" >-bleeped-< ? "

[Chynna]

Another point worth making is that while ">-bleeped-<" may have once been used by some out of ignorance, it soon became almost exclusively a term of intentional derision. I don't think that most people who use the word ">-bleeped-<" are intending it to be a slur; if we make it into one, we provide the bigots with an epithet to use against us.

Excellent point For only the Recipient of the word can truly make the word offensively and give the word a negative meaning.
and as DawnL so elegantly put it if you band one word from it's usage you leave the door open to ban the use of others words that offend one or a group of individuals...then we open the door to limiting are own rights as a community by restricting the rights of freedom of speech for others we are essentially restricting our own rights of expression as Transsexauls and individuals

but i personally believe that a lot of folks really need to wake up a little bit more on this one, and that in so doing, it can and will help all that are still struggling to just be our truest selves without fear of death, torture, persecution, misinterpretation, bigotry, prejudice, shame, or total misperception. 

I do again understand to some this word is offernsive. but you are the only one who has the power to not make it offensive.
One can even argue by someone restricting the words another person uses
You are trying in effect to persecute them ........in effect "siliencing them"
Misinterpretation is usually done by the interpretor or reciever..not the speaker.

Ever been accused of something you weren't guilty of ?  If so, was your life or another's literally hanging in the balance as a result ? The accusation was comprised of words, innocent or not, and these words carried specific and dire consequences, and all the worse if the words were misinterpreted, misused, mispercieved by others, inaccurate, distorted, or just plain lies. Try that feeling on for size, and then tell me "it's only words"...

If I (or anyone) use the word ">-bleeped-<" to you to describe anyone then by your own logic they are being offensive? Or are you just doing to that person what you posted above? Your accusation was totallly based on the   misinterpretation\misperception of the word ">-bleeped-<" I used and you are in fact accusing me of something I am not as a transexual herself guilty of?
In effect doing to me what you claim people who use the word ">-bleeped-<" do to you.
try that feeling on for size yourself. before we begin limiting my freedom of speech.

Im not trying to attack you or say that you are wrong. You have EVERY RIGHT to find that word offensive but I am trying to make you see the point from a different angle.


In a class all by myself called ">-bleeped-<"
Chynna

[jan c]

I dont then have to be offended, unless someone intentionally means insult, and even then still i can consciously choose to not let it get under my skin, but then again, if someone could care less about what another person holds as an important distinction for themselves in terms of specific definition(s) within use of language, then I think this is tantamount to rudeness, ill-manneredness, lack of thoughtfulness and consideration for others and for the self, and true laziness on the part of the person in question that would rather use a blanket term(s) to refer to what they may see as all things similar within a specific framework, as opposed to have taken the time to address the person or situation appropriately in a truly thoughtful and considerate manner. 

I feel that, as people have lost the awareness of the power of language as one of most potentially sacred and meaningful assets that we posess, as well as the single most powerfully effective potential weapon in the human arsenal that has ever existed, it becomes more and more difficult to achieve understanding from one culture, group, or person to the next. 

et cetera et cetera et cetera ad absurdum

Noto Bene: I care enough about the use of language to try and nail something more on the head than this. This thing goes on for seemingly days, in the form of an academic lecture. This kind of thing absolutely DILUTES the power of language if that's what you are endeavoring to do here.
You have tried to make the case that a word can be intrinsically bad. (As an artist I believe that to be an absurdity. There are no ugly sounds, words, pictures intrinsically. It is about context. Life is a tapestry. It is interwoven; you try and pick this and/or that element apart, you have a mess, like you have here. If one goes around trying to find things to be ugly, one tends to find things ugly.)
I believe that you have failed to do this, even as you might have imagined, in the context of this forum, that you were preaching to the choir.

[Elizabeth]

Hello everyone,

I hate to beat a dead horse here, and hope to not just repeat what has already been said.

I find it interesting that regardless of having a stronger constitution, thicker skin if you will, many that have responded to this post seem to have pointedly avoided acknowledging the simple fact that deeper awareness, conscious care, loving thoughtfulness, good manners, and just plain consideration in the use of specific words and language could be more helpful to all of us, in a world still riddled with prejudice, persecution, distortion, misrepresentation, and murder of the innocent. After all, wouldnt it make sense to do these things sometimes, considering that the specific use of words and language both is at the very heart of the matter where both perception and therefore ultimately, most of human conflict and misunderstanding is and has been rooted since the beginning of documented history ?

It is not that I have failed to acknowledge it, it is that I have failed to agree with it.  I just can not agree that words have a difinitive meaning that is universal and that we all understand these symbols to have the same meaning.  Indeed it is rare that any two people ever understand words to mean the same thing.

We intuitively seem to understand certain words and phrases and beleive that others do also, because we do in fact communicate with others.

"I love you"

"I LOVE YOU"

"I love YOU"

"I LOVE you"

"I LOVE YOU!!!!!!"

"I love you?"

What do I mean? Who do I mean? How do I mean it?

Words are only symbols, it is thier context that give them meaning, but not only their context, but what each person thinks the word means or what it means to them.  I grew up in a home where my parents never once ever said they loved me.  Us kids never said we loved each other.  We always bought insulting/humorous types of birthday cards, not moving/inspirational/emotional. My parents where physically and psychologically abusive.  Now, how can the word love mean the same thing to me as a person that grew up in a loving caring home where they were told and felt loved and valued?

It is precisely because the words can not have the same meaning to each of us, that I both offer and accept words only through my own filters. In the end, I choose what I will allow to hurt me. So if I am to allow one word to hurt me, then don't I have to allow all of them?  You see? If I allow one word to hurt me by choice it doesn't matter what word I choose. I can choose any word because what I have really done is allow myself to be hurt.  That was the real decision.

Since I don't allow this, others can say whatever they please. I have already chosen not to be hurt by it.  They are just words and if they are not? perhaps you could explain what I meant when I said "I love you", because I do.

Love always,
Elizabeth

[ChefAnnagirl]

Hello all,

I havent responded lately, to some of what i percieve as the more personally invalidating and personal attacks that have occurred as a result of my posting my thoughts, feelings, and experiences from MY OWN PERSONAL experience and beliefs based on that experience. My words have now several times been misused and distorted both, and i have had my integrity, and the very validity of my own personal thoughts, feelings, and personal opinions questioned and harshly attacked. A few of you have now even gone quite far into putting words into my mouth and in my mind that i did not even use. Some have even accused me of accusing YOU of things, and i have not done this, either.

I have now gone back, and edited and "cleaned up" some of my language, content, and context as regards the specific use of "ownership" context for my personal feelings and experiences, so that i won't be percieved as trying to speak for others in all of my prior postings in this thread. I pretty much had done that anyway in most of my dialogue, but it was also apparently ignored. It was apparently also ignored that i had the decency and objectivity to CLEARLY state in my intial postings that I had no way to substantiate my thoughts, feelings, and concepts on the word and it's origin, other than my own personal experience and gut instinct feelings. I have not yet had the time to respond to each new posting, especially the ones more personally directed at me in what seems at best, a very clearly and very intentionally denigrating tone.

I will post additional, respectful, and specific responses within the next day or so as i am able to process through all of this.

In terms of some of the anger that i detect from others, as was written in shakespeare once: " Thou dost protesteth too much"

I would ask that people please take the time to very *** carefully *** re-read and process ALL that i had intially posted here. Edited passages are all denoted by **** asterisks.

I had initially even considered posting this topic in the "PMS" zone section, as it really only was a personal bitch i wanted to vent and share my opinion(s) on. 

Most sincerely and respectfully,

Love always,
ChefAnnagirl 

[Chynna]

ChefAnnagirl
I read your post and would personally like to apologize if you felt I was attacking you or If I distorted or took out of context anything you might have typed. or in advertantly

THAT WAS NOT AT ALL MY INTENT

I was just trying to express\share my thoughts and concerns on the manner with you and tell you how I view\approach that type of scenerio. I realize that word for you is a sensative point hell as I stated before the word "faggot" pisses me off to no evail. So I do sympathize and relate exactly to your thoughts. It's just I have a different way of looking at it after I calm down and realize im getting upset over a word. And giving the person using the word power over me to change my mind state.

I realize when I type\post\speak etc. I sometimes come off abrassive and\or just plan rude or bytchey and I apologize in advance for that.

So please forgive me if I have offend you in anyway...

Sincerly & from the heart
Chynna

[Elizabeth]

ChefAnnagirl,

I beleive I understood from the very beginning that this whole thing is nothing more than a "peeve" for you.  I do disagree with your views on this, but also made a strong effort to do so in a respectful way.  After all, they are just opinions.

I did not mean to diminish the pain and upset you feel about certain words, in this case ">-bleeped-<" or to imply that it's not a real thing.  I am trying to be a realist.  "We can not change what others think, say or do and it is wasted effort to try". There will never be a time when people don't say offensive things.

The question is, how do they know what is going to be offensive?  Simple, we tell them.  I am promoting giving up on this entire system.  I can not change what others think, say or do, but I can change how much validity that I give it. I can change how I respond to it.

I beleive any solutions to society's ills will not come in the form of attempting to change how others behave. If we change how we respond, thier behavior will automatically change.  Ever try to tickle someone that is not ticklish?  It gets boring very fast.

We have learned from inter-racial marriage, inter-religious marriage, segregation, and gay people that change will only happen when we go out in public and do not respond to our detractors. Like the person who does not laugh when tickled, our detractors will get bored when we fail to respond to things like "Where you going >-bleeped-<?".

I would like to close by saying that I thought you were provoking others opinions on this matter.  I have made every effort to be concise in what I say and respectful. If I have failed to do so, I offer my most sincere apology.

Love always,
Elizabeth

[Rana]

Hi ChefAnna

I liked what you posted, and the discussion it started was interesting and informative.  Remember what Elanor Roosveldt said;  there will always be people who agree and disagree - so if you believe that something is worth saying, just say it   I hope you continue posting stuff as interesting.

Love
Rana

[jan c]

Anna
What anger?
Per the Methinks the Lady does protest too much
this was precisely my point regarding this pontification on purity of thought. [And the whole >-bleeped-< 'has a negative vibrational aspect' deal , I really got to thank you for, that's a hell of a phrase. Used it in bad poetry recently.]
I took exception to (besides the silliness of the thread) this: you - without the commitment to refer to my, or the one or two others who more or less strongly disagreed with your post, name(s) - asserted these things,, in my case virtually without a doubt: Intellectual laziness. Moral indifference. Inattention to the use of language as applies to these two sins. And belabored the hell out of it while you were doing so. It's also a form of passive/aggressive isn't it?
My posts, IF YOU READ THEM, are actually kinda funny, I thought. I got a sense of humor about >-bleeped-<, anyway.
You'd do well to get one too.

I would ask that people please take the time to very *** carefully *** re-read and process ALL that i had intially posted here. Edited passages are all denoted by **** asterisks.

I got the drift, of what you spent literally pages on, real quick. My posts were short and sweet. I don't think you have given THEM any thought. There is no WAY I could take the kind of time to read it, it's extremely dry/isn't entertaining. That you believe you can lecture me, on language, on the ethical use of it, its moral implications etc., is one thing that is really grating and why I bothered replying. Nothing personal on my part; I am not 100% convinced of the converse here.
peace out
jan c.

[stephanie_craxford]

Another interesting topic, again discussing our "Feelings" on words this time.  Personally I don't like the word ">-bleeped-<" if it was used by someone to describe me, as I'm not a transvestite, and with all due respect to the transvestites of the world I find it offensive.  There are other words far worse than this word and I admit that I along with many others have used derogatory words to describe people and things I/we find distasteful.

Obviously the power of the person using the words adds to their effectiveness, if I were to say that I though that this group of people were nothing but a bunch of attention getting >-bleeped-<s and the POTUS said the same thing well, the reaction would be much different.

Words are words, they are a part of who and what we are, they cannot be denied nor should they be.

Steph

[Rana]

jan
I am sorry to say this but any humour in your posts is swamped by your aggressive and confrontional approach.  You can get your message across with courtesy and style you know.  If you are as good a wordsmith as you consider you are, it should be easy for you.

I prefer your posts in "each day with a song in my heart" to the aspect of yourself you display here

Rana

[jan c]

Hi Chef
(would you take offense to me calling you, say, 'Cookie'? Per se. Or would this depend, if this were a personal interaction, on the tonality and rhythm of it?)
">-bleeped-< may have a negative vibrational meaning. To me it sounds like a banjo, thin and metallic. Like any sound, care must taken as to its orchestration"
You have chosen to take this kind of thing as something, possibly, offensive. That is a choice a person makes. You have indicated that 'some' have 'pointedly' ignored the ideas that you presented on language and the care and feeding of it;
If you look at the above quote, from one of my posts in reply, and give it half the care you insist upon per your own words, you'll see what I mean about nailing something on the head. To have read that and make assertions about 'laziness in the use of language' would appear to be arrogant, if I wanted to see it that way. What I see is that you staked out your position and then, getting some negative feedback, steeled yourself to defend it to the death. And you died.

NB: I have better things to do than randomly attack such a post as ">-bleeped-<?". I took the care and the time to consider it, and critiqued it. (Rather succinctly in at least the one case, I think.)

Elizabeth stated that 'words are merely symbols', and that is only half right. They are also sounds. No word has a meaning by itself. It has a sound, a color,  IE: it vibrates, but its meaning is in a sentence. A note has a color. Without time, the 4th dimension, it has only the color and the specific gravity of its frequency. It has no musical meaning as an isolated thing.
Do you get my meaning or have I wasted some more time here?

peace love and understanding
j



Posted at: June 14, 2006, 11:36:53 AMRana.
I am not a smithy of words. I directly communicate as best I can, and words are NOT my forte. I took the care to craft my thoughts as well as I might, all things considered.
Too much 'courtesy' and 'style' is a hallmark of a certain level of discourse I do not subscribe to. (I am not of that class, and have no pretensions to it.)  It smacks of dishonesty, if you really want to hear me, and otherwise why bother to tell me your objections?

[Melissa]

Before this post, the word '>-bleeped-<' used to mildly offend me.  Now I really don't give a rip about it.  I am a woman and that how everyone sees me.  If they use the word, it is out of their own ignorance.

In fact, when I came out to my friend who was my best friend at the time (male I've known for about 15 years), he first used that term and I just educated him on the terms and he's never used it since.  In fact, just last night he started calling me Melissa.   And he hasn't even seen me not presenting as male yet.

Melissa

[Rana]

Jan
You communicate pretty well, straight and to the point, so I believe you are a wordsmith.  Think of the writings of Hemmingway, straightforward clear Anglo Saxon English.  Yes, I agree with you clarity and brevity are to be sought.  I can remember reading in the past Alexandra mentioned the dreaded "scroll" effect - and its true that long posts do tend to turn people off.

But, there are such things as constructive and destructive criticism.  People like you and I, we just can't seem to keep our mouths shut - are always posting.  In truth I coulden't give a stuff (usually) about what you may say of me - and I bet the converse applies.  Other people may not be like that - and its a big thing to have considered something, take the time to post it, and then find other people jumping down their throat about not only the substance but also the style.

You say courtesy and style are the hallmarks of a certain level of discourse, and to I detect a note that you hold such a level in contempt?  You know the phrase "Common Courtesy"?  It applies to all levels of discourse (except maybe monkeys in a jungle, gibbering & screaming & flinging their poo at each other).

Jan, I expect better of you, I know you are capable of it.

Rana

[Chynna]

Expect nothing of a person and your never disappointed in them.

Now I myself have no concept of courtesy, style, or dicourse
(Actually I don't even know what that means Ill look it up later thou)
But I do know myself I can be abrassive and just a plain  at times.

Abrassive but to the point, JAN 
Courteous & Elegant, RANA

Are both dear friends of mines who I wouldn't change a thing about either one of them.
For the exception of thier birth sex if I had the power and they asked me to!

CHYnnA

[jan c]

Other people may not be like that - and its a big thing to have considered something, take the time to post it, and then find other people jumping down their throat about not only the substance but also the style.

Rana

interesting point: in that this precisely occurred to me, I took the time to critique quite thoughtfully, the time to type it and edit it and put it in prose poem format;
then saw that work taken out of context and the substance and the style of it were - oh so POLITELY and with "courtesy", which rang entirely false to my ear (which is a very good ear) - attacked, without so much actual courtesy as directing it TO me, and then I responded more assertively and with somewhat less of a deliberately humorous stance.  I saw bs, I called bs. Like now.

Read the thing and get back to me on it. Debate the actual points I have raised. You are simply telling me I am not so sweet.

More taking out of context to make a point which to me isn't even germane: I said TOO MUCH style and courtesy are hallmarks of a certain level of discourse which again, rings very falsely to my ear; here's precisely an exemplo gratio: the condescending reference to monkeys flinging sh*t.
very "courteously" phrased but insulting and passive/aggressive.

[Melissa]

Ok, I think the point is proven.  Look how much the simple word has stirred up this conversation.  I think we should get back to what we were doing.

Melissa

[Susan]

This thread is locked. Jan_C is taking a 7 day posting break. I expect civility, I expect courtesy, I expect people not to take things personally, and I absolutely will not tolerate people becoming combative on these forums. You can attempt to disguise personal attacks through the creative use of language, but people will still see it.