Does the term "cutting" bother you?
Options
Replies
-
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?
No one ever claimed that "cutting" was offensive. I don't know why you keep insisting that it was.
You're correct about party b asking themselves if it's just them being offended. I think self-reflection is a fair and reasonable thing to ask of someone before said person claims offense. Hence this thread asking if anyone was bothered by the term "cutting".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?
Only if you're Canadian! Rape seed oil became Canola oil.
0 -
So as someone who has used cutting (self-harm) as a coping mechanism in my life on multiple occasions, if I say that in this context it is not remotely triggering and people need to lighten up, can the thread be over?0
-
Katiebear_81 wrote: »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?
Only if you're Canadian! Rape seed oil became Canola oil.
Not just Canada, the whole of North America calls it Canola too, in part because of the negative connotations. Additionally, it's the rape plant and rapeseed. The word "rape" in rapeseed comes from the Latin word rapum meaning Turnip.0 -
0 -
Are people still allowed to talk about their burns?
The first thing that comes to mind when I see cutting is self-injury. It is the most common use of the term cutting by itself that I hear. I care a lot about mental health, ending stigma, and not offending others.
I also don't think that the fitness community needs to find a better term, and I can guarantee that I or someone else could find a reason to find any word triggering. People are triggered by memories, similar sounding words, smells, glimpses, a familiar sounding voice; triggers can be every day, ordinary things. The word "thinning" could be triggering to someone with an eating disorder, and it could be upsetting to someone with a thinning head of hair. The sentence, "I'm cutting my hair" could actually still be triggering, because the word is already out there, regardless of the context.
If someone is so triggered by seeing the word and believing that it refers to self-mutilation that they are harmed by it, they should probably seek treatment or ask for help if they are already in treatment. Because it's impossible to control the world enough to prevent ever getting triggered. Part of recovery is learning how to manage symptoms. It doesn't mean every symptoms goes away for good; sometimes, the best a person can do is learn to tolerate the experience.
In most situations, I would change my language if I knew I was offending someone. (I wouldn't change it permanently unless I had a viewpoint change, but in most cases, I can find another word to use.) I have and will ask people not to say certain widely regarded as offensive words. If they refuse, I can choose to end the conversation, I can see it as information and limit my interactions with that person in the future, or I can accept our differences and move on. The only way to know is if I'm actually in that situation and how serious it is.
Bottom line, I can't expect myself or anyone else to read minds and know what not to say in every situation. (There are some obvious words, but even those are often different based on context.)0 -
callsitlikeiseeit wrote: »no more than my kid talking about cutting a piece of paper.
context, dude.
Right, but cutting a piece of paper is literally what one does to paper. Unless you're cutting a piece of meat with kitchen scissors or cutting a cake you're not really cutting calories, you're removing or reducing them.
I can see it being an issue. I have a friend who has been suicidal and there's no way I would use that term around him if I was talking about the process. I like the word reducing man. Good point.0 -
Dreamyriver wrote: »callsitlikeiseeit wrote: »no more than my kid talking about cutting a piece of paper.
context, dude.
Right, but cutting a piece of paper is literally what one does to paper. Unless you're cutting a piece of meat with kitchen scissors or cutting a cake you're not really cutting calories, you're removing or reducing them.
You know that words have different meanings according to context?6 Reduce the amount or quantity of:
buyers will bargain hard to cut the cost of the house they want
I should cut down my sugar intake
[NO OBJECT]: they’ve cut back on costs
we’re looking to cut down on the use of chemicals
Oxford Dictionaries
Yes. I am aware of contextual meaning. In the examples you provided the object being cut were also used (costs, sugar, chemicals). "Cutting calories" does not give me the associations of self harm. "Cutting" (by itself) does however, at least initially. I know on these forums the "calories" is implied. But again maybe it's just me.
Its not just you I too think this every time! And ive been on here almost a year.0 -
Nope...never did and never will but then again...I'm not not sensitive-@ss person butthurt by trivial words.0
-
Hey guys! I heard about these two recent parties. Where's the second party at?
Also, how come I didn't get invited to the first party? Who was responsible for cutting the cake? And, were their moist towelettes handed out afterwards?
:flowerforyou: 0 -
"Cutting" also has some negative associations. Every time I read a post which uses "cutting" I immediately think the person is suicidal. Maybe it's just me?
Wouldn't something like "curbing" or "trimming" or "thinning" be just as good?
It is usually adolescents who cut when we use it in the "self-injurious behavior" context. If it makes you feel any better, the majority of the time people who cut or self-harm are not suicidal. Self-injurious behavior is used to cover or suppress negative emotions. (It should still be brought out in the open and treated.)0 -
mamapeach910 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.
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.
Where's the damn "Like" button? You know, I might just be persuaded to pay for MFP if we get one.0 -
We're the hell is will smith to flash me so I can forget I seen this post0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 396 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 967 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions