Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

WoD is it still ok in 2018.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Sorry if I get a bit blunt here:

    If you're going to compare the words "Jew" and "Gypsy" you're already so far in the wrong you need to stop because you don't get this at all. The only reason to make this argument is because you want to defend the right of majority populations to demean Rrom. If you think you're doing it for some other reason? Sorry. You're wrong. Take a long hard look in the mirror until you realize it.

    I am a Jew. I'm a Jew because that's the modern English derivation of Yehudi, which marks my ethnic people's self-identification as Israelites from the surviving tribe of Judah. People that use Jew as an insult or derogatory word? They're being bigoted by trying to steal our word and use it to demean.

    Gypsy isn't a word the Rrom chose for themselves. It was an insult foisted on them by others. It was always meant to identify them as others and lesser, because Europeans thought their dark skin meant they were from Egypt. It was never a neutral word, because it's very origin is being culturally insensitive and dismissive of the ethnic group. Like any such term, it's up to the people that are subject to it to claim it how they want to claim it. Using it for what it means? It means, "I don't care where your people come from, or what they call themselves, you look like this other people so I'm just going to call you that instead." That's where the word comes from.

    So, yeah, if you can't grasp the difference between this? Just stop. You have a lot of work before you should be talking about this stuff in public.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Charlaquin View Post
      It is absolutely a bullying word. It is a word used, among other things, to bully and belittle Roma.
      If negatively contextualized. Stick the word "dirty" or "thieving" in front of it, and it bullies and belittles Roma. Stick the word "violins" after it, and it doesn't. That web site doesn't belittle or demean anyone.

      Originally posted by Charlaquin View Post
      Dictionaries take time to catch up with language as it is actually used. Common understanding is lacking, and excusing the use of words that marginalize and demean is counterproductive to the aim of improving common understanding.

      {snip}

      Non-Roma lack the proper context to treat the word with the care it deserves
      Outside of the context of this specific discussion, I found that observation interesting. Taking a step back, a common understanding that certain sounds have certain meanings is the definition of what a language is. Common understanding of the meaning of a word cannot, by definition, be lacking, because it's common understanding that gives the word its meaning in the first place. What you're talking about isn't so much improving common understanding, as changing it so that the word means something which it presently doesn't, but which you believe that it ought to. I am not "excusing" its use, because that would imply that I accept your alteration of its meaning to something innately "marginalizing" and "demeaning", rather than a neutral word which some people may find upsetting for historical reasons.

      There appears to be an element of almost - I'm not sure if there is a correct term. Linguistic copyright, maybe? - in your thinking, As if the group the word refers to somehow "owns" the word, and only they are entitled to define what it means. But that's not how language, any language works.

      Originally posted by Charlaquin View Post
      The British statute book is contributing to systematic discrimination
      {raises eyebrows} Rather a large claim to make on the basis of a disagreement over the definition of a word. The British statute book, among other things, is supposed to provide for sufficient camp sites for Roma and other travelers - albeit something more honored in the breach than the observance - and outlaws discrimination on the basis of ethnicity.

      Originally posted by Charlaquin View Post
      And I don’t know who made that website, but they should have done better

      {snip}

      No, that website is an example of the word being used without intent to assign that baggage to the word. But intent does not matter. All that matters is the effects words have on listeners (or readers). That website may well be painful to read for some of the very people it aims to support.
      Perhaps. I suspect, though, that if your view were widely shared, the web site would already have been changed. Whatever else one might say about it, the British social service "establishment" is hardly insensitive to such concerns.

      Originally posted by Charlaquin View Post
      I can’t watch Rocky Horror Picture Show any more.
      So that's another word that I'll refrain from using around you. But in a sense, this makes my point. The word has teeth and claws for you. For millions of people around the world who enjoy Rocky Horror, it doesn't. They may be - almost certainly are - words that are innocuous to you but are, for one reason or another, painful to others. As I said, the negativity is contextual, not innate.

      Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post
      Sorry if I get a bit blunt here:
      You are forgiven

      Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post
      If you're going to compare the words "Jew" and "Gypsy" you're already so far in the wrong you need to stop because you don't get this at all. The only reason to make this argument is because you want to defend the right of majority populations to demean Rrom. If you think you're doing it for some other reason? Sorry. You're wrong. Take a long hard look in the mirror until you realize it.
      I couldn't resist a snicker at that. There are a number of reasons why I find staring into a mirror a depressing experience. A repressed desire to facilitate the persecution of Roma isn't one of them. Your analysis of my motives is commendable in its clarity, economy of expression, and refreshing lack of equivocation. And to be fair, it is rather more accurate than a Bank of England or Treasury economic forecast. But rather less so, I fear, than, say, one of the lottery predictions of Mystic Meg.

      The reason for making this argument? I suppose because if once you allow the Red Queen principle that the meaning of words can be altered, unilaterally, by a sufficiently vocal minority, who then level specious accusations of bigotry on the basis of that unilateral redefinition, you open up the gates of madness. Where do you stop?

      Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post
      I am a Jew. I'm a Jew because that's the modern English derivation of Yehudi, which marks my ethnic people's self-identification as Israelites from the surviving tribe of Judah. People that use Jew as an insult or derogatory word? They're being bigoted by trying to steal our word and use it to demean.

      Gypsy isn't a word the Rrom chose for themselves. It was an insult foisted on them by others. It was always meant to identify them as others and lesser, because Europeans thought their dark skin meant they were from Egypt. It was never a neutral word, because it's very origin is being culturally insensitive and dismissive of the ethnic group.
      More dismissive than being described as the killers of Christ? Or Blood Libelled? Merely being mistaken for an Egyptian seems rather mild by comparison. Jews got a mangled version of their own name, the Rom didn't. That's not particularly relevant to my point, which was about contextual negativity associated with the name, not its derivation. Jews certainly didn't chose what that name implied to the majority European population. "Jew" in the middle ages still had far more contextual negativity than the other word does now.

      And I'm perfectly aware of the historical derivation. I'm also aware of the historical derivation of "vandal" and "Goth". That doesn't mean I think all Germans spend their evenings dressed in black and reciting morbid poetry, after a hard day building a cathedral which they will tomorrow smash to pieces in an orgy of looting.

      Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post
      Using it for what it means? It means, "I don't care where your people come from, or what they call themselves, you look like this other people so I'm just going to call you that instead." That's where the word comes from.
      Wrong.

      From dictionary.com

      noun, plural Gyp·sies.
      1. a member of a nomadic, Caucasoid people of generally swarthy complexion, who migrated originally from India, settling in various parts of Asia, Europe, and, most recently, North America.
      2. Romany; the language of the Gypsies.
      3. (lowercase) a person held to resemble a gypsy, especially in physical characteristics or in a traditionally ascribed freedom or inclination to move from place to place.

      That is what it means. You're attempting another unilateral redefinition.

      Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post
      So, yeah, if you can't grasp the difference between this? Just stop. You have a lot of work before you should be talking about this stuff in public.
      I grasp the difference in the derivation. I merely disagree that the historical derivation (which most people aren't aware of) renders the current meaning innately pejorative or that it invalidates my point regarding innate versus contextualized negativity.

      I've pretty much made all the arguments I wanted to make in any case, and from the personal insinuations you made about me, I fear that you've become a trifle over-excited and that the temperature will rise uncomfortably if I continue. I will therefore withdraw from this thread before the mods need to step in

      Comment


      • Originally posted by JezMiller View Post
        You're attempting another unilateral redefinition.
        I think what you are attempting to do is beligerently ignore all connotations in order to present your own spin for the purpose of winning an argument. I'm a teacher, and it was part of our training to observe what is or isn't culturally sensitive. The term 'gypsie' is culturally insensitive and is used as a pejoritive. If I am informed of this, I make sure I don't use it because I am required to be culturaly sensitive in my professional contract. White Wolf/The Onyx Path may not have this requirement, as private businesses, but take it upon themselves to be culturally sensitive anyway. I appreciate that.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by JezMiller View Post
          Stick the word "violins" after it, and it doesn't.
          That's not for you to decide.

          That web site doesn't belittle or demean anyone.
          Sure it does. It belittles and demeans all the Rrom that consider that word a slur by validating it's use as neutral. Of course, the Rromani are not unified in their feelings about that word, but you can find that in most minority groups when it comes to words other people label them as.

          Some terms are easy to call out as demeaning, others are more complicated. "Hebrews" is a good example compared to "Jews." In English it's demeaning for a non-Jew to call a Jew "a Hebrew." but that's not true in every language (and within some Jewish communities is fairly common between members), and Hebrew as a more general term has plenty of positive and neutral uses depending on how you go about it. Then there's really complicated things like the early European Zionists liking the name Hebrew (for the reference to the Exodus and returning to the land of Israel) but the post-founding State of Israel Zionists moving away from it towards Jew and Israeli (that Hebrew at that point demeans that successful return).

          Common understanding of the meaning of a word cannot, by definition, be lacking, because it's common understanding that gives the word its meaning in the first place.
          Sure it can: it can have the ignorance of the average population built in, and be lacking in full understanding of the meaning ascribed to the word. A majority's feeling that they can use a word that demeans a minority because they define the word as neutral is lacking in the understanding that the act of treating it as neutral is derogatory in the first place.

          As if the group the word refers to somehow "owns" the word, and only they are entitled to define what it means. But that's not how language, any language works.

          No, the argument is that those groups own the right to define if the word is positive, neutral, or demeaning when applied to them. If minorities don't have the primacy in defining the cultural value of words about them, then as I said in my previous post, you're defending the right of the majority to demean.

          By your arguments, if the majority of people decided that, "Child Rapist" was a neutral synonym for "Jew," then Jews have no right to argue the 'common understanding' as bigotry. The majority could feel free to call me a Child Rapist because they decided it was fine for them to do so no matter how it makes me feel, and I just have to accept that as being the case. That's your argument, that's what you're saying, and that's why I advised you to stop going at this because it's depressingly wrong headed.


          {raises eyebrows} Rather a large claim to make on the basis of a disagreement over the definition of a word. The British statute book, among other things, is supposed to provide for sufficient camp sites for Roma and other travelers - albeit something more honored in the breach than the observance - and outlaws discrimination on the basis of ethnicity.
          Laws written by people are flawed. It's not a strange concept. The US Constitution declared all men equal and a slave 3/5s of a person as the same. We have, of course, dumped that garbage for the racist trash it was, but that's why a just society leaves itself the room to improve laws over time. The statue book can be flawed. It happens a lot when majority cultures try to write protections for minorities without sufficient input from those minorities. Laws in the US meant to protect Native tribal autonomy have loop-holes that let women that live on reservations get raped without legal consequence, so those laws are definitely doing harm despite their positive intent, and need to be improved. The statue book's authors can realize that they're using a racially charged word they don't have to be using rather than legitimizing it as neutral.

          So that's another word that I'll refrain from using around you.
          Don't use it in general? Most trans people reject the term these days.

          For millions of people around the world who enjoy Rocky Horror, it doesn't.
          Fucking hell stop this bullshit.

          It is not the case that, "the claws and teeth are strong enough that I can't watch X anymore for me personally," and it's a harmless word for everyone that still watches the RHPS are validly connected thoughts. Different people have different tolerances for claws and teeth in words. This is not a binary situation. I know a lot of trans people that find the word transvestite demeaning and can still enjoy the RHPS despite it because of however they choose to cope with problematic content in their media selection.

          The problem is all the people that are ignorant to the claws and teeth the word has and then try to insist that there's nothing wrong with the RHPS as they screw up the basics of consuming media with problematic elements (aka don't defend the problematic elements as neutral, accept they're there and consider why you can move past it). Liking the RHPS doesn't make you a transphobe just because it uses the word transvestite. Claiming that there's nothing wrong with watching the RHPS because there's nothing wrong with it using the word transvestite is a defense of transphobia. But I'm not expecting you to actually grok the difference, and how it applies to the word that got us here.

          I couldn't resist a snicker at that.
          Well, that makes me feel dirty. If you're trying to convince me you're not bigoted towards the Rrom... you're failing pretty hard by telling me how funny you find being called out on your ignorant defenses of words that are derogatory.

          There are a number of reasons why I find staring into a mirror a depressing experience. A repressed desire to facilitate the persecution of Roma isn't one of them. Your analysis of my motives is commendable in its clarity, economy of expression, and refreshing lack of equivocation. And to be fair, it is rather more accurate than a Bank of England or Treasury economic forecast. But rather less so, I fear, than, say, one of the lottery predictions of Mystic Meg.
          No, you've convinced me that your desire to facilitate persecution is not repressed at all, but rather something you're aware of and quite comfortable with. I apologize for giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're arguing out of ignorance rather than malice.

          I suppose because if once you allow the Red Queen principle that the meaning of words can be altered, unilaterally, by a sufficiently vocal minority,...
          Then you're arguing a strawman. The heuristic here is simple: the minority that label is applied to, not any sufficiently vocal minority. There's no "Red Queen principle" or slippery slope here. Jews get to decide what's offensive to Jews for themselves, not Christians, Muslims, and atheists for us. LGBTQ+ people get to decide what terms are acceptable for the majority to use about them, not cis-het folks like me. The Rrom get to decide if gypsy is a neutral term, not dictionaries or governments.

          Where do you stop? When you're using the language people want to have used to describe them to describe them. It's not hard, we do it all the time on an individual level. If my real name was Johnathan, but I preferred John, you don't call me every variation on Jonathan and John you can think of, you just call me John, because that's what I said to call me. If you insist on calling me Johnny even when I say I don't like being called Johnny even if you have another friend that likes Johnny as their name? You're being an ass. It's the same thing, just scaled up. If you can stop yourself from not constantly being a dick to people by using names they don't like, you can restrain yourself from using terms for ethnic groups or other minorities that are charged with a bigoted history because it's not your place as an outsider to decided what those people are comfortable being called.


          More dismissive than being described as the killers of Christ? Or Blood Libelled? Merely being mistaken for an Egyptian seems rather mild by comparison.
          Take your oppression Olympics and shove them back up your ass where that crap belongs. I'm not in a competition with the Rrom over who has the worse slurs, nor is your attempt to pit those against each other anything but proof you want to have the right to demean people and claim it's not a problem because you didn't use the worst words.

          That's not particularly relevant to my point, which was about contextual negativity associated with the name, not its derivation.
          That you assert this is the fundamental problem. As has already been mentioned, you can't separate these things. There is a huge difference in cultural reaction to a self-identifier being misappropriated as an insult, and an external identifier meant as an insult being perpetuated. That's part of the context you seem to claim matters so much.

          And I'm perfectly aware of the historical derivation.
          Not aware enough to take it into account though.

          I'm also aware of the historical derivation of "vandal" and "Goth". That doesn't mean I think all Germans spend their evenings dressed in black and reciting morbid poetry, after a hard day building a cathedral which they will tomorrow smash to pieces in an orgy of looting.
          Last time I checked, modern Germans don't consider themselves ethnic Vandals or Goths. Demeaning long dead/assimilated Germanic tribes is vastly different than demeaning a living group of people.

          Wrong.
          No, it's meaning includes what I said beyond the dictionary because words do that. That's the whole "context" thing you keep talking about, and why we don't stop linguistics at dictionaries, but have things like encyclopedias to help understand meaning because the first result of a Google search. People write whole books on this stuff because dictionaries alone aren't sufficient to communicate the totality of the context of words.

          You're attempting another unilateral redefinition.
          No, I'm rejecting the bigoted unilateral redefinition of modern Europeans and European descendants to avoid culpability for the demeaning language they use by writing the books to say that the words aren't demeaning anymore.

          You're siding with the people that very recently in the eyes of history decided to redefine gypsy as a neutral term so they could keep using it despite how the Rrom feel, and how it was used for so long before that.

          Your argument is completely hypocritical.

          I merely disagree that the historical derivation (which most people aren't aware of) renders the current meaning innately pejorative or that it invalidates my point regarding innate versus contextualized negativity.
          Your mere disagreement is still rooted in abject bigotry, so I don't really care if you feel that my arguments don't persuade you. Arguments rather persuade people that are clinging to their bigotries.

          I've pretty much made all the arguments I wanted to make in any case, and from the personal insinuations you made about me, I fear that you've become a trifle over-excited and that the temperature will rise uncomfortably if I continue. I will therefore withdraw from this thread before the mods need to step in
          Ah yes, the forum version of a white person getting caught calling the cops on innocent black people and running away before their face gets plastered on social media even though it's already too late.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post



            Then you're arguing a strawman. The heuristic here is simple: the minority that label is applied to, not any sufficiently vocal minority. There's no "Red Queen principle" or slippery slope here. Jews get to decide what's offensive to Jews for themselves, not Christians, Muslims, and atheists for us. LGBTQ+ people get to decide what terms are acceptable for the majority to use about them, not cis-het folks like me. The Rrom get to decide if gypsy is a neutral term, not dictionaries or governments.

            Where do you stop? When you're using the language people want to have used to describe them to describe them. It's not hard, we do it all the time on an individual level. If my real name was Johnathan, but I preferred John, you don't call me every variation on Jonathan and John you can think of, you just call me John, because that's what I said to call me. If you insist on calling me Johnny even when I say I don't like being called Johnny even if you have another friend that likes Johnny as their name? You're being an ass. It's the same thing, just scaled up. If you can stop yourself from not constantly being a dick to people by using names they don't like, you can restrain yourself from using terms for ethnic groups or other minorities that are charged with a bigoted history because it's not your place as an outsider to decided what those people are comfortable being called.

            Ok, I'm just going to say i've known and worked with people from the Rom community, and if you called them Rom more than once, you'd be in serious danger of being beaten up, if not stabbed.

            And why are RHPS words a problem for trans? They are totally different things...

            Comment


            • Originally posted by JezMiller View Post
              If negatively contextualized. Stick the word "dirty" or "thieving" in front of it, and it bullies and belittles Roma. Stick the word "violins" after it, and it doesn't. That web site doesn't belittle or demean anyone.
              But the word can and does recall that belittling even when used in a different context.

              Originally posted by JezMiller View Post
              Outside of the context of this specific discussion, I found that observation interesting. Taking a step back, a common understanding that certain sounds have certain meanings is the definition of what a language is. Common understanding of the meaning of a word cannot, by definition, be lacking, because it's common understanding that gives the word its meaning in the first place. What you're talking about isn't so much improving common understanding, as changing it so that the word means something which it presently doesn't, but which you believe that it ought to.
              Incorrect. It is what words are used to mean, not what they are commonly understood to mean, that gives them meaning. That’s why figuratively has become a valid definition of the word literally. People understand that it means the opposite, and still use it to mean figuratively, as a means of illustrative hyperbole. That makes it a valid definition, due to usage, not understanding. Many people have used and do use the g-word to bully Roma, and so it is a bullying word, whether most people raise it or not. The goal is not to change the definition, but to raise awareness of the effects the word can have on those it has been and is used to demean. It is not only used to demean, but those who have had it used demeaningly towards them can and do feel that harm when the word is used, even in not-intentionally-demeaning contexts.

              Originally posted by JezMiller View Post
              I am not "excusing" its use, because that would imply that I accept your alteration of its meaning to something innately "marginalizing" and "demeaning", rather than a neutral word which some people may find upsetting for historical reasons.
              It doesn’t matter whether you “accept” “my” definition or not. The word has the effects it has on those who hear it, regardless of anyone’s acceptance or lack of acceptance. What you are doing is making excuses for people who use a word that hurts people to hear, on the basis that the dictionary doesn’t acknowledge that it hurts people to hear it.

              Originally posted by JezMiller View Post
              There appears to be an element of almost - I'm not sure if there is a correct term. Linguistic copyright, maybe? - in your thinking, As if the group the word refers to somehow "owns" the word, and only they are entitled to define what it means. But that's not how language, any language works.
              No one owns words, no one defines words. Words mean what they are used to mean. Words also have effects on the people who hear them. If someone is hurt by a word, they are hurt by it. You don’t get to say that it doesn’t, just because the dictionary doesn’t define it as a slur, just as when you step on someone’s foot and they say ow, you don’t get to tell them it didn’t hurt just because your shoes aren’t legally considered weapons.

              Originally posted by JezMiller View Post
              Perhaps. I suspect, though, that if your view were widely shared, the web site would already have been changed.
              Yes, it probably would have. Unfortunately, a lot of people don’t seem to care that the word hurts people on the grounds that the dictionary doesn’t call it a slur.

              Originally posted by JezMiller View Post
              So that's another word that I'll refrain from using around you. But in a sense, this makes my point. The word has teeth and claws for you. For millions of people around the world who enjoy Rocky Horror, it doesn't. They may be - almost certainly are - words that are innocuous to you but are, for one reason or another, painful to others. As I said, the negativity is contextual, not innate.
              But as you yourself observed, you can’t know whether or not someone will be hurt by a word (unless they tell you, or you ask). You can, however, know that a word is more likely to hurt someone if it is a word that bullies use to hurt people. If you want to avoid hurting people accidentally, asafe bet is to not use words that bullies use to hurt people unless you know how it feels to be bullied by them. If you don’t care whether or not you hurt people accidentally... well, then you’re kind of a jerk.


              Onyx Path Forum Moderator

              My mod voice is red. I use it so you know when I'm speaking in an official capacity, not as an indication of tone.

              Going by Willow now, or Wil for short. She/Her/Hers.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by GenerallyConfused View Post
                And why are RHPS words a problem for trans? They are totally different things...
                The word transvestite has a ton of baggage. Its literal meaning is one who wears the clothes that cross gender boundaries, but it has often been (and still is, though not as often as it has been) conflated with transsexual (a word with its own heavy baggage) and transgender. This conflation is rooted in and symptomatic of transphobic views that frame transness as a game of dress-up at best and a malicious deception at worst. Now, I know that Richard O’Brien did not meant it this way when he wrote the Rocky Horror Show (although as a side-note, he has expressed some very out-dated and backwards views about trans people). But it still feels gross to hear. This, along with some of the afformentioned gross things O’Brian has since said, are why I choose not to watch the film (or the play) any more, despite appreciating its better qualities.


                Onyx Path Forum Moderator

                My mod voice is red. I use it so you know when I'm speaking in an official capacity, not as an indication of tone.

                Going by Willow now, or Wil for short. She/Her/Hers.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by GenerallyConfused View Post
                  Ok, I'm just going to say i've known and worked with people from the Rom community, and if you called them Rom more than once, you'd be in serious danger of being beaten up, if not stabbed.
                  Are you referring to a linguistic issue (different communities have different tolerances for Rrom vs. Rroma vs. Rromani vs. etc. and how they're used) or an interpersonal one (esp. with certain outsider cultural taboos)?

                  I mean, I have a good (like talk to nearly daily) friend that's not just Rromani, but has studied multiple dialects of the Rromani language, and I generally operate on his guidance (though he's self admittedly less worried than some); and in an academic conversation like this there shouldn't be an issue (or at least he has some long thing he can explain that I can't follow because I don't know the language at all to explain why it's OK).

                  If I was in a specific community, I'm aware that customs can vary widely and I'd do my best to adjust appropriately. Though I do find it strange to comment on my using Rrom vs. other options (and you just called them that twice) in this fashion... especially to perpetuate the stereotype that they resort to violence if they feel slighted. I've said some pretty stupidly offensive things in the past without getting beaten or stabbed, because it turns out that most people recognize ignorance and a desire to make up for any harm done and do better in the future is best responded to with words.

                  edit: snipped because Willow got it while I was taking my time.
                  Last edited by Heavy Arms; 10-20-2018, 06:56 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post

                    Are you referring to a linguistic issue (different communities have different tolerances for Rrom vs. Rroma vs. Rromani vs. etc. and how they're used) or an interpersonal one (esp. with certain outsider cultural taboos)?

                    I mean, I have a good (like talk to nearly daily) friend that's not just Rromani, but has studied multiple dialects of the Rromani language, and I generally operate on his guidance (though he's self admittedly less worried than some); and in an academic conversation like this there shouldn't be an issue (or at least he has some long thing he can explain that I can't follow because I don't know the language at all to explain why it's OK).

                    If I was in a specific community, I'm aware that customs can vary widely and I'd do my best to adjust appropriately. Though I do find it strange to comment on my using Rrom vs. other options (and you just called them that twice) in this fashion... especially to perpetuate the stereotype that they resort to violence if they feel slighted. I've said some pretty stupidly offensive things in the past without getting beaten or stabbed, because it turns out that most people recognize ignorance and a desire to make up for any harm done and do better in the future is best responded to with words.

                    edit: snipped because Willow got it while I was taking my time.
                    They identify as gypies, and find Rom/Romi/Romani a racial slur. I asked about it and one of them told me that and said it was something that certain members would get violent over. This is why i find this confusing on here, as they are the only ones i have met and spoken to. and no one i know in real life considers gypsy to be a racial thing. It's a community refference. There are plenty of other offensive words i've heard in refference to the community/culture, but this forum is the only place i've seen gypsy considered one of them.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by GenerallyConfused View Post

                      They identify as gypies, and find Rom/Romi/Romani a racial slur. I asked about it and one of them told me that and said it was something that certain members would get violent over. This is why i find this confusing on here, as they are the only ones i have met and spoken to. and no one i know in real life considers gypsy to be a racial thing. It's a community refference. There are plenty of other offensive words i've heard in refference to the community/culture, but this forum is the only place i've seen gypsy considered one of them.
                      Try googling, “is gypsy a slur?” You’ll find that this forum is far from alone in acknowledging the word’s pejorative nature.

                      Granted, it’s not really common knowledge that the word is pejorative, but it’s not like the information isn’t out there or nobody talks about it.


                      Onyx Path Forum Moderator

                      My mod voice is red. I use it so you know when I'm speaking in an official capacity, not as an indication of tone.

                      Going by Willow now, or Wil for short. She/Her/Hers.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Saur Ops Specialist View Post

                        If you want to be obtuse, you can search YT on your own.
                        I’m not being obtuse and done know what YT is

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Charlaquin View Post
                          ParaWolf isn’t a person, it’s a portmanteau of Paradox and White Wolf, and it refers to White Wolf, the relatively new company owned by Paradox Interactive who currently own the rights to the World of Darkness and Chronicles of Darkness IPs. Saur Ops is presumably using this name to avoid confusion with White Wolf, the company that created those IPs, got bought by Crowd Control Productions, dissolved, and had it’s name and IPs sold to Crowd Control.

                          One of the first press releases by the company Paradox spun off and gave the name White Wolf to included, among other things, a comment from the “Lead Storyteller” of White Wolf, Martin Ericsson, that he would be interested in making a new version of World of Darkness: G*psies. The last word of that title is a racial slur referring to Romani people.
                          I knew about the racial slur part, just had no idea the WW had been sold... again. News to me I guess. I don’t really keep up with the changes to the company or anything but the occasional release

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Saur Ops Specialist View Post

                            If you want to be obtuse, you can search YT on your own.
                            Oh right, YouTube

                            I had no idea who you meant by Parawolf but thanks to Charlaquin for clearing that up for me

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post
                              Ah yes, the forum version of a white person getting caught calling the cops on innocent black people and running away before their face gets plastered on social media even though it's already too late.
                              A most imaginative metaphor, but no. I merely suspected, correctly, that you would become even more abusive and offensive if I continued. (Ironically, in this context). Even if I'd had anything further to say, continuing appeared futile until such time as you learned some manners.

                              Comment


                              • Oh yes, teach of me the secret ways of "manners" where the high horse is claimed by saying you're going to bow out to avoid things getting more heated, and return only to come at me with insults.

                                Go clutch some pearls with someone little circle of out of touch people that will join you in lamenting the lack of civility caused by their own failure to actually care about manner and civility getting them yelled at for being assholes to others.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X