And should we also stop saying we've gotten "fucked" for similar reasons? Since you are the curator and sole arbiter of allowable phrases, I'd like to get it all clear while I've got your ear.
And should we also stop saying we've gotten "fucked" for similar reasons?
Sorta. Tis roughly the similar overtones of 'people-who-take-it-are-bad' (i.e. everyone who isn't a straight cis male), however it's not as graphic and not as tied to the actual imagery of receptive sex as the previous example.
Since you are the curator and sole arbiter of allowable phrases
What? No I'm not. Who said I was? Not me. Just because I call someone on something doesn't mean I'm the sole arbiter of things. How many articles on this site will lambaste some technology? Lots. Do we reply with "Shut up! you're not the sole arbiter of programming languages"? No that's not what happens here. One should talk about the merits of the complaint, rather than try some little deflection tactic.
What about usage of the word "use"? Surely that implies interacting with another person only for sex and we should stop using it lest we offend.
I was not deflecting, that was my way of talking about the merits of the complaint, to whit, what you object to might be a tiny subset of someone else's objections, in which case who gets to decide? By telling that person not to use that terminology, you are saying you get to decide.
I think we've also seen plenty of people who think they are the sole arbiter of programming languages, and they get called out on it.
rmc|13 years ago
Sorta. Tis roughly the similar overtones of 'people-who-take-it-are-bad' (i.e. everyone who isn't a straight cis male), however it's not as graphic and not as tied to the actual imagery of receptive sex as the previous example.
Since you are the curator and sole arbiter of allowable phrases
What? No I'm not. Who said I was? Not me. Just because I call someone on something doesn't mean I'm the sole arbiter of things. How many articles on this site will lambaste some technology? Lots. Do we reply with "Shut up! you're not the sole arbiter of programming languages"? No that's not what happens here. One should talk about the merits of the complaint, rather than try some little deflection tactic.
bbrtyth|13 years ago
I was not deflecting, that was my way of talking about the merits of the complaint, to whit, what you object to might be a tiny subset of someone else's objections, in which case who gets to decide? By telling that person not to use that terminology, you are saying you get to decide.
I think we've also seen plenty of people who think they are the sole arbiter of programming languages, and they get called out on it.
unknown|13 years ago
[deleted]
unknown|13 years ago
[deleted]