Originally posted by nemesio
There are so very many issues in your tripartite thread that deserve attention ... I am not sure that I can possibly tackle all of the essential differences from your and my positions, even over many posts over many days ...
Nemesio, as discussed via PM, there is no hurry and I agree with you in that we after all do have some chess to play. Our discussions have been wonderfully long - in fact, it is quite possible that we were responsible for bringing the RHP server down a few days ago 😀
I will slow down too and keep my responses quite brief.
Now, you took a handful of CPP's quotations and replaced "ho" with horse, coolie, or injun. You demonstated that it is not funny with those words. I am not sure I followed why this point was made.
The point was to show that you require the abusive ho/pimp relationship to produce the laughter. Of course, substitution will not work in the Huck's case. However, what makes that dramatic is that Jim who was considered so 'inferior', shamed Huck with his compassion. Jim rises through what some call the noblest form of comedy, pathos. Similar examples of pathos can be found in say Chaplin's City Lights.
Neither the hoes nor the pimp has any chance for nobility in the CPP scenarios and the only laughter produced is through stereotypical crudeness.
If there is a concern in a situation that arises out of having ignorance or supersensitivity (as someone who would find niggardly offensive must have), I can't abide with the decision to use another word.
Well I won't argue too strongly here. It really is not necessary to change the word since it doesn't carry the meaning. But I wasn't saying that one had to - only that it would be a decent gesture to a colleague who could also request it just as decently. It really doesn't have to be a big deal one way or another.
These are all outrageously offensive things. But did we benefit from them richly? I did. Many did. Many people didn't like the show BECAUSE it challenged people.
And many people didn't like the show because they were racist.
The show worked for you and that's great, but I think there are plenty of other ways to benefit and challenge people. Archie worked to some extent, because he had foils and some people could see that he was 'made' to be an unsuccessful bigot.
With Archie and, I argue, with CPP, we benefit by being able to see the explicit hypocrisy, irony, and ridiculousness of their comments in light of their circumstances.
Archie and CPP are not in the same situation as I have argued extensively above. Additionally, this is not a TV show. If you are trying to argue that CPP is going to be an inspiration for feminism, you may have a difficult time convincing me.
I believe that reading Cribs' other non-CPP posts will enlighten others.
Some Cribs posts have been enlightening. CPP posts promote sexism guised in 'humor' and despite efforts to laud their 'enlightening' values, they are nothing more than crudity that often cross that line as you yourself wrote. There are many other ways to find enlightenment.
Is Cribs perfect? No. Is he free from prejudice? No. Does he sometimes get angry and not consider his words? Of course. But so have I
Not on these forums you haven't. Here it is necessary to be free from prejudicial and angry displays within the constraints of the TOS. This is not something that is to be argued.
Finding a time when Cribs was less than charitable, or chose his words poorly and using that to substantiate that CPP might have more to do with Cribs than meets the eye does not compel me.
Let's get something really clear. It is not I who keeps bring Cribs into the picture. If you look at my posts, I have tried extremely hard starting with my initial request for clarification to discuss only the CPP. I have no interest in Cribs for the purposes of discussion here, have not directed comments at him in our earlier posts, and only agreed to bring him into the picture in my last post, because you wanted to do so. I am only going to discuss the CPP. In fact, I am no longer interested in doing even that since, as I said, this is Breaca's gender thread and we have gone on long enough discussing something of only partial relevance to it. This thread is not about the CPP.
The fact is, I wouldn't want my child reading this post either, as positive as I feel I have been, or yours either, as positive as you tried to be.
I agree totally. I think we have both tried to deal with some harsh realities as positively as we are able to - however, the harshness of the reality still makes it unsuitable for certain audiences and parental discretion should be considered for some appropriately. However, we haven't tried to produce a comedy show through sexist behaviours, so I don't feel that we have compromised the forums. Rather we have discussed and brought to the surface several issues that are worth consideration and for that I am grateful. This is one of the purposes of the forums.
In friendship,
prad
Originally posted by pradtfI have been following this thread with a great deal of interest but prad, I can't believe you meant this.
continued from above ...
Now let's deal with your comments about the PC movement. I agree that it is absurd that "thousands of tax dollars were literally flushed down the toilet as people argued whether or not 'niggardly' was offensive". Of course, there shouldn't really have been a problem lexically since 'niggard' only sounds like 'nigger'. Yet ...[text shortened]... s and I will simply use a synonym that I just looked up such as stingly or miserly".
prad
The implications are Orwellian.
How long before we have a list of 'unapproved' words for which we must find a synonym?
How long before we have the 'word police' rooting out the use of 'unapproved' words?
How long before they start banning books containing 'unapproved' words?
etc., etc.,
Dave
Originally posted by collemanoh it's not as bad as that - besides i already told nemesio that i wasn't arguing too strongly for this.
I have been following this thread with a great deal of interest but prad, I can't believe you meant this.
The implications are Orwellian.
How long before we have a list of 'unapproved' words for which we must find a synonym?
Ho ...[text shortened]... ning books containing 'unapproved' words?
etc., etc.,
Dave
we already have a list of 'unapproved' words - and for some reason we think the synonym is more 'acceptable' (eg copulate or excrement or flatulation)
i wasn't saying that we get to the stage of policing words only that if a colleague of mine has a problem with it and i can just as easily find an alternative, then it would be courteous of me to do so.
that is all i intended and i hope this is sufficient clarification - but please let me know if it isn't or even if you have concerns with my idea.
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by pradtfprad, I am both surprised and disappointed that you seek to trivialise this issue.
oh it's not as bad as that - besides i already told nemesio that i wasn't arguing too strongly for this.
we already have a list of 'unapproved' words - and for some reason we think the synonym is more 'acceptable' (eg copulate or excrement or flatulation)
i wasn't saying that we get to the stage of policing words only that if a colleague of mine ha ...[text shortened]... ease let me know if it isn't or even if you have concerns with my idea.
in friendship,
prad
This is a public forum yet in your first paragraph you seem to think that it is a private discussion between you and nemesio.
The word 'niggardly' is a perfectly acceptable word in the english language and if a colleague of mine has a problem with it then that is his/her problem, not mine.
What acceptable english words do the synonyms copulate or excrement or flatulation stand for in your example?
I would like to continue but I have had a very pleasant evening out with my wife and my family and I am slightly inebriated and very tired so I shall continue on the morrow!
🙂😴
Originally posted by collemanOriginally posted by colleman
prad, I am both surprised and disappointed that you seek to trivialise this issue.
This is a public forum yet in your first paragraph you seem to think that it is a private discussion between you and nemesio.
The word 'niggardly' i ...[text shortened]... ebriated and very tired so I shall continue on the morrow!
🙂😴
prad, I am both surprised and disappointed that you seek to trivialise this issue.
no no. i'm not trivializing it - i guess i posted a bit hastily since i was busy in the other threads. sorry. i'll try to do better here.
This is a public forum yet in your first paragraph you seem to think that it is a private discussion between you and nemesio.
all i meant by this was that i had already given my example to him earlier and that i really wasn't contesting what he said (or what you said) too strongly. i didn't mean to imply that this was a private discussion. of course, i will discuss my idea with you since you asked. again i apologize if it seemed otherwise.
The word 'niggardly' is a perfectly acceptable word in the english language and if a colleague of mine has a problem with it then that is his/her problem, not mine.
yes i understand that and you are correct. however, i personally don't have a problem with using another word if it really bothers my colleague. i am not saying that it must be done, i only said that i would probably do it, if there was a better word floating around (only as a courtesy, not because i felt i had to).
What acceptable english words do the synonyms copulate or excrement or flatulation stand for in your example?
ok i guess i didn't write this clearly enough - i've really botched the earlier post 🙁
what i am saying is that we have 'unacceptable' words (eg 4 letter ones), which have synonyms like copulate, excrement or flatulation. we consider the 4 letter version to be 'unacceptable', but consider the longer versions to be otherwise.
I would like to continue but I have had a very pleasant evening out with my wife and my family and I am slightly inebriated and very tired so I shall continue on the morrow!
please do and i will look forward to hearing from you tomorrow 🙂
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by pradtfGood morning prad,
Originally posted by colleman
[b]prad, I am both surprised and disappointed that you seek to trivialise this issue.
no no. i'm not trivializing it - i guess i posted a bit hastily since i was busy in the other threads. sorry. i'll try to do better here.
again i apologize if it seemed otherwise.
i've really botched the earlier post 🙁
in friendship,
prad[/b]
Thank you for your reply. I sense a little humble pie eating here so I am (mostly) content with what you have said. 🙂
As a relevant aside, did you know that some time ago here in the UK the home of a paediatrician was attacked because the ignorant thugs responsible did not know the difference between a paediatrician and a paedophile.
As nemesio said earlier in the thread, it is the ignorance which we should attack not the language.
I thought about joining in the main thrust of this thread but my intellectual limitations would become a bit too obvious so I shall continue to watch from the sidelines.
But remember prad...................I am watching! 😉
Dave
Originally posted by collemani think you may be content for the wrong reason.
Good morning prad,
Thank you for your reply. I sense a little humble pie eating here so I am (mostly) content with what you have said. 🙂
As a relevant aside, did you know that some time ago here in the UK the home of a paediatrician ...[text shortened]... .
But remember prad...................I am watching! 😉
Dave
my apologies was only because i thought i hadn't made myself clear to you - nothing else
i hope i am making that perfectly clear now.
i disagree that it should be the just the ignorance we should be attacking and not the language.
and if you want to come off the sidelines about this, do so at any time - and i'll endeavour not to disappoint you 😉
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by SangeetaWell said.
Hi Breaca!
Very eloquently stated! On behalf of all the women who love to play chess-- Thank you! 🙂
You bring up some important issues that we must look at here in our chess community and in larger society. When we can see a person for who they are, not thier race or gender, then I think we can truly know one another. Sexism is indeed alive and wel ...[text shortened]... or having the courage to help us all see each other in the best light.
Sincerely,
Sangeeta
Originally posted by BreacaAs to address the those people who were bothering you, if anyone ever does that to anyone again I WILL call the FBI. I'm dead serious people. I have the phone number in my pocket right now. 😠
Why do men assume that women can’t play chess, or at least can’t play to the same “standard as boys”. I have lost count of the number of occasions where I have turned up with my team, only to be either ushered without asking to the table for board six, or to be deliberately mistaken for the team cheerleader. I used to think that this was a consequence of play ...[text shortened]... n what I am and what I do rather than by what I was born.
Breaca
VeggieChess and RHP Angel