ to ______" despite not acting as a proper representative.
> 
> Yes obviously you don't wanna go around calling people traps but as mentioned above a lot enjoy being called one or call themselves one.


Then you wait for them to express that it's okay to do it before you do it. Because _linguistically_ there are potential undertones of predatoriness that could be really hurtful when applied to a person.

I will sometimes call my husband (bi with a male bias) or boyfriend (used to identify as gay, later expanded to bi, now identifies as pan) "fag". I would never call a random gay/bi/pan male this without them first having made clear that they're okay with it.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> Are you a trap? Answer seriously.



No.


----------



## LogicNuke (May 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> No.


Would you use the n-word?


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> Would you use the n-word?



Yeah.  In certain contexts.


----------



## LogicNuke (May 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Yeah.  In certain contexts.


What contexts?


----------



## Le Chat Nécro (May 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> None of those words involved groups of people.  Traps exist you know.  And people who proclaim themselves as traps exist, as a part of their identity.  You're basically appropriating someone else's term because one person used it to offend you.  Go ahead and do that and see what happens; languages make inconsequential changes, but using it as an excuse to appropriate someone else's title because you don't want to bother with context is pretty silly in my opinion.


Bastards were people born out of wedlock. Like John Snow. 
And is it really appropriation if trans people aren't the ones using it? Like, the people using it as a slur are really the ones doing the appropriating. 
And language makes more than inconsequential changes. 
ðe [is] hwæt attraction with pron ðe ic âðrôwian nâ wordlung onlic ðe


----------



## pandasayori (May 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Yeah.  In certain contexts.



As a black person, I assure you that a lot of black people will have issues with you regardless of the context the n-word is used.

Also, just woke up to find this thread on page six and it's stuck on an endess loop. The general agreement (based on what I've been keeping up with) is that if someone thinks a word is a slur: simply do not use it towards them or just keep that word amongst your tight circle od peers. It's honestly not that hard to do, so I personally don't see the point in why this thread is continuing.

As a person saying a word (regardless of context or original meaning / target group), you do not get to decide that it's not a slur towards the person you are telling it to. If the person being told the word considers it to be a slur, then it's a slur. The person being told that gets the final say in what is or isn't a slur being thrown at them. That's just how I personally see it.

I don't know about everyone else, but I'm tired of repeating myself at this point. Nothing is going anywhere anytime soon in this part of the woods. Time to make some tea and see where things go from here.


----------



## WithMyBearHands (May 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Yeah.  In certain contexts.


That’s fucked up dude.


----------



## WithMyBearHands (May 23, 2018)

Like you do understand that I have reprimanded people for things like this?  Using words that could be misconstrued as slurs - or, as you’re apparently comfortable doing, blatant obvious slurs - are grounds for action to be taken in the workplace or at school.  That should tell you something.  That means you shouldn’t fucking use them.


----------



## Balskarr (May 23, 2018)

pandasayori said:


> As a black person, I assure you that a lot of black people will have issues with you regardless of the context the n-word is used.
> 
> Also, just woke up to find this thread on page six and it's stuck on an endess loop. The general agreement (based on what I've been keeping up with) is that if someone thinks a word is a slur: simply do not use it towards them or just keep that word amongst your tight circle od peers. It's honestly not that hard to do, so I personally don't see the point in why this thread is continuing.
> 
> ...


She's right, you know?

Things have been going back and forth mostly between two people who obviously won't be budging from their standing points.

I originally lurked in and was watching with a genuine interest in the conversation until we got to where we are now in this thread.


----------



## Yakamaru (May 23, 2018)

This thread isn't really going anywhere. It hasn't gone anywhere for at least three pages. Better to agree to disagree and move on. Worst case scenario, take it in DM's.


----------



## Troj (May 23, 2018)

So, how does this little debate enlighten people or make the world a better place?

Really, I think "be careful and mindful about invoking an argument, making a joke, or using a term that's been used to denigrate and dehumanize a vulnerable group of people" and "don't call trans people traps" is a pretty uncontroversial, straightforward, and easy to follow.

"Don't use slurs."
"But what if I reeeeeeeeeally want to?"


----------



## Infrarednexus (May 23, 2018)

Even though nothing is technically stopping us from using the phrase "trap" we should still think about how trans people feel before we start using names like that. Nothing is stopping someone from calling me a fruit or a fag because I'm gay, but I'd appreciate it if they didn't out of kindness and respect.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

WithMyBearHands said:


> That’s fucked up dude.



Not really; is it fucked up to say it during a play?  Or when reading a story?

Our teacher allowed us to say the word when reading _Raisin in the Sun _because the word had literary context to it.

So is it really that shocking?


----------



## WithMyBearHands (May 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> because the word had literary context to it


Here’s your answer.  Literary context.  I’m pretty sure most terms of services or COC on various sites and servers including FA and FAF, clarify that historical and literary context doesn’t apply.  This tactic you’re using is a pathetic one and you know it.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

WithMyBearHands said:


> Here’s your answer.  Literary context.  I’m pretty sure most terms of services or COC on various sites and servers including FA and FAF, clarify that historical and literary context doesn’t apply.



Wow, so context really does matter.  So what I claimed wasn't actually fucked up.


----------



## WithMyBearHands (May 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Wow, so context really does matter.  So what I claimed wasn't actually fucked up.


What the fuck are you talking about?  You can’t seriously be the type of person that goes “no I can say that word it’s written in/they say it in/I saw it in _____”

And again, you fucking know better than to claim this was all about literary context.  And stay the fuck out of my DMs.


----------



## Troj (May 23, 2018)

Even then, there's a real question of whether you have earned the right to use a particular slur, even if you're just quoting a text or reciting a song lyric. The meaning and impact of speech is naturally shaped by the speaker, after all.

www.theguardian.com: Kendrick Lamar is right about white fans rapping. The N-word is off limits | Ellie Mae O’Hagan


----------



## WithMyBearHands (May 23, 2018)

Troj said:


> Even then, there's a real question of whether you have earned the right to use a particular slur, even if you're just quoting a text or reciting a song lyric. The meaning and impact of speech is naturally shaped by the speaker, after all.
> 
> www.theguardian.com: Kendrick Lamar is right about white fans rapping. The N-word is off limits | Ellie Mae O’Hagan


Thanks for bringing this up.  I have this problem a lot with the high school students that work on my shifts.  This is rural Kentucky, there are cows outside, just for starters, and that’s to say nothing of how little they give a shit about any of it


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

WithMyBearHands said:


> What the fuck are you talking about?  You can’t seriously be the type of person that goes “no I can say that word it’s written in/they say it in/I saw it in _____”
> 
> And again, you fucking know better than to claim this was all about literary context.  And stay the fuck out of my DMs.



It was about context in general.  I clearly stated that I would use it in certain contexts.  You said that it was fucked up before I even said which contexts I would use.  So I fail to see how that's my fault.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

Troj said:


> Even then, there's a real question of whether you have earned the right to use a particular slur, even if you're just quoting a text or reciting a song lyric. The meaning and impact of speech is naturally shaped by the speaker, after all.
> 
> www.theguardian.com: Kendrick Lamar is right about white fans rapping. The N-word is off limits | Ellie Mae O’Hagan



Since when do people EARN a right to use words?


----------



## WithMyBearHands (May 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> It was about context in general.  I clearly stated that I would use it in certain contexts.  You said that it was fucked up before I even said which contexts I would use.  So I fail to see how that's my fault.


You’re using specific contexts to justify using it in all contexts.  That’s how.


ResolutionBlaze said:


> Since when do people EARN a right to use words?


Since the fact that oppressive “norm” groups use words to put down minorities.


----------



## LogicNuke (May 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> It was about context in general. I clearly stated that I would use it in certain contexts. You said that it was fucked up before I even said which contexts I would use. So I fail to see how that's my fault.


So I had asked you earlier in the thread in what context would it be acceptable to use n*gger. Answer the question now if you want.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

WithMyBearHands said:


> You’re using specific contexts to justify using it in all contexts.  That’s how.


I've never justified all contexts.  Ever.



WithMyBearHands said:


> Since the fact that oppressive “norm” groups use words to put down minorities.



And the solution is to grant them unlimited linguistic control over a word, even if said word is utilized by a different minority group?


----------



## pandasayori (May 23, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> So I had asked you earlier in the thread in what context would it be acceptable to use n*gger. Answer the question now if you want.



I've returned with tea and ready to read for this moment in particular.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

Everyone seems to continue to ignore my fundamental point.

We HAVE agreed thus far that the use of a word can be insulting based on context.  What people keep conflating in my notion is that I don't think transpeople have the same linguistic right to control the word "trap" as black people who get to control "n*gger".  The reason i dont think they get that control is because that is a word that people already identify themselves with, and trans people don't have the right to appropriate it from that identity group.

People seem to, somehow, mistake this with me believing that context doesn't matter or that I'm excusing it's use as a slur.  That's not true.  I just don't think trans people have the right to demand a limit to a word when it is commonly used as a form of identity, and treading upon that is not worth it.

This is my conviction and I will not move from it without some damn good reasons why.  No other slur has this issue; no other slur has been used as a self proclaimed identity for one group and an insult to another.  Thus we need to be MORE AWARE of context, not more paranoid of any use of the word.

I'm closing this thread because people aren't having arguments and discussions anymore.  They're simply yelling at me for things I've never said.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

@SSJ3Mewtwo please close this thread.


----------



## LogicNuke (May 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> @SSJ3Mewtwo please close this thread.


No, not so fast, slick. There's still some words to be said.


ResolutionBlaze said:


> What people keep conflating in my notion is that I don't think transpeople have the same linguistic right to control the word "trap" as black people who get to control "n*gger".


I can't help but think you're only saying this because you know is now socially unacceptable to directly demean black people the way you're demeaning transpeople. QUILTBAG rights hasn't quite caught up to the civil rights movement, so you feel it's okay to still shit on them with utter abandon.


ResolutionBlaze said:


> The reason i dont think they get that control is because that is a word that people already identify themselves with, and trans people don't have the right to appropriate it from that identity group.





ResolutionBlaze said:


> I just don't think trans people have the right to demand a limit to a word when it is commonly used as a form of identity, and treading upon that is not worth it.


A minority of transvestites may identify themselves with this term and I haven't seen a shred of evidence from you that this is the case. You are trying to use this hypothetical group to justify usage of the term toward transpeople. Furthermore, as you have clearly stated, you do not remotely consider yourself a trap or transgender individual, so what right do you have to be giving lectures about the word's usage? The answer is you don't.


ResolutionBlaze said:


> This is my conviction and I will not move from it without some damn good reasons why. No other slur has this issue; no other slur has been used as a self proclaimed identity for one group and an insult to another. Thus we need to be MORE AWARE of context, not more paranoid of any use of the word.


People to this day use the word n*gger on grounds that because black people may use it among themselves and or colloquially, they too should have the right to use it. They even make the argument that some black people call themselves n*ggers. I've even heard the argument that not allowing someone who wasn't black to use n*gger infringed upon their First Amendment rights. Yeah. So this case is not so uncommon at all.


ResolutionBlaze said:


> I'm closing this thread because people aren't having arguments and discussions anymore. They're simply yelling at me for things I've never said


Now you're closing the thread like a coward instead of addressing the people criticizing you because this has finally backfired on you spectacularly.


----------



## Saiko (May 23, 2018)

@ResolutionBlaze stop flipping between formal and informal contexts. “There exist contexts in which I can speak a slur” is trivially correct, useless, and completely different from “Sometimes it’s okay for me to use the n-word.” This is twice (at least) that you’ve retreated back to arguments that are meaningless.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> No, not so fast, slick. There's still some words to be said



Thankfully it's not up to you.


----------



## WithMyBearHands (May 23, 2018)

You’re being such a fucking coward.  At least have the balls to be honest about your convictions without trying to hide behind context.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> I can't help but think you're only saying this because you know is now socially unacceptable to directly demean black people the way you're demeaning transpeople. QUILTBAG rights hasn't quite caught up to the civil rights movement, so you feel it's okay to still shit on them with utter abandon.



I haven't demeaned a single Transperson here.


----------



## LogicNuke (May 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Thankfully it's not up to you.


Of all the things you could've replied to in that comment, you chose this. 

You're a class act, Blaze.



ResolutionBlaze said:


> I haven't demeaned a single Transperson here.


You're trying to preserve the usage of a slur against them by passing it off as a willing designation for group you haven't bothered to prove exists.


----------



## pandasayori (May 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> What people keep conflating in my notion is that I don't think transpeople have the same linguistic right to control the word "trap" as black people who get to control "n*gger".  The reason i dont think they get that control is because that is a word that people already identify themselves with, and trans people don't have the right to appropriate it from that identity group.



I agree that it would be best for the thread to be closed, but I honestly cannot agree with the point you're making about black people and the n-word. As a black person I do not label myself using the n-word. I'm just a black woman, full stop. No n-word needed because it's not a part of my core identity. There are black people across the globe that don't even use it to label who they are. Refer to a black person by the n-word and they are within their rights to be upset if not offended. Same goes for referring to trans person as "trap". 

At the end of the day, it's simply not up to you (whoever utters a negative word at someone) to determine what is and isn't a slur. It's up to the person receiving the word and interpreting it as a slur. Any word have repercussions, so if you truly feel the need to use certain words, then expect some kind of backlash for using it. What may be cool for one person simply isn't cool for another person. It's not an issue of paranoia or sensitivity, it's an issue of common decency when talking to someone.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> No, not so fast, slick. There's still some words to be said.
> 
> I can't help but think you're only saying this because you know is now socially unacceptable to directly demean black people the way you're demeaning transpeople. QUILTBAG rights hasn't quite caught up to the civil rights movement, so you feel it's okay to still shit on them with utter abandon.
> 
> ...



I have never used the word Trap to refer to a trans person.  I have no clue where you got that idea from.

I have no idea where you're going with the n*gger argument.

And everyone was demanding I close this thread. Now that I do so I'm being called a coward.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

pandasayori said:


> I agree that it would be best for the thread to be closed, but I honestly cannot agree with the point you're making about black people and the n-word. As a black person I do not label myself using the n-word. I'm just a black woman, full stop. No n-word needed because it's not a part of my core identity. There are black people across the globe that don't even use it to label who they are. Refer to a black person by the n-word and they are within their rights to be upset if not offended. Same goes for referring to trans person as "trap



I never said you did.  But there ARE people who refer to themselves as traps.


----------



## WithMyBearHands (May 23, 2018)

Ever considered that it might be a good idea to just not use the word at all?  Don’t assume context.  Don’t assume someone will be cool with words that are used as slurs.  I don’t understand what is so fucking hard about this.


----------



## LogicNuke (May 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> I have never used the word Trap to refer to a trans person. I have no clue where you got that idea from.


You've been pretending to openly muse whether transpeople have a right to challenge the term being used against them.


ResolutionBlaze said:


> I never said you did. But there ARE people who refer to themselves as traps.


You have provided no proof of this.


ResolutionBlaze said:


> I have no idea where you're going with the n*gger argument.


You're raising the point that you thought trap was a unique word with no other examples regarding its potential offensiveness. I provided one with the word n*gger.


ResolutionBlaze said:


> And everyone was demanding I close this thread. Now that I do so I'm being called a coward.


Because you're clearly doing it now that you feel overwhelmed than actually doing what's right.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> You're trying to preserve the usage of a slur against them by passing it off as a willing designation for group you haven't bothered to prove exists.



Are you seriously saying traps don't exist or that they don't refer to themselves as such?


----------



## Saiko (May 23, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> You're trying to preserve the usage of a slur against them by passing it off as a willing designation for group you haven't bothered to prove exists.


Uhhhhh the group does exist, sort of, but it’s a fetish group very easily distinguished from transgendered people. It being a fetish group also means most of that interaction is “behind closed doors.”

It kind of reminds me of how the fandom has the term “cuntboy” to refer to a kind of “male with a vagina,” which can refer to characters that aren’t trans-men. It’s a legitimate fetish term that you damn well better not use in day-to-day conversation.


----------



## LogicNuke (May 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Are you seriously saying traps don't exist or that they don't refer to themselves as such?


I'm saying you haven't supplied any evidence of a real group that identifies itself as traps. How hard is that to get?


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> Because you're clearly doing it now that you feel overwhelmed than actually doing what's right.



Ironic that you of all people would try to take a moral high ground considering how dishonest you've been whenever you've engaged with me.



LogicNuke said:


> You've been pretending to openly muse whether transpeople have a right to challenge the term being used against them.
> 
> You have provided no proof of this.
> 
> You're raising the point that you thought trap was a unique word with no other examples regarding its potential offensiveness. I provided one with the word n*gger.



The word n*gger is a false comparison.  N*gger didn't once refer to another group willingly then later turned into a derogatory term.  It was pretty much a derogatory term for most of its conception and has a long history.

Trap does not share even a fraction of the same similarities.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

WithMyBearHands said:


> Ever considered that it might be a good idea to just not use the word at all?



No, because I would never have imagined that someday a trans person would try and appropriate it and try to ban it's usage altogether.


----------



## AK_Sandfire (May 23, 2018)

I'll just drop my two cents in on this: 

I'm a trans woman who passes extremely well, though I do have a tomboy quality about me. 

I hate the terms tranny, trap, herm, dickgirl, cockgirl, etc. 

I just really don't like them. If someone really wants to use them to describe themselves (like my best friend and sis by choice) they can. I don't have to like it. 

Where I have a serious issue is when someone sees me on a certain fetish website (not the furry one) and their first message is "Hey! Nice rack and ass! You'd make a great trap! Wanna get down sometime?". I usually just insta-block when I see that. Sure, its a fucked up thing to say and people are ignorant assholes about it, but usually when I stumble across someone that clueless I just ignore them. I hate the phrase, but its just not worth my time.


----------



## Ginza (May 23, 2018)

I use the word fag to describe myself, and my _very close friends _who have made it clear that it’s okay for me to do so. I would _never _call someone a fag because they’re gay or I wanted to insult them. I mean, how much of an asshole would I have to be to do that? 

It boils down to this: if someone doesn’t want you to call them something- don’t! If it’s highly controversial in the first place, don’t! I wouldn’t call a random gay person “faggot” on the off chance they may be okay with it. That’s ridiculous, and disrespectful. Just don’t. End of story 

As for trap, yeah, that’s really shitty of someone to call a trans person a trap. If someone says they’re a trap or that they’re okay with it- that’s alright. However, you shouldn’t call them that otherwise. IMO, just keep the usage of the word trap to your friends who are okay with it, and yourself.


----------



## LogicNuke (May 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Ironic that you of all people would try to take a moral high ground considering how dishonest you've been whenever you've engaged with me.


I've been nothing but honest with you. You like to talk about things you know little about. Like the Pareto distribution in relation to economics, which I had to school you on. Like basic protocol in the food service industry and the law regard loitering, which Bear had to school you on. These are a few examples of when you decided to shoot your mouth off without knowing the facts.


ResolutionBlaze said:


> The word n*gger is a false comparison. N*gger didn't once refer to another group willingly then later turned into a derogatory term. It was pretty much a derogatory term for most of its conception and has a long history.
> 
> Trap does not share even a fraction of the same similarities.


N*gger shares similarities trap in that there exists those ignorant few in the majority who feel that the groups affected by that word shouldn't be offended by that word in all cases, despite those few not actually belonging to those groups in question.


ResolutionBlaze said:


> No, because I would never have imagined that someday a trans person would try and appropriate it and try to ban it's usage altogether.


Well, that day has come. You can stop being an asshole now.


----------



## AK_Sandfire (May 23, 2018)

Ginza said:


> I use the word fag to describe myself, and my _very close friends _who have made it clear that it’s okay for me to do so. I would _never _call someone a fag because they’re gay or I wanted to insult them. I mean, how much of an asshole would I have to be to do that?
> 
> It boils down to this: if someone doesn’t want you to call them something- don’t! If it’s highly controversial in the first place, don’t! I wouldn’t call a random gay person “faggot” on the off chance they may be okay with it. That’s ridiculous, and disrespectful. Just don’t. End of story
> 
> As for trap, yeah, that’s really shitty of someone to call a trans person a trap. If someone says they’re a trap or that they’re okay with it- that’s alright. However, you shouldn’t call them that otherwise. IMO, just keep the usage of the word trap to your friends who are okay with it, and yourself.



Its like the N-word. Self description by people who are reclaiming the word is fine, but use of it by someone like me, who is whiter than a mayo and white bread sammich in a blizzard, is both wrong and will get me hate mail for the rest of my life.


----------



## AK_Sandfire (May 23, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> I've been nothing but honest with you. You like to talk about things you know little about. Like the Pareto distribution in relation to economics, which I had to school you on. Like basic protocol in the food service industry and the law regard loitering, which Bear had to school you on. These are a few examples of when you decided to shoot your mouth off without knowing the facts.
> 
> N*gger shares similarities trap in that there exists those ignorant few in the majority who feel that the groups affected by that word shouldn't be offended by that word in all cases, despite those few not actually belonging to those groups in question.
> 
> Well, that day has come. You can stop being an asshole now.


dude... just say N-word... what the fuck...


----------



## LogicNuke (May 23, 2018)

AK_Sandfire said:


> dude... just say N-word... what the fuck...


Sorry, will do.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> I've been nothing but honest with you. You like to talk about things you know little about. Like the Pareto distribution in relation to economics, which I had to school you on. Like basic protocol in the food service industry and the law regard loitering, which Bear had to school you on. These are a few examples of when you decided to shoot your mouth off without knowing the facts.



The fact that this situation is probably a month old by now and you STILL bring it up is very concerning.  So arrogant that when you're correct you have to smoother everyone involved in shit about it.


----------



## LogicNuke (May 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> The fact that this situation is probably a month old by now and you STILL bring it up is very concerning.  So arrogant that when you're correct you have to smoother everyone involved in shit about it.


When it comes to you, I'm right. That's because I try to be on the right side of things, like everyone else talking you on this thread right now. And only concerning because you got caught out on bullshit like you did here again.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> When it comes to you, I'm right. That's because I try to be on the right side of things, like everyone else talking you on this thread right now. And only concerning because you got caught out on bullshit like you did here again.


I didn't get called out for anything.  You keep trying to accuse me of something using proof by assertion.


----------



## Cawdabra (May 23, 2018)

AK_Sandfire said:


> Its like the N-word. Self description by people who are reclaiming the word is fine.


No. It's stupid in all cases. Also, "reclaiming" the word doesn't seem to be working seeing as how it still offends that demographic to high hell whenever it's used. Unfortunately the best way to make a slur become archaic is to ignore it.


----------



## LogicNuke (May 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> I didn't get called out for anything.  You keep trying to accuse me of something using proof by assertion.


Then you must be blind, bro. Almost everything single poster on this thread has been telling you you're way off base. Even @Ginza , who I've had very public disagreements with putting it mildly politely told you her mind. Even @Infrarednexus mystified me by being enough decent to say the right thing to you. Those are your homies. Listen to them if not me.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> Then you must be blind, bro. Almost everything single poster on this thread has been telling you you're way off base. Even @Ginza , who I've had very public disagreements with putting it mildly politely told you her mind. Even @Infrarednexus mystified me by being enough decent to say the right thing to you. Those are your homies. Listen to them if not me.



I don't entirely disagree with any of them.  I don't know how this isn't apparent.


----------



## LogicNuke (May 23, 2018)

Cawdabra said:


> Unfortunately the best way to make a slur become archaic is to ignore it.


The n-word didn't become taboo because people ignored. It became taboo because people challenged it and demanded dignity.


----------



## Yakamaru (May 23, 2018)

Can you like, stop? All of you? Seems people can't decide on whether intent/context matters, or it doesn't. 

Some people don't like certain words. The easiest solution is to avoid saying it in their presence. You tailor your interaction with people on an individual basis as it's not rocket science. It's basic human interaction. 

I would recommend you agree to disagree and have the thread locked, as this is not going anywhere other than in circles.


----------



## Cawdabra (May 23, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> The n-word didn't become taboo because people ignored. It became taboo because people challenged it and demanded dignity.


Yes and now the opposition use it in every opportunity they can to offend black people, because they know it hurts them.


----------



## LogicNuke (May 23, 2018)

Cawdabra said:


> Yes and now the opposition use it in every opportunity they can to offend black people, because they know it hurts them.


Things progress, if fought for. If people push back against the usage of the n-word enough, like they did back in the day, then it will become unthinkable for the opposition to use.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> Things progress, if fought for. If people push back against the usage of the n-word enough, like they did back in the day, then it will become unthinkable for the opposition to use.



N word would probably be close to extinct by now if this were true.

But people continue to use it, including the very people who, if anyone else used it, would be offended.


----------



## Judge Spear (May 23, 2018)




----------



## LogicNuke (May 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> N word would probably be close to extinct by now if this were true.
> 
> But people continue to use it, including the very people who, if anyone else used it, would be offended.


Change takes time, obviously Blaze. It took 245 years for slavery to be abolished in this country. It took another 153 years to get where we are today with civil rights. But usage of the word has definitely shrank rather than expanded or remained the same. I'd say that is an indicator of the progress to come.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> Change takes time, obviously Blaze. It took 245 years for slavery to be abolished in this country. It took another 153 years to get where we are today with civil rights. But usage of the word has definite shrank rather expanded or remained the same. I'd say that is an indicator of the progress to come.



It's shrank because everyone is afraid to use it.  But the word still exists and people still use it.

That fear has played it's part.  Now it's time to rid of it for good.  Blacks using the word doesn't hurt anybody, but we should begin dismantling the word for everyone pretty soon here then it will become truly extinct


----------



## WithMyBearHands (May 23, 2018)

What I wanna know is why you’re so hellbent on using them in the first place


----------



## LogicNuke (May 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> It's shrank because everyone is afraid to use it.  But the word still exists and people still use it.
> 
> That fear has played it's part.  Now it's time to rid of it for good.  Blacks using the word doesn't hurt anybody, but we should begin dismantling the word for everyone pretty soon here then it will become truly extinct


People aren't just afraid to use it. They know it is wrong and dehumanizing. Once more people realize this, we'll make further progress.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

WithMyBearHands said:


> What I wanna know is why you’re so hellbent on using them in the first place


The word Traps?  Because I want to talk about traps without some trans person barging in telling me how its a slur against them without acknowledging the context in which I spoke about it.  I wanna make a social media post about traps without some moral busybody regulating everything I say and damn near_ trying_ to find offense in the things I say.


----------



## WithMyBearHands (May 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> The word Traps?  Because I want to talk about traps without some trans person barging in telling me how its a slur against them without acknowledging the context in which I spoke about it.  I wanna make a social media post about traps without some moral busybody regulating everything I say and damn near_ trying_ to find offense in the things I say.


Why should it concern you?  Are you transgender?  A trans person told you that a word used to hurt trans people is a slur and you have the gall to tell them off about that?


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

WithMyBearHands said:


> Why should it concern you?  Are you transgender?  A trans person told you that a word used to hurt trans people is a slur and you have the gall to tell them off about that?


Yes.  Because it's not their word, it's a word that is applied to crossdressers.  It'd make about as much sense as saying the word "male" is a slur because it can be used as a slur against transwomen.  I mean, it CAN be used that way, but you don't see them trying to take control of that word because even though it can be used as a slur, it's not a word you should simply ban people from using.  It's a word that requires prior context for it to even BECOME a slur.  Though I've met trans people who, if they had their way, would obliterate the concept of gender altogether, so I'm not even entirely sure about that.


----------



## WithMyBearHands (May 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Yes.  Because it's not their word, it's a word that is applied to crossdressers.  It'd make about as much sense as saying the word "male" is a slur because it can be used as a slur against transwomen.  I mean, it CAN be used that way, but you don't see them trying to take control of that word because even though it can be used as a slur, it's not a word you should simply ban people from using.  It's a word that requires prior context for it to even BECOME a slur.  Though I've met trans people who, if they had their way, would obliterate the concept of gender altogether, so I'm not even entirely sure about that.


All I’m hearing is “bawwwwww someone told me not to say a word that can be offensive to an entire demographic and I can’t have my way” 

It’s a pretty pathetic thing to be upset about if you ask me.  It’s super fucking frustrating to see someone so vehemently defending that.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

WithMyBearHands said:


> All I’m hearing is “bawwwwww someone told me not to say a word that can be offensive to an entire demographic and I can’t have my way”
> 
> It’s a pretty pathetic thing to be upset about if you ask me.  It’s super fucking frustrating to see someone so vehemently defending that.


If that's all you hear, you're obviously not listening.  But given the way you've entered this thread I figured you had no intent on listening anyway.


----------



## WithMyBearHands (May 23, 2018)

You don’t get to decide what is and isn’t offensive.  If it’s not their word, then it sure as hell isnt yours either to dictate how it should be applied.


----------



## WithMyBearHands (May 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> If that's all you hear, you're obviously not listening.





Spoiler



because that’s all you’ve been saying for pages


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

WithMyBearHands said:


> You don’t get to decide what is and isn’t offensive.  If it’s not their word, then it sure as hell isnt yours either to dictate how it should be applied.


Question nothing.


----------



## WithMyBearHands (May 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Question nothing.


In this case, no.  Someone called you out and you came crying to the forums about it.  It’s a four letter word you can’t fling around all carefree like, boo fucking hoo


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

WithMyBearHands said:


> In this case, no.  Someone called you out and you came crying to the forums about it.  It’s a four letter word you can’t fling around all carefree like, boo fucking hoo


It was a four letter word that we were free to fling around carefree.
-
Then someone used it as a poorly made insult.
-
Now all the sudden we can't use it.
-
What if they started calling trans people the more "appropriate" term for traps?  What if people started calling them crossdressers?  Would that be a slur now?  Would I never be able to reference crossdressing without insulting a trans person?


----------



## LogicNuke (May 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> It was a four letter word that we were free to fling around carefree.
> -
> Then someone used it as a poorly made insult.
> -
> Now all the sudden we can't use it.


Your butthurt touches me. Truly.


ResolutionBlaze said:


> What if they started calling trans people the more "appropriate" term for traps? What if people started calling them crossdressers? Would that be a slur now? Would I never be able to reference crossdressing without insulting a trans person?


Errr ... you would be incorrect because transgender individuals aren't crossdressers. It would also be a dumb insult. This is basic shit, man.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> Errr ... *you would be incorrect because transgender individuals aren't crossdressers*. It would also be a dumb insult. This is basic shit, man.


Point made.  Roll credits.


----------



## LogicNuke (May 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Point made.  Roll credits.


Ummm ... no because trap has inherently negative connotations that crossdresser does not, despite being equally inappropriate to call transgendered individual in the defining sense. As several people have previously stated, trap connotes that transgendered individuals, or even transvestites, are specifically trying to entrap men into sexual acts through deception. This is why trap is dehumanizing.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> Ummm ... no because trap has inherently negative connotations


And crossdresser does not?


LogicNuke said:


> As several people have previously stated, trap connotes that* transgendered individuals*,


So transgendered people are not crossdressers.  But when a term has "negative connotations" you decide that it all of the sudden applies to transgendered individuals even though the term has always meant "androgynous crossdresser".  So why does the literal term "crossdresser" not apply to trans people but the word "trap" which by definition refers to crossdressing, does?


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

vore me daddy


----------



## LogicNuke (May 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> And crossdresser does not?


No, though it is a good way to look stupid when you call a transgendered woman a crossdresser.



ResolutionBlaze said:


> So transgendered people are not crossdressers. But when a term has "negative connotations" you decide that it all of the sudden applies to transgendered individuals even though the term has always meant "androgynous crossdresser". So why does the literal term "crossdresser" not apply to trans people but the word "trap" which by definition refers to crossdressing, does?


My point is that ignorant individuals who are totally not like you  use that term as a slur against transgendered individuals. 


ResolutionBlaze said:


> vore me daddy


We're shitposting because out of ideas? You would be into vore.


----------



## Troj (May 23, 2018)

If we're talking about porn and erotica, offhand, I'd say, jerk off to whatever you like, but don't project your fetishes onto reality. If you want to jerk it to cuntboys or traps, knock yourself out, but don't fall into the delusion that real people in the real world exist to satisfy your fantasies, or that they are motivated by the same things as the characters in your porn and erotica.

As for "earning" the right to say words, I simply mean that those of us who haven't been in the "line of fire" themselves often can't fully appreciate the power and significance of particular slurs, insults, and slams, so if we care about other people, we need to be mindful of how we wield or invoke them.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> My point is that ignorant individuals who are totally not like you  use that term as a slur against transgendered individuals.


You're fucking contradicting yourself.  Earlier you said that crossdressing can't be a slur because it's an incorrect usage and doesn't apply to trans people.  Then, after I clarified that Trap means closer an androgynous crossdresser, you state that Trap can be a slur against transgendered individuals.  Make up your mind.  Can calling a Trans person a crossdresser be a slur or not?


----------



## pandasayori (May 23, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> Your butthurt touches me. Truly.



Off topic, but I would love to frame this quote.


----------



## metafang (May 23, 2018)

Troj said:


> If we're talking about porn and erotica, offhand, I'd say, jerk off to whatever you like, but don't project your fetishes onto reality. If you want to jerk it to cuntboys or traps, knock yourself out, but don't fall into the delusion that real people in the real world exist to satisfy your fantasies, or that they are motivated by the same things as the characters in your porn and erotica.
> 
> As for "earning" the right to say words, I simply mean that those of us who haven't been in the "line of fire" themselves often can't fully appreciate the power and significance of particular slurs, insults, and slams, so if we care about other people, we need to be mindful of how we wield or invoke them.



awhh thanks for this


----------



## LogicNuke (May 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Can calling a Trans person a crossdresser be a slur or not?


Perhaps, if fools keep working at it hard enough at making what is right now an improper term an actual slur. I don't suppose that would be a pet project for you, Blaze.


ResolutionBlaze said:


> Then, after I clarified that Trap means closer an androgynous crossdresser, you state that Trap can be a slur against transgendered individuals.


I never agreed to your improper clarification. A trap, by definition, is a _feminine _crossdresser, not an androgynous one: 

Urban Dictionary: Trap

Trap: A man who dresses like a woman and is somewhat feminine in appearance. Could almost be mistaken for a woman until you are in the bedroom with one. Watch out for these types, they are usually afraid to get intimate because you might discover their little 'secret', but sooner or later you find out the truth! (Urban Dictionary)

Don't move the goal posts, bro.


----------



## LogicNuke (May 23, 2018)

pandasayori said:


> Off topic, but I would love to frame this quote.


I try.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> I never agreed to your improper clarification. A trap, by definition, is a _feminine _crossdresser, not an androgynous one:
> 
> Urban Dictionary: Trap
> 
> ...


What point is this making exactly?


LogicNuke said:


> Perhaps, if fools keep working at it hard enough at making what is right now an improper term an actual slur. I don't suppose that would be a pet project for you, Blaze.


So now you're retracting and saying it _can _be a slur despite it being an incorrect term.  In which case I must ask; if calling a transperson a crossdresser was to become a slur and trans people wanted to ban the term, what about the actual crossdressers?


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

pandasayori said:


> Off topic, but I would love to frame this quote.


I have no idea how you can sit there and white knight me this entire thread and at the same time contribute to bullying me.


----------



## LogicNuke (May 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> In which case I must ask; if calling a transperson a crossdresser was to become a slur and trans people wanted to ban the term, what about the actual crossdressers?


I'm not retracting anything. I've been consistent. Read the definition of a trap then reply.



ResolutionBlaze said:


> I have no idea how you can sit there and white knight me this entire thread and at the same time contribute to bullying me.


She's being kinder than I am. This is why you can't be nice to some people.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> I'm not retracting anything. I've been consistent. Read the definition of a trap then reply.


And I encourage you to read your own comments when you clearly stated that, when I asked if calling someone a crossdresser would be a slur, you stated along the lines of, "No, because it would be incorrect".  Now, you are saying that "Yes, it can despite being incorrect." So where are you being consistent?  And I already read your definition; it changes little about my original argument.


LogicNuke said:


> She's being kinder than I am. This is why you can't be nice to some people.


I would expect it from you because you enjoy bullying people here.  That's why it's especially appalling coming from her.


----------



## metafang (May 23, 2018)

has anyone cis in this thread ever wondered what body dysphoria feels like?

also, i would love to hear people's justifications for thinking that all of tumblr is some how more propagandistic and biased than any other cultural feedback loop space, except i know to be cautious in asking this bcause people's refernce point for "not biased" sources are always old white cis straight men :'D hahahah

just because neo-colonialism works for you doesn't meant it's sexy, people. everything about dominant culture is a turn off


----------



## pandasayori (May 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> I have no idea how you can sit there and white knight me this entire thread and at the same time contribute to bullying me.



If I truly had a desire to "bully" you or anyone I would do so without relentlessnessly and remorse, but that's not who I am. I think too highly of myself to stoop down to that level, so why should I devalue myself  now? The opinions I addressed in this forum were what I personally felt and thought. If you consider what I said to be white knighting then you are free to do so.



ResolutionBlaze said:


> That's why it's especially appalling coming from her.



I'm appalling? I'm many things in life, but I'm not and never will consider myself to be appalling.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

metafang said:


> has anyone cis in this thread ever wondered what body dysphoria feels like?
> 
> also, i would love to hear people's justifications for thinking that all of tumblr is some how more propagandistic and biased than any other cultural feedback loop space, except i know to be cautious in asking this bcause people's refernce point for "not biased" sources are always old white cis straight men :'D hahahah
> 
> just because neo-colonialism works for you doesn't meant it's sexy, people. everything about dominant culture is a turn off


I've had a Tumblr for a while.  If you are unaware of the biases that occur there then idk what to tell you.  As for (what the hell is body dysphoria) gender dysphoria, yes I have quite often wondered and even tried to understand what it feels like to be in a different body that I never asked for or that does not match with my perception of myself.  It's difficult, and I don't pretend to understand what it feels like.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

pandasayori said:


> If I truly had a desire to "bully" you or anyone I would do so without relentlessnessly and remorse, but that's not who I am. I think too highly of myself to stoop down to that level, so why should I devalue myself  now? The opinions I addressed in this forum were what I personally felt and thought. If you consider what I said to be white knighting then you are free to do so.


I simply don't understand how you can claim that I am in the wrong for not adhering to people's wishes based on how they feel about something (despite stating that I would), then turn around and support someone's condescending statements about another person despite how they feel.  It just screams double standard.


----------



## Yakamaru (May 23, 2018)

WithMyBearHands said:


> You don’t get to decide what is and isn’t offensive.  If it’s not their word, then it sure as hell isnt yours either to dictate how it should be applied.


To be fair, *no one* owns words. *No one*. 

And offense is subjective. You can't live in an offense-free society where you have freedom of expression and free expression of ideas. 

Someone, somewhere, sometime *is* going to be offended by *something*. The only thing you have control over is yourself and your own behaviour.


----------



## metafang (May 23, 2018)

cool well one time i woke up from a dream where i was embodied, with a flat chest and a penis and testicles. when i woke up from this dream and saw my body as it was then, i panicked and started screaming and crying before i remembered 

everywhere is biased ! but there's a lot more structural power that people can abuse from the top down, from having perspective that matches in with the story the dominant cultures like to tell. so im always relieved to have information and propaganda different than that, telling stories besides the same old which was said to be the only story for far too long


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

@Dragoneer can someone lock this thread?


----------



## pandasayori (May 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> I simply don't understand how you can claim that I am in the wrong for not adhering to people's wishes based on how they feel about something (despite stating that I would), then turn around and support someone's condescending statements about another person despite how they feel.  It just screams double standard.



Liking someone's post counts as a double standard now? My own thoughts and opinions lean more in favor of Logic's and countless others that have posted within this thread, so I fail to see how liking the post of someone I agree with is a double standard? Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

metafang said:


> cool well one time i woke up from a dream where i was embodied, with a flat chest and a penis and testicles. when i woke up from this dream and saw my body as it was then, i panicked and started screaming and crying before i remembered
> 
> everywhere is biased ! but there's a lot more structural power that people can abuse from the top down, from having perspective that matches in with the story the dominant cultures like to tell. so im always relieved to have information and propaganda different than that, telling stories besides the same old which was said to be the only story for far too long


Favoring propaganda simply because it challenges the status quo is not wise.  Neither the status quo nor propaganda can lead to truth.  So you should question why you feel relieved because if you feel safe in your convictions you're just establishing your own status quo.  Dead wood from an oak tree and dead wood from a willow tree are both still dead wood.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

pandasayori said:


> Liking someone's post counts as a double standard now? My own thoughts and opinions lean more in favor of Logic's and countless others that have posted within this thread, so I fail to see how liking the post of someone I agree with is a double standard? Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here.





pandasayori said:


> Off topic, but I would love to frame this quote.


Given the context of what Logic said, I find it hard to believe that you simply ignored it.  Maybe you simply meant the phrase and not what it was directed at; either way it was conveyed as though you were supporting Logic in his efforts to piss me off.
-
So either you're mistaken, or I misinterpreted something and need clarification.


----------



## LogicNuke (May 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> And I already read your definition; it changes little about my original argument.


It changes a lot about your argument. Furthermore, crossdresser would be a hypothetical slur you just made up. Trap is a very real slur used against the trans-community. There's the difference between the two words.


ResolutionBlaze said:


> I would expect it from you because you enjoy bullying people here. That's why it's especially appalling coming from her.


I go after a very specific set of people that have been trolling long before I showed up on the scene. I don't bother anyone else.


ResolutionBlaze said:


> @Dragoneer can someone lock this thread?


The coward's way out? But you still want that last word.


----------



## pandasayori (May 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Given the context of what Logic said, I find it hard to believe that you simply ignored it.  Maybe you simply meant the phrase and not what it was directed at; either way it was conveyed as though you were supporting Logic in his efforts to piss me off.
> -
> So either you're mistaken, or I misinterpreted something and need clarification.



If I'm being honest it's hard to ignore anything that's been posted withing the 10 pages of this thread. Absolutely nothing needs to be clarified, but I still stand by appreciating a good post when I see one. I'm not the only one here who has agreed with Logic at some point, so I'm not the only one who should be deemed "appalling".


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> It changes a lot about your argument. Furthermore, crossdresser would be a hypothetical slur you just made up. Trap is a very real slur used against the trans-community. There's the difference between the two words.


You don't seem to understand the purpose of hypotheticals.  The only thing that you've managed to be consistent on so far is avoiding the question.  Which I notice you've done twice now.  Had anyone else done that I'm sure you'd would have gone apeshit on them.


LogicNuke said:


> I go after a very specific set of people that have been trolling long before I showed up on the scene. I don't bother anyone else.


"I only go after people that I deem deserving of bullying"
-
I'm confused as to how that makes your bullying any less bullying, or at all morally justified.  Because you're so obviously the unbiased mind that can determine who "deserves" public ousting and shaming, and love to present your personal quarrels in signatures for all to see.  You revel in it.  It's repugnant.


LogicNuke said:


> The coward's way out? But you still want that last word.


What would be uncowardly to you?  Agreeing with you wholeheartedly before closing it?  I don't give a shit about the last word.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

pandasayori said:


> If I'm being honest it's hard to ignore anything that's been posted withing the 10 pages of this thread. Absolutely nothing needs to be clarified, but I still stand by appreciating a good post when I see one. *I'm not the only one here who has agreed with Logic at some point, so I'm not the only one who should be deemed "appalling".*


I'm shocked that you still think this is about whether you agree with Logic or not, and not the fact that you've quite literally stated that his comments about me being a butthurt coward deserved to be framed.


----------



## WithMyBearHands (May 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> What would be uncowardly to you?  Agreeing with you wholeheartedly before closing it?  I don't give a shit about the last word.


You started this shit storm and now you can’t take the heat, so you can’t even rely on your own willpower to just not respond so you have to force it to be shut down.  _That’s _cowardly.


----------



## Troj (May 23, 2018)

Yakamaru said:


> To be fair, *no one* owns words. *No one*.
> 
> And offense is subjective. You can't live in an offense-free society where you have freedom of expression and free expression of ideas.
> 
> Someone, somewhere, sometime *is* going to be offended by *something*. The only thing you have control over is yourself and your own behaviour.



But, at the same time, part of being a compassionate, polite, ethical person is being mindful of things that cause people genuine pain, and doing your best to not inflict needless, pointless pain on innocent people.

I generally don't lend much credence to the idea of "offense," personally, because I picture a prissy old lady with smelling salts gasping, "Well, I never!" because you violated some social norm or nicety.

Offense is about getting huffy and righteous because someone violated a social norm that you believe they should know and respect (i.e., "How dare you say that naughty word that we don't say!")

_I'm _concerned about things that trigger deeper, stronger, visceral emotions, like rage, fear, sadness, fear, shame, and trauma, and/or which actively cause people physical or psychological harm.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

WithMyBearHands said:


> You started this shit storm and now you can’t take the heat, so you can’t even rely on your own willpower to just not respond so you have to force it to be shut down.  _That’s _cowardly.


*people have literally requested me to shut down the fucking thread*


----------



## WithMyBearHands (May 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> *people have literally requested me to shut down the fucking thread*


Well, I’m not the one that started it talking about how people shouldn’t be able to dictate words that have been genuine hell on some people.  Looks like you’ve got only yourself to blame there, bub.


----------



## pandasayori (May 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> I'm shocked that you still think this is about whether you agree with Logic or not, and not the fact that you've quite literally stated that his comments about me being a butthurt coward deserved to be framed.



Guess it's time for me to go out and buy that frame then. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

Troj said:


> But, at the same time, part of being a compassionate, polite, ethical person is being mindful of things that cause people genuine pain, and doing your best to not inflict needless or pointless pain on innocent people.
> 
> I generally don't lend much credence to the idea of "offense," personally, because I picture a prissy old lady with smelling salts gasping, "Well, I never!" because you violated some social norm or nicety.


Who says that needless and pointless pain always needs to be numbed?  Perhaps their pain IS needless and pointless.  Maybe that's why they need to stop being pained by it.  I mean, if you're pained by needless, comparatively trivial things, then which is more helpful; to be protected from the trivial, or to learn to no longer be pained by the trivial?


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

WithMyBearHands said:


> Well, I’m not the one that started it talking about how people shouldn’t be able to dictate words that have been genuine hell on some people.  Looks like you’ve got only yourself to blame there, bub.


Kinda hard to take heat from people who jump into a thread only to call it garbage and have no intention of actually discussing or considering anything.  Fuck off.


----------



## Troj (May 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Who says that needless and pointless pain always needs to be numbed?



Just because you can theoretically get over me stomping on your foot doesn't justify me stomping on your foot in the first place.

As the person whose foot _isn't_ being stomped on, you're not in a position to idly lecture the person whose foot _is_ being stomped on about how they should feel or react.

You're certainly not in a position to lecture if _you're_ the one doing the stomping.

Until you've walked in another person's shoes, you're not in a position to determine what is or isn't a trivial problem.


----------



## LogicNuke (May 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Who says that needless and pointless pain always needs to be numbed? Perhaps their pain IS needless and pointless. Maybe that's why they need to stop being pained by it. I mean, if you're pained by needless, comparatively trivial things, then which is more helpful; to be protected from the trivial, or to learn to no longer be pained by the trivial?


Who made you worthy to trivialize their pain exactly?


ResolutionBlaze said:


> Kinda hard to take heat from people who jump into a thread only to call it garbage and have no intention of actually discussing or considering anything. Fuck off.


Mind your mouth. We gave you reasoned arguments and you just recycled the same old talking points to be obstinate.


----------



## Yakamaru (May 23, 2018)

Troj said:


> But, at the same time, part of being a compassionate, polite, ethical person is being mindful of things that cause people genuine pain, and doing your best to not inflict needless or pointless pain on innocent people.
> 
> I generally don't lend much credence to the idea of "offense," personally, because I picture a prissy old lady with smelling salts gasping, "Well, I never!" because you violated some social norm or nicety.


Yes. It goes both ways. If you think it only goes your way it's a form of narcissism and you lack self-awareness. Not talking about you specifically. The "you" in a general sense.

Social norms are only social norms and they change over time. 20-30 years ago it was a societal norm to not have gay rights. Over 100 years ago social norms was pushed to give women their rights. If you don't challenge the social norms nothing will change and we will not progress as a society let alone as a species. We evolve through challenging ourselves as a species, push boundaries and to learn as we go. It takes time as we collectively learn, grow and evolve socially as a species. And sometimes, very controversial societal norms have to be challenged.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> Mind your mouth. We gave you reasoned arguments and you just recycled the same old talking to be obstinate.





LogicNuke said:


> Your butthurt touches me. Truly.


I hardly think you're in a position to tell me to "mind my mouth".​


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> Who made you worthy to trivialize their pain exactly?


I'm not trivializing their pain, only the object of their pain.


----------



## Troj (May 23, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> Who made you worthy to trivialize their pain exactly?



Precisely.

You can practically set your watch by, "I, as a white cis hetero guy, hereby decree that people need to get over X, because one time, someone called me a 'cracker,' and I didn't get mad, so you shouldn't, either."

See also, "I've never experienced or witnessed X, therefore, X doesn't exist, or it's not a big deal."

Obviously, it _is_ important and empowering to realize that your internal reactions to things are separate and distinct from those things, but it's self-serving to bring this up when you just want people to not complain about their feet getting stomped on.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

Troj said:


> Just because you can theoretically get over me stomping on your foot doesn't justify me stomping on your foot in the first place.
> 
> As the person whose foot _isn't_ being stomped on, you're not in a position to idly lecture the person whose foot _is_ being stomped on about how they should feel or react.
> 
> ...


This metaphor would work if life wasn't a piece of shit.  It really relies on an idea of "if only everyone got along" which, yes would be nice, but is utopian at best.  This sort of phrases it like pain is always an optional consequence of other people, or that the person in question would be better off "if only everyone around them played nice".  Again, a nice idea but no less an ideal.


----------



## WithMyBearHands (May 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> This metaphor would work if life wasn't a piece of shit.  It really relies on an idea of "if only everyone got along" which, yes would be nice, but is utopian at best.  This sort of phrases it like pain is always an optional consequence of other people, or that the person in question would be better off "if only everyone around them played nice".  Again, a nice ideal but no less an ideal.


So there’s absolutely NOTHING you can do to save someone a moment of at best, discomfort?  Not a thing?  Like maybe not trying to justify what other people feel?


----------



## LogicNuke (May 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> I'm not trivializing their pain, only the object of their pain.


Which practically comes down to the same thing.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

WithMyBearHands said:


> So there’s absolutely NOTHING you can do to save someone a moment of at best, discomfort?  Not a thing?  Like maybe not trying to justify what other people feel?


You act as though it STOPS at me.  If it isn't me, it'll be the next guy, and the next one, and the next.  I'm not saying that JUSTIFIES me.  I'm just stating that you're doing people a disservice by presuming that the only way to "protect" people from trivial assailants or emotional pain is by forcing everyone who causes pain to conform, as though that isn't both a waste of time and counterproductive.
-
Besides, we aren't talking about what *I* can do.  I'm speaking about what *THEY* can do.


----------



## Troj (May 23, 2018)

Well, that's a massive cop-out, isn't it?

"Welp, life's unfair, and Trump's in the White House, and puppies sometimes die, so might as well just be a dick!"

You're basically saying that you're a piece of driftwood with no free will.

There's a lot about the world we can't change or fix, but as Yakamaru noted, we can at least control ourselves--we can, at least, be the change we'd like to see in the world.

Incidentally, I absolutely think people benefit from learning how to cope with life's slings and arrows, but I at the same time, I want to do my part to prevent and ease people's needless suffering. Just because Holocaust survivors survived and became better people doesn't mean we should allow more Holocausts.


----------



## WithMyBearHands (May 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> You act as though it STOPS at me.  If it isn't me, it'll be the next guy, and the next one, and the next.  I'm not saying that JUSTIFIES me.  I'm just stating that you're doing people a disservice by presuming that the only way to "protect" people from trivial assailants or emotional pain is by forcing everyone who causes pain to conform, as though that isn't both a waste of time and counterproductive.
> -
> Besides, we aren't talking about what *I* can do.  I'm speaking about what *THEY* can do.


You are joining THEM by doing that.  That’s the fucking point.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> Which practically comes down to the same thing.


Pain isn't trivial.  Objects, subjects, and events are.  If they weren't you wouldn't be able to compare a victim to a serial rapist to a person who was called a trap one time.  There's obviously a value distinction between the two; one is more trivial than another.  Unless you want to suggest they aren't.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

Troj said:


> Well, that's a massive cop-out, isn't it?
> 
> "Welp, life's unfair, and Trump's in the White House, and puppies sometimes die, so might as well just be a dick!"
> 
> ...


I'd agree it were a cop-out if we were talking about ourselves.  But we aren't.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

WithMyBearHands said:


> You are joining THEM by doing that.  That’s the fucking point.


*We.  Aren't.  Talking.  About.  Me.*


----------



## LogicNuke (May 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> This metaphor would work if life wasn't a piece of shit. It really relies on an idea of "if only everyone got along" which, yes would be nice, but is utopian at best. This sort of phrases it like pain is always an optional consequence of other people, or that the person in question would be better off "if only everyone around them played nice". Again, a nice idea but no less an ideal.


That doesn't mean we need to give into being as shitty as possible to whole groups of people because life isn't ideal. 

And you're the one who is playing nice right here, right now.


ResolutionBlaze said:


> You act as though it STOPS at me.


It might not stop with you, but something better could start with you. All because it's hard to fight against negative trend doesn't you give in to it. You surprised me by going into the service by going into basic training. Live up to it.


----------



## Saiko (May 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> This metaphor would work if life wasn't a piece of shit.  It really relies on an idea of "if only everyone got along" which, yes would be nice, but is utopian at best.  This sort of phrases it like pain is always an optional consequence of other people, or that the person in question would be better off "if only everyone around them played nice".  Again, a nice idea but no less an ideal.





ResolutionBlaze said:


> You act as though it STOPS at me.  If it isn't me, it'll be the next guy, and the next one, and the next.  I'm not saying that JUSTIFIES me.  I'm just stating that you're doing people a disservice by presuming that the only way to "protect" people from trivial assailants or emotional pain is by forcing everyone who causes pain to conform, as though that isn't both a waste of time and counterproductive.
> -
> Besides, we aren't talking about what *I* can do.  I'm speaking about what *THEY* can do.


This reads frustratingly similarly to “Life sucks, so people shouldn’t say anything if I make it suck a little more.”


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

Saiko said:


> This reads frustratingly similarly to “Life sucks, so people shouldn’t say anything if I make it suck a little more.”


It's funny that I_ literally said_ it doesn't justify my own behavior.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> It might not stop with you, but something better could start with you. All because it's hard to fight against negative trend doesn't you give in to it. You surprised me by going into the service by going into basic training. Live up to it.


I never said we should give in.  Can you quote me where I stated that?


----------



## Kumali (May 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> This metaphor would work if life wasn't a piece of shit.



What a sad life one would have to live, with a worldview like that.


----------



## LogicNuke (May 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> It's funny that I_ literally said_ it doesn't justify my own behavior.


So you do feel you have to justify poor behavior.


ResolutionBlaze said:


> I never said we should give in. Can you quote me where I stated that?


Sure.


ResolutionBlaze said:


> I'm just stating that you're doing people a disservice by presuming that the only way to "protect" people from trivial assailants or emotional pain is by forcing everyone who causes pain to conform, as though that isn't both a waste of time and counterproductive.


You're basically saying that a group suffering discrimination and bigotry should accept their current circumstances while those perpetrating it probably cannot be held to account.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

Kumali said:


> What a sad life one would have to live, with a worldview like that.



"To live is to suffer.  To survive is to find some meaning in the suffering." 
- Fredrick Nietzsche


----------



## LogicNuke (May 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> "To live is to suffer. To survive is to find some meaning in the suffering." -Fredrick Nietzsche


So we cause needless suffering? Furthermore, there are better philosophers than Nietzsche.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> Furthermore, there are better philosophers than Nietzsche.


I fail to see the relevance but okay.


----------



## LogicNuke (May 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> I fail to see the relevance but okay.


That was an aside, but a faulty philosopher often produces a faulty philosophy.


----------



## WithMyBearHands (May 23, 2018)

Like dude this is not that hard.  Idk why you’re getting so butthurt over people telling you not to use certain words.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> So you do feel you have to justify poor behavior.


My hypothetical behavior.  You take every moment you can to bite, don't you.


LogicNuke said:


> You're basically saying that a group suffering discrimination and bigotry should accept their current circumstances while those perpetrating it probably cannot be held to account.


What I'm basically saying is that no matter what you're not gonna alleviate the suffering they will go through; by sheltering them from trivial things you make them weaker when they inevitably arise again, not stronger.


----------



## LogicNuke (May 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> What I'm basically saying is that no matter what you're not gonna alleviate the suffering they will go through; by sheltering them from trivial things you make them weaker when they inevitably arise again, not stronger.


It still sounds like you're trivializing the trials of a minority group by simply telling them to have thicker skin.


ResolutionBlaze said:


> My hypothetical behavior. You take every moment you can to bite, don't you.


You could make it stop.


----------



## Troj (May 23, 2018)

Thread needs a musical interlude.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> That was an aside, but a faulty philosopher often produces a faulty philosophy.


>Life is full of suffering


----------



## LogicNuke (May 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> >Life is full of suffering


Put that shit away.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> It still sounds like you're trivializing the trials of a minority group by simply telling them to have thicker skin.


Maybe they do.  I'd prefer if people didn't get hurt by trivial things they have control to change.  What can I say; I enjoy making people stronger instead of weaker.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> Put that shit away.


You ran into it yourself, for trying to delegitimize a quote I made, even though it was pretty general and a fact that a majority of competent philosophers acknowledge.


----------



## LogicNuke (May 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Maybe they do. I'd prefer if people didn't get hurt by trivial things they have control to change. What can I say; I enjoy making people stronger instead of weaker.


So this is your cover for being a dick. Got it.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> So this is your cover for being a dick. Got it.


Good to see you don't have an actual argument.


----------



## LogicNuke (May 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Good to see you don't have an actual argument.


My argument remains the same. You are trivializing this particular struggle of the trans-community.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> My argument remains the same. You are trivializing this particular struggle of the trans-community.


Aaaaand how does that address my argument that hiding people from trivial matters makes them weaker against the very things you're trying to protect them from?


----------



## LogicNuke (May 23, 2018)

Because you actually are calling their struggles trivial when you are not even a member of the group facing them.


----------



## metafang (May 23, 2018)

rofl "you're just establishing your own status quo"

yeah its called claiming my right to exist ^o^ hooohohohhohhh


----------



## Ginza (May 23, 2018)

I actually cannot believe this is still going...


@ResolutionBlaze while I’m all for discussion, this thread has devolved beyond that point. If you’d like this closed up, it’s probably best to just drop it.


Don’t call people shit they don’t want to be called. Can society stop getting triggered over everything? Yup. Can we be a bit more sensitive to actual struggles? Yup. Let’s just agree that if someone says “hey, calling X group this isn’t cool” let’s not say it! It’s not that hard really.


----------



## metafang (May 23, 2018)

metafang said:


> rofl "you're just establishing your own status quo"
> 
> yeah its called claiming my right to exist ^o^ hooohohohhohhh



Pasteboard — Uploaded Image


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

Ginza said:


> I actually cannot believe this is still going...
> 
> 
> @ResolutionBlaze while I’m all for discussion, this thread has devolved beyond that point. If you’d like this closed up, it’s probably best to just drop it.
> ...


It's hard to ignore the fact that every time I've tried to contact a mod to get this thread closed I've been called a butthurt coward.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

metafang said:


> Pasteboard — Uploaded Image


Is that you?


----------



## LogicNuke (May 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> It's hard to ignore the fact that every time I've tried to contact a mod to get this thread closed I've been called a butthurt coward.


Just ride off into that sunset then. No one's stopping you.


----------



## WithMyBearHands (May 23, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> So this is your cover for being a dick. Got it.





ResolutionBlaze said:


> Good to see you don't have an actual argument.


You basically just said it yourself yanno


----------



## Illuminaughty (May 23, 2018)

Ginza said:


> Don’t call people shit they don’t want to be called. Can society stop getting triggered over everything? Yup. Can we be a bit more sensitive to actual struggles? Yup. Let’s just agree that if someone says “hey, calling X group this isn’t cool” let’s not say it! It’s not that hard really.



It really is that simple. It's just basic courtesy not to call someone something if it clearly upsets them. And even if they weren't very polite in the way they went about communicating how it upset them, that does not give you the right to purposefully antagonize them. 
Even besides, you can still turn a negative into a positive by remembering their reaction and being more cautious with your use of language in the future so you can avoid upsetting people. I'm sure there are plenty of people on the planet that would appreciate the courtesy. And you'll definitely make more friends and connections that way.

Basically, like Ginza was saying: don't be a jerk.


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 23, 2018)

Wtf is this thread? Is it about not using certain words on people? Okay, it might surprise some people, but I really hate the whole Safe Space thing.

1. Don't be a dick and call people words they don't want used on them.
2. Don't be a triggered dick and get upset and high and mighty when people unknowingly use words you don't like. And in fact you don't have the right to expect censorship either.

Uh, if that's what this thread was about. I honestly can't tell.


----------



## Izzy4895 (May 24, 2018)

WithMyBearHands said:


> You started this shit storm and now you can’t take the heat, so you can’t even rely on your own willpower to just not respond so you have to force it to be shut down.  _That’s _cowardly.



He spends _all day_ doing such things on the internet because he couldn't get by with doing that in the real world.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 24, 2018)

Izzy4895 said:


> He spends _all day_ doing such things on the internet because he couldn't get by with doing that in the real world.


You all burst in here to tell me my thread is garbage, then blame me for it as though I'm the one who did all that.  Can't you go bother someone else instead of spending_ all day_ in a thread you clearly despise?


----------



## Reshizard (May 24, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> You all burst in here to tell me my thread is garbage, then blame me for it as though I'm the one who did all that.  Can't you go bother someone else instead of spending_ all day_ in a thread you clearly despise?


Oh boohoo. the little shitposter is getting upset that he can't take the consequences of his comments. Why don't you think before making a thread that does nothing but stir up shit?


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 24, 2018)

WithMyBearHands said:


> You started this shit storm and now you can’t take the heat, so you can’t even rely on your own willpower to just not respond so you have to force it to be shut down.  _That’s _cowardly.


Oh, and you burst in here to just to call my thread garbage, blame me for it when it goes to shit, and continue to rant and waste your time in a thread you_ clearly fucking despise_ and then you talk to ME about not having the willpower to ignore something.  You fucking hypocrite, spending all day taking pot shots at me, telling me I should ignore your childish insults and raving and calling me a coward when I have NEVER done ANYTHING of the sort to you since I've known you.
-
If there is anyone here I should dismiss, it would be you.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 24, 2018)

Reshizard said:


> Oh boohoo. the little shitposter is getting upset that he can't take the consequences of his comments. Why don't you think before making a thread that does nothing but stir up shit?


Why don't you fuck off to someone else's thread?


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (May 24, 2018)

OK guys if we can take a step back...


----------



## SSJ3Mewtwo (May 24, 2018)

Closing this at the OP's request


----------

