Does the term "cutting" bother you?
Replies
-
Capt_Apollo wrote: »_incogNEATo_ wrote: »Did anybody use this one yet?
i never found him funny
Seriously this. He was lame.0 -
Why can't there be a word dedicated to describing losing weight by eating at a deficit? Or more than one so there's synonyms to describe it with different emphapses?
I couldn't get through very many of the replies, but the word you are looking for is "reducing", in case it hasn't yet been pointed out.
That's not a new word, obviously.
0 -
The problem with "reducing" is that it suggests that the goal is simply to get smaller. I like "cutting" because it takes the focus away from becoming physically smaller and puts it in the context of changing body composition to be less fat, more muscle. For me that's a more positive--stronger, if you will--message than that as a woman I should be as small as possible.0
-
The term "moist" bothers me. I think they should be referred to as "damp towlettes".0
-
This content has been removed.
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »FoCoAlphaNerd wrote: »Nah, what bothers me is people going out of their way to take offense at things that aren't meant to be offensive in the slightest. Way more trouble is caused by irate, oversensitive people looking to be offended than the use of the word "cutting" which was popular in this sense way before it became a popular piece for bad journalists to show false sympathy over.
So something isn't offensive as long as it wasn't intended to be offensive? How does one know what someone else's intentions are if you don't explicitly communicate them? Are you a telepath?
Well, the reverse is how is someone supposed to anticipate how everyone else might interpret something, especially if it's not, in your view, reasonable.
Sometimes it seems like people go out of their way to claim offense just to get some kind of moral high ground in the discussion. I'm not saying I've never done it, but on the whole I don't think it's helpful, and in particular I think it's best to assume that someone else is not intending to offend when it could easily be innocent.
So typically, people aren't expected to know if a commonly used term is offensive to others. We are not telepaths. However if and when the second party says they were offended, the first party apologizes for the offense, admits the lack of intent to offend (if that's the case), and inquires how to continue the conversation using non-offensive terminology.
But this does not normally happen if (a) the first party thinks the second party is being unreasonable, or (b) the second party starts out by accusing the first of being insensitive or bad motives, as happens too often.
Here, I haven't heard from anyone who genuinely thinks that the term "cutting" in context is offensive (you seem to be speculating that people might) or any good arguments for why it should be, and therefore I don't see any reason to change the use of it.
If the first party thinks the second party is unreasonable by saying they're were offended, that's the first party's problem. The first party respects the second party or it doesn't.
.
There may be some occasions where this is the case, but there are also a butt-ton of special snowflakes who get "triggered" by ridiculous things. i.e. feminist who think the term "women" is degrading to the female sex because it has "men" in it. If I run across one of those, no way in hell is it my problem if they're offended.
You have to ask the question "would the average person in this group be offended by this term"? That is what you base the measurement of offense on. For example, there is a certain "f" word that you would want to avoid if speaking to members of the LGBT community, but which is totally normal to use in conversation with wood gatherers.... if they exist....
Following that, if you were speaking at a high-school assembly, I would avoid using the term "cutting" without full context, however on a fitness website, it is part of the vernacular, and is fine to use.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »The problem with "reducing" is that it suggests that the goal is simply to get smaller. I like "cutting" because it takes the focus away from becoming physically smaller and puts it in the context of changing body composition to be less fat, more muscle. For me that's a more positive--stronger, if you will--message than that as a woman I should be as small as possible.
I think, for me, that's another problem with adopting slang as standardized community terms: there's no defined meaning and multiple interpretations depending on the emotional and life experience each person brings with them. For some "cutting" can mean solely eating at a deficit. Others may think it's eating at a deficit and working out to retain muscle tissue. Some may get it confused with bulking because they're getting cut, shredded, or ripped (All metaphors for the tearing of muscle tissue).0 -
there's no defined meaning and multiple interpretations depending on the emotional and life experience each person brings with them.
This is the case with any term we use. But "cutting"--while it refers to the "losing fat" aspect of the project--is based in the clear context of bulking and cutting cycles, so the choice of the word suggests the broader context.
I probably wouldn't use it with someone who I didn't think knew the term or the context (I'd say "I'm trying to lose weight" or maybe "working on fat loss!" if I said anything, and I probably wouldn't, in fact). But if I was talking about it with someone interested in weights or fat loss or the like I would be more likely to use the term and expect to be understood.
I've never found it to be confusing on MFP where the context is immediately clear (or is as soon as you read the post in question).
Anyway, if you don't wish to use it, I'm sure there are other terms, and my particular issues with "reducing" or "dieting" -- my desire to focus on being strong and not simply as small as can be (which traditionally has been my focus too much) -- may not apply to you.
0 -
100% no because I always try to understand what words mean and the ontext in which they are being used. Bemused by this thread.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »FoCoAlphaNerd wrote: »Nah, what bothers me is people going out of their way to take offense at things that aren't meant to be offensive in the slightest. Way more trouble is caused by irate, oversensitive people looking to be offended than the use of the word "cutting" which was popular in this sense way before it became a popular piece for bad journalists to show false sympathy over.
So something isn't offensive as long as it wasn't intended to be offensive? How does one know what someone else's intentions are if you don't explicitly communicate them? Are you a telepath?
Well, the reverse is how is someone supposed to anticipate how everyone else might interpret something, especially if it's not, in your view, reasonable.
Sometimes it seems like people go out of their way to claim offense just to get some kind of moral high ground in the discussion. I'm not saying I've never done it, but on the whole I don't think it's helpful, and in particular I think it's best to assume that someone else is not intending to offend when it could easily be innocent.
So typically, people aren't expected to know if a commonly used term is offensive to others. We are not telepaths. However if and when the second party says they were offended, the first party apologizes for the offense, admits the lack of intent to offend (if that's the case), and inquires how to continue the conversation using non-offensive terminology.
But this does not normally happen if (a) the first party thinks the second party is being unreasonable, or (b) the second party starts out by accusing the first of being insensitive or bad motives, as happens too often.
Here, I haven't heard from anyone who genuinely thinks that the term "cutting" in context is offensive (you seem to be speculating that people might) or any good arguments for why it should be, and therefore I don't see any reason to change the use of it.
If the first party thinks the second party is unreasonable by saying they're were offended, that's the first party's problem. The first party respects the second party or it doesn't.
.
There may be some occasions where this is the case, but there are also a butt-ton of special snowflakes who get "triggered" by ridiculous things. i.e. feminist who think the term "women" is degrading to the female sex because it has "men" in it. If I run across one of those, no way in hell is it my problem if they're offended.
You have to ask the question "would the average person in this group be offended by this term"? That is what you base the measurement of offense on. For example, there is a certain "f" word that you would want to avoid if speaking to members of the LGBT community, but which is totally normal to use in conversation with wood gatherers.... if they exist....
Following that, if you were speaking at a high-school assembly, I would avoid using the term "cutting" without full context, however on a fitness website, it is part of the vernacular, and is fine to use.
It's the first party's problem in that the first party has to decide whether they are the kind of party who respects the second party and adopts non-offensive terms or if they are the kind of party who doesn't. If it is the latter, the conversation breaks down.
It can't be done on the basis on the average person, because what is the average person? The "average" person changes with the sample size. The average human, is different from the average Australian is different from the average fitness enthusiast is different from the average [fill-in-the-blank]. Besides that, how many people in a sample set are average? According to National Geographic the average human is a 28 year-old, right-handed, Han Chinese, Christian, male who works in the service industry, speaks Mandarin as their first language and owns a cell phone but has no bank account. Ask yourself: Are you "average" or are you a unique individual? It should be done on a case-by-case basis.
When you say some "snowflake" is getting triggered by "ridiculous" things you have overlooked that those things are ridiculous from your perspective but are important to the other person-so much so that your trivialization of their values has caused offense intended or otherwise.0 -
So now you're offended by "snowflake"?
Maybe you should just stay home and not interact with....the human race.0 -
-
Huh...k.0
-
-
*unsubscribe*0
-
0
-
Hold on, by that logic, the most precious, easily offended person in the world ought to have everyone cater to their preciousness because to do otherwise would be disrespectful? And to not do so would put you in the wrong?
That's not how the world works. Joss forbid it ever starts to work that way.0 -
I thought these were diet and fitness forums?0
-
This content has been removed.
-
-
While we're banning the word cutting, we'd better ban people naming their kids Ana and Mia at the same time
0 -
blankiefinder wrote: »While we're banning the word cutting, we'd better ban people naming their kids Ana and Mia at the same time
lol I know for a fact that members with those names have had friend requests sent to them by anorexics
0 -
blankiefinder wrote: »While we're banning the word cutting, we'd better ban people naming their kids Ana and Mia at the same time
And we can just rename them with non offensive names like Marge and Ethel.0 -
blankiefinder wrote: »While we're banning the word cutting, we'd better ban people naming their kids Ana and Mia at the same time
And we can just rename them with non offensive names like Marge and Ethel.
Ohh, good idea. And Esther. And Harriet.
Can we get rid of Maverick as a name while we're at it? It just makes me LOL (no offence to anyone here who has named their son Maverick
) 0 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »Hold on, by that logic, the most precious, easily offended person in the world ought to have everyone cater to their preciousness because to do otherwise would be disrespectful? And to not do so would put you in the wrong?
That's not how the world works. Joss forbid it ever starts to work that way.
Forgive me, I'm trying to parse that. Yes, and yes. The second party wants to have a conversation without being offended. If the first party wants to continue after the first offense and not continue offending, it will change its terms to be non-offensive. If it doesn't change terms then the second party will continue to be offended. For example the first party uses the term "Trekkie". The second party tells the first party that "Trekkie" is offensive and that they prefer "Trekker". The first party can continue using "Trekkie" and the second party will be offended because the first party doesn't respect the values of the second party. Or the first party can change to "Trekker" and not cause offense to the second party.0 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »Hold on, by that logic, the most precious, easily offended person in the world ought to have everyone cater to their preciousness because to do otherwise would be disrespectful? And to not do so would put you in the wrong?
That's not how the world works. Joss forbid it ever starts to work that way.
Forgive me, I'm trying to parse that. Yes, and yes. The second party wants to have a conversation without being offended. If the first party wants to continue after the first offense and not continue offending, it will change its terms to be non-offensive. If it doesn't change terms then the second party will continue to be offended. For example the first party uses the term "Trekkie". The second party tells the first party that "Trekkie" is offensive and that they prefer "Trekker". The first party can continue using "Trekkie" and the second party will be offended because the first party doesn't respect the values of the second party. Or the first party can change to "Trekker" and not cause offense to the second party.
Why would the first party even bother? They would find another party to talk to and leave second party by the spinach dip, all by themselves.
No one likes a whiner.0 -
I'm not mentally ill, so words do not bother me.0
-
Alatariel75 wrote: »Hold on, by that logic, the most precious, easily offended person in the world ought to have everyone cater to their preciousness because to do otherwise would be disrespectful? And to not do so would put you in the wrong?
That's not how the world works. Joss forbid it ever starts to work that way.
Forgive me, I'm trying to parse that. Yes, and yes. The second party wants to have a conversation without being offended. If the first party wants to continue after the first offense and not continue offending, it will change its terms to be non-offensive. If it doesn't change terms then the second party will continue to be offended. For example the first party uses the term "Trekkie". The second party tells the first party that "Trekkie" is offensive and that they prefer "Trekker". The first party can continue using "Trekkie" and the second party will be offended because the first party doesn't respect the values of the second party. Or the first party can change to "Trekker" and not cause offense to the second party.
What if I'm offended by the second party taking offence to everything I say?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 423 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions