Does the term "cutting" bother you?
Replies
-
MiloBloom83 wrote: »I'm not mentally ill, so words do not bother me.
ditto that....
I'm starting to wonder if OP is studying debating or philosophy or the like...
0 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »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?
Figure that out and you get a Nobel Peace Prize.0 -
christinev297 wrote: »MiloBloom83 wrote: »I'm not mentally ill, so words do not bother me. ditto that....
I'm starting to wonder if OP is studying debating or philosophy or the like...
Nope. Good guess though. ;-)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.
Thinking about this, as a Trekkie, I'd be offended if I was speaking to someone who held themselves out as a Star Trek fan but wanted to be called a 'Trekker'. As the term I relate to is the more commonly used and accepted term, their adoption of a slightly different and- evidently in their opinion - superior term by which to identify themself, I would say in that situation I would be the legitimately offended party and would thus become person B in that scenario.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.
This, but also - there has to be a line drawn somewhere. You have to, at some point, expect people to take control of their feelings and not expect others to cater to them. It's part of being an adult. Being offended is a choice.
Anyway, the worst words out there in the world are musk/musky.0 -
christinev297 wrote: »MiloBloom83 wrote: »I'm not mentally ill, so words do not bother me. ditto that....
I'm starting to wonder if OP is studying debating or philosophy or the like...
You give him way too much credit.0 -
TheVirgoddess wrote: »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.
This, but also - there has to be a line drawn somewhere. You have to, at some point, expect people to take control of their feelings and not expect others to cater to them. It's part of being an adult. Being offended is a choice.
Anyway, the worst words out there in the world are musk/musky.
Nuh uh. The worse words are Panties and puss/infection
It gives me the creeps when men or women say 'panties'
0 -
i'm cutting a fart reading this0
-
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
Alatariel75 wrote: »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.
Thinking about this, as a Trekkie, I'd be offended if I was speaking to someone who held themselves out as a Star Trek fan but wanted to be called a 'Trekker'. As the term I relate to is the more commonly used and accepted term, their adoption of a slightly different and- evidently in their opinion - superior term by which to identify themself, I would say in that situation I would be the legitimately offended party and would thus become person B in that scenario.
You would be the second party if you tell the first party that "trekker" offends you. So at that point, assuming both parties legitimately mean no offense to one another the first party would use the term Trekkie in relation to the second party and the second party would use the term Trekker in relation to the first party. Both parties would have an understanding of the nuances of meaning in each term thereby eliminating the confusion and offense.
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.
I stated "the average person IN THIS GROUP" i.e. would the average MFPer be offended by the term "cutting". The answer to that is clearly NO. In all other human interaction the question Party B needs to ask themselves is "if I'm the only person here offended by this, then is my offense really warranted. Or am I taking offense, when none is intended?"
As a society we have devolved into making the majority change in order to suit the minority. It is happening everywhere - take for example some schools here in New Zealand no longer put up Christmas decorations to avoid offending the one or two families who are of a religion that does not celebrate it. Nevermind that the other 400 families connected to the school do celebrate it.
Is it fair that 400 children are deprived of that just to suit 2 others? When, if the situation was reversed, the teachers tend to use celebrations like Ramadan, Diwali, etc as a good teaching tool for the kids to learn about other cultures/religions.
If we follow your thought pattern, that a fitness site should stop using the term "cutting" to avoid the rare case of someone self-harming, then should we force the farming community to name rape seed to something else?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.
Listen, if you tell me I've accidentally used a racist/homophobic/transphobic/ableist slur I will be the first to apologize and mean it.
But oh man you are you a special case. Is this whole thread really about how you can't get any actual discrimination action, so you need to invent some?
Trekker smdh0 -
christinev297 wrote: »TheVirgoddess wrote: »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.
This, but also - there has to be a line drawn somewhere. You have to, at some point, expect people to take control of their feelings and not expect others to cater to them. It's part of being an adult. Being offended is a choice.
Anyway, the worst words out there in the world are musk/musky.
Nuh uh. The worse words are Panties and puss/infection
It gives me the creeps when men or women say 'panties'
Nah-uh ....moist
<nods>
0 -
christinev297 wrote: »TheVirgoddess wrote: »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.
This, but also - there has to be a line drawn somewhere. You have to, at some point, expect people to take control of their feelings and not expect others to cater to them. It's part of being an adult. Being offended is a choice.
Anyway, the worst words out there in the world are musk/musky.
Nuh uh. The worse words are Panties and puss/infection
It gives me the creeps when men or women say 'panties'
Nah-uh ....moist
<nods>
eeeewwww "moist panties" :sick: :sick:
0 -
I am really interested to know what the REAL reason behind this thread is????0
-
christinev297 wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »TheVirgoddess wrote: »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.
This, but also - there has to be a line drawn somewhere. You have to, at some point, expect people to take control of their feelings and not expect others to cater to them. It's part of being an adult. Being offended is a choice.
Anyway, the worst words out there in the world are musk/musky.
Nuh uh. The worse words are Panties and puss/infection
It gives me the creeps when men or women say 'panties'
Nah-uh ....moist
<nods>
eeeewwww "moist panties" :sick: :sick:
<shudders> moist musky panties0 -
blankiefinder wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »TheVirgoddess wrote: »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.
This, but also - there has to be a line drawn somewhere. You have to, at some point, expect people to take control of their feelings and not expect others to cater to them. It's part of being an adult. Being offended is a choice.
Anyway, the worst words out there in the world are musk/musky.
Nuh uh. The worse words are Panties and puss/infection
It gives me the creeps when men or women say 'panties'
Nah-uh ....moist
<nods>
eeeewwww "moist panties" :sick: :sick:
<shudders> moist musky panties
oh LORDY , can it get any worse!!
<triple shudders>
0 -
some people would really like that phrase
jus' sayin'0 -
-
blankiefinder wrote: »
laughsssssss0 -
Ha, not reading 12 pps but my 2 cents - "cutting" makes me think of sculpting the body - like a sculptor might cut off chunks of clay before honing things further. It's weird to think of the body like that, as something that can be perfectly, super precisely, manipulated and finessed. That's not always possible for everyone (i.e. those who are working around health issues). So it's off-putting to me as an ideal, personally, because the ideal it's speaking to isn't one I can achieve. If your body isn't controllable like that (mine isn't), it reminds you of that fact.
But I'm not the audience - it's a word for bodybuilders, people who have no obstacles to doing incredible things to their bodies, so they can have that perfect standard.
I did not think about self-harm. Although it's true that "cutting" carries the idea of aggression.0 -
0
-
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.
Reducing sounds so '50's to me. Makes me think of those exercise belt vibrating machines and all that sort of stuff.
Or fractions. Reducing makes me think of fractions.
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.
ORRRRRRR... the first party can wear grown up panties and decide that words don't have power to hurt him unless they're things like racial slurs.
Really, the things that people take time to find offense about these days never ceases to amaze me. Spend five minutes with a real victim, ffs, and get over yourselves.
0 -
TheVirgoddess wrote: »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.
This, but also - there has to be a line drawn somewhere. You have to, at some point, expect people to take control of their feelings and not expect others to cater to them. It's part of being an adult. Being offended is a choice.
Anyway, the worst words out there in the world are musk/musky.
Moist.
0 -
christinev297 wrote: »TheVirgoddess wrote: »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.
This, but also - there has to be a line drawn somewhere. You have to, at some point, expect people to take control of their feelings and not expect others to cater to them. It's part of being an adult. Being offended is a choice.
Anyway, the worst words out there in the world are musk/musky.
Nuh uh. The worse words are Panties and puss/infection
It gives me the creeps when men or women say 'panties'
Nah-uh ....moist
<nods>
We agree. I posted before I saw this.
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
I think you've uncovered the OP's deep psychological issue with the word "cut".
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »TheVirgoddess wrote: »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.
This, but also - there has to be a line drawn somewhere. You have to, at some point, expect people to take control of their feelings and not expect others to cater to them. It's part of being an adult. Being offended is a choice.
Anyway, the worst words out there in the world are musk/musky.
Nuh uh. The worse words are Panties and puss/infection
It gives me the creeps when men or women say 'panties'
Nah-uh ....moist
<nods>
We agree. I posted before I saw this.
Also phlegm.
0
http://youtu.be/gRILbBJHBjM
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