Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

You people

Page 14 of 16 [ 253 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

just-me
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,178

19 Jan 2009, 4:34 pm

Greyhound wrote:
I agree with Shiggily.


I do to.
Thats why I have avoided this part of the fourm for so long.



pandd
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2006
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,430

19 Jan 2009, 7:11 pm

*I have an abundant supply of catnip.

*This thread would have been less hypocritical if it had been named "Us people" and more entertaining if it had been named "Us Sexy Beasts".

*just-me, it can sometimes be a bit hostile in this section so far as non-regulars are concerned, but in my experience the (minority of) bullying posters in this section are quite frankly not the ones with the most interesting, thought provoking posts, probably because the latter are simply not that insecure. Indeed why would they be?

Sometimes what is merely stylistic aggressiveness might appear superficially to be actually hostile, but there is a difference between stridency and personally intended hostility and animosity, and most PPRers are engaging in the earlier rather than the latter. Those engaging in the latter are in the minority, and probably a bit on the insecure side to boot (these are the ones who try to shut out non-regulars, especially non-regulars who disagree with them, so do not let them have their way).



Nights_Like_These
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Oct 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 722
Location: Ontario, Canada

19 Jan 2009, 8:03 pm

pandd wrote:
*I have an abundant supply of catnip.

*This thread would have been less hypocritical if it had been named "Us people" and more entertaining if it had been named "Us Sexy Beasts".

*just-me, it can sometimes be a bit hostile in this section so far as non-regulars are concerned, but in my experience the (minority of) bullying posters in this section are quite frankly not the ones with the most interesting, thought provoking posts, probably because the latter are simply not that insecure. Indeed why would they be?

Sometimes what is merely stylistic aggressiveness might appear superficially to be actually hostile, but there is a difference between stridency and personally intended hostility and animosity, and most PPRers are engaging in the earlier rather than the latter. Those engaging in the latter are in the minority, and probably a bit on the insecure side to boot (these are the ones who try to shut out non-regulars, especially non-regulars who disagree with them, so do not let them have their way).


What makes me sad is that I didn't figure out what PPR was until your post...LOL...apparently I skipped a page or 2...


_________________
"There are things known, and there are things unknown, and in between are the doors of perception."

--Aldous Huxley


Shiggily
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Dec 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,317

20 Jan 2009, 3:43 am

pandd wrote:
*I have an abundant supply of catnip.

*This thread would have been less hypocritical if it had been named "Us people" and more entertaining if it had been named "Us Sexy Beasts".

*just-me, it can sometimes be a bit hostile in this section so far as non-regulars are concerned, but in my experience the (minority of) bullying posters in this section are quite frankly not the ones with the most interesting, thought provoking posts, probably because the latter are simply not that insecure. Indeed why would they be?

Sometimes what is merely stylistic aggressiveness might appear superficially to be actually hostile, but there is a difference between stridency and personally intended hostility and animosity, and most PPRers are engaging in the earlier rather than the latter. Those engaging in the latter are in the minority, and probably a bit on the insecure side to boot (these are the ones who try to shut out non-regulars, especially non-regulars who disagree with them, so do not let them have their way).


"Us people" doesn't make sense. Why would I tell myself something I already know? Do you go up to people and say "I need to tell us something" or "I need to talk to us"?

Though I could have named it "you sexy beasts"


_________________
ADHD-diagnosed
Asperger's Syndrome-diagnosed


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

20 Jan 2009, 6:07 am

Shiggily wrote:
pandd wrote:
*I have an abundant supply of catnip.

*This thread would have been less hypocritical if it had been named "Us people" and more entertaining if it had been named "Us Sexy Beasts".

*just-me, it can sometimes be a bit hostile in this section so far as non-regulars are concerned, but in my experience the (minority of) bullying posters in this section are quite frankly not the ones with the most interesting, thought provoking posts, probably because the latter are simply not that insecure. Indeed why would they be?

Sometimes what is merely stylistic aggressiveness might appear superficially to be actually hostile, but there is a difference between stridency and personally intended hostility and animosity, and most PPRers are engaging in the earlier rather than the latter. Those engaging in the latter are in the minority, and probably a bit on the insecure side to boot (these are the ones who try to shut out non-regulars, especially non-regulars who disagree with them, so do not let them have their way).


"Us people" doesn't make sense. Why would I tell myself something I already know? Do you go up to people and say "I need to tell us something" or "I need to talk to us"?

Though I could have named it "you sexy beasts"


Us is not you. Us is all of us and you are not all of us. "You people" is a phrase that expresses something of aggression.



Shiggily
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Dec 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,317

20 Jan 2009, 7:49 am

Sand wrote:
"You people" is a phrase that expresses something of aggression.


only if you take it as such. "You people" refers to multiple yous in human form. It has a neutral connotation. It merely means that I am talking to a group of people.

Quote:
Us is not you. Us is all of us and you are not all of us.


I know us is not you and I know us means us and I know you does not refer to us. I fail to see the relevance of those statements. I could have used Ustedes if everyone spoke Spanish. But the English language has no special form for you plural.


_________________
ADHD-diagnosed
Asperger's Syndrome-diagnosed


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

20 Jan 2009, 8:44 am

Shiggily wrote:
Sand wrote:
"You people" is a phrase that expresses something of aggression.


only if you take it as such. "You people" refers to multiple yous in human form. It has a neutral connotation. It merely means that I am talking to a group of people.

Quote:
Us is not you. Us is all of us and you are not all of us.


I know us is not you and I know us means us and I know you does not refer to us. I fail to see the relevance of those statements. I could have used Ustedes if everyone spoke Spanish. But the English language has no special form for you plural.


No. In speaking to a group if you address them as "You people" it is definitely separating yourself as a class from them and is highly negative. Perhaps you are not a native speaker and don't understand the emotional effect.



Shiggily
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Dec 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,317

20 Jan 2009, 9:19 am

Sand wrote:
Shiggily wrote:
Sand wrote:
"You people" is a phrase that expresses something of aggression.


only if you take it as such. "You people" refers to multiple yous in human form. It has a neutral connotation. It merely means that I am talking to a group of people.

Quote:
Us is not you. Us is all of us and you are not all of us.


I know us is not you and I know us means us and I know you does not refer to us. I fail to see the relevance of those statements. I could have used Ustedes if everyone spoke Spanish. But the English language has no special form for you plural.


No. In speaking to a group if you address them as "You people" it is definitely separating yourself as a class from them and is highly negative. Perhaps you are not a native speaker and don't understand the emotional effect.


I am a native speaker. But I don't understand the propensity to constantly discard neutral connotations and dictionary/grammatical preference for colloquial definitions and negative connotations. Referring to a group of people as "you people" is not inherently negative and while it might indicate grammatical separation, it does not indicate any other special derogatory kind of separation (unless grammatical separation is derogatory). Those things are things you read into what I am saying, not things I am actually saying.

Maybe now I should refer to all groups of people as "hey guys" which is for some reason not offensive (though I could actually see that offending people as it is incredibly inaccurate). Instead of a more accurate and somehow more offensive "you people".


_________________
ADHD-diagnosed
Asperger's Syndrome-diagnosed


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

20 Jan 2009, 10:47 am

Shiggily wrote:
Sand wrote:
Shiggily wrote:
Sand wrote:
"You people" is a phrase that expresses something of aggression.


only if you take it as such. "You people" refers to multiple yous in human form. It has a neutral connotation. It merely means that I am talking to a group of people.

Quote:
Us is not you. Us is all of us and you are not all of us.


I know us is not you and I know us means us and I know you does not refer to us. I fail to see the relevance of those statements. I could have used Ustedes if everyone spoke Spanish. But the English language has no special form for you plural.


No. In speaking to a group if you address them as "You people" it is definitely separating yourself as a class from them and is highly negative. Perhaps you are not a native speaker and don't understand the emotional effect.




I am a native speaker. But I don't understand the propensity to constantly discard neutral connotations and dictionary/grammatical preference for colloquial definitions and negative connotations. Referring to a group of people as "you people" is not inherently negative and while it might indicate grammatical separation, it does not indicate any other special derogatory kind of separation (unless grammatical separation is derogatory). Those things are things you read into what I am saying, not things I am actually saying.

Maybe now I should refer to all groups of people as "hey guys" which is for some reason not offensive (though I could actually see that offending people as it is incredibly inaccurate). Instead of a more accurate and somehow more offensive "you people".



To put it more clearly, the address"You people" definitely separates the speaker from everybody else as having somewhat better civil standards. You are talking down to everybody else and that is, if anything, mildly insulting. If you prefer neutrality you should include yourself with everybody else and comment on pervasive standards. If you advised " we should do this or that" then you are one of us and nicely suggesting a change of attitude.



twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,731
Location: Boötes void

20 Jan 2009, 10:53 am

Shiggily wrote:
Maybe now I should refer to all groups of people as "hey guys" which is for some reason not offensive (though I could actually see that offending people as it is incredibly inaccurate). Instead of a more accurate and somehow more offensive "you people".

I think "you people" has some odd connotations with it that were well established before you used it. As many people have alluded to the joke so far in this thread, I'm going to come out and post a video
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAlVKgl_zCQ[/youtube]
(For anyone who didn't watch, that's Robert Downey Jr. playing an actor playing a black man)


_________________
* here for the nachos.


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

20 Jan 2009, 10:54 am

Shiggily, Sand, the question of whether the OP was insulting is better answered by quoting it.

Shiggily wrote:
are all together too angry and bitter for your own good.

well, most of you anyway.

How can you have a decent conversation when you hang from each others throats like rabid badgers?


Its uncivilized.


Put down the bats and machetes, stop screaming, raving like lunatics, and foaming at the mouth. "ahhhahhhh I am riiiight agree with meeee now you crazzyyyy f*ck!! !!!1"


...relax... let your blood pressure stabilize...


No one likes to listen to insane crazy angry idiot people. You make the people who disagree with you not want to be insane like you... and you make the people who would normally agree with you embarrassed to be associated with you.

I would have to say referring to the denizens of PPR as "insane crazy idiot people" is at least somewhat derogatory. Shiggily, don't try to pretend your comments were neutral in connotation. We're not *that* stupid.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


starvingartist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Oct 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,032

20 Jan 2009, 3:28 pm

Orwell wrote:
Shiggily, Sand, the question of whether the OP was insulting is better answered by quoting it.
Shiggily wrote:
are all together too angry and bitter for your own good.

well, most of you anyway.

How can you have a decent conversation when you hang from each others throats like rabid badgers?


Its uncivilized.


Put down the bats and machetes, stop screaming, raving like lunatics, and foaming at the mouth. "ahhhahhhh I am riiiight agree with meeee now you crazzyyyy f*ck!! !!!1"


...relax... let your blood pressure stabilize...


No one likes to listen to insane crazy angry idiot people. You make the people who disagree with you not want to be insane like you... and you make the people who would normally agree with you embarrassed to be associated with you.

I would have to say referring to the denizens of PPR as "insane crazy idiot people" is at least somewhat derogatory. Shiggily, don't try to pretend your comments were neutral in connotation. We're not *that* stupid.


sorry to say this orwell, but i think you're wasting your breath....she's been arguing her 'neutrality' for pages and pages. she won't see what she posted as anything else but neutral, no matter what anyone else says to her. apparently her own perception of what she said is all that matters, even though she was addressing others....how those others perceived it is irrelevant, b/c that's 'not how she meant it'. we should ignore 'colloquial interpretations', even though by definition the majority of regular people are going to perceive the colloquial interpretation before the 'formal' one. it's our own fault for resorting to conversational styles rather than formal ones. for shame!



Shiggily
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Dec 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,317

20 Jan 2009, 4:24 pm

[quote="Sand"

To put it more clearly, the address"You people" definitely separates the speaker from everybody else as having somewhat better civil standards. You are talking down to everybody else and that is, if anything, mildly insulting. [/quote]

inherently it does not. That meaning is something you have added.

Quote:
If you prefer neutrality you should include yourself with everybody else and comment on pervasive standards. If you advised " we should do this or that" then you are one of us and nicely suggesting a change of attitude.


why would I include myself if I already know what I am going to say? It is still like saying "I need to tell us something"


_________________
ADHD-diagnosed
Asperger's Syndrome-diagnosed


Shiggily
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Dec 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,317

20 Jan 2009, 4:31 pm

Orwell wrote:
Shiggily, Sand, the question of whether the OP was insulting is better answered by quoting it.
Shiggily wrote:
are all together too angry and bitter for your own good.

well, most of you anyway.

How can you have a decent conversation when you hang from each others throats like rabid badgers?


Its uncivilized.


Put down the bats and machetes, stop screaming, raving like lunatics, and foaming at the mouth. "ahhhahhhh I am riiiight agree with meeee now you crazzyyyy f*ck! !! !!1"


...relax... let your blood pressure stabilize...


No one likes to listen to insane crazy angry idiot people. You make the people who disagree with you not want to be insane like you... and you make the people who would normally agree with you embarrassed to be associated with you.

I would have to say referring to the denizens of PPR as "insane crazy idiot people" is at least somewhat derogatory. Shiggily, don't try to pretend your comments were neutral in connotation. We're not *that* stupid.


those were all intentionally over the top descriptions as to prove a point. I have never in my life actually called someone an insane crazy angry idiot person. There are just too many adjectives to make that feasible. Taken in context with the remaining original post it was intentionally over the top so that it would be tongue-in-cheek and the only way I knew how to do that online was to make it ridiculous. While still maintaining some semblance of useful points in the op.


_________________
ADHD-diagnosed
Asperger's Syndrome-diagnosed


Shiggily
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Dec 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,317

20 Jan 2009, 4:36 pm

starvingartist wrote:
Orwell wrote:
Shiggily, Sand, the question of whether the OP was insulting is better answered by quoting it.
Shiggily wrote:
are all together too angry and bitter for your own good.

well, most of you anyway.

How can you have a decent conversation when you hang from each others throats like rabid badgers?


Its uncivilized.


Put down the bats and machetes, stop screaming, raving like lunatics, and foaming at the mouth. "ahhhahhhh I am riiiight agree with meeee now you crazzyyyy f*ck!! !!!1"


...relax... let your blood pressure stabilize...


No one likes to listen to insane crazy angry idiot people. You make the people who disagree with you not want to be insane like you... and you make the people who would normally agree with you embarrassed to be associated with you.

I would have to say referring to the denizens of PPR as "insane crazy idiot people" is at least somewhat derogatory. Shiggily, don't try to pretend your comments were neutral in connotation. We're not *that* stupid.


sorry to say this orwell, but i think you're wasting your breath....she's been arguing her 'neutrality' for pages and pages. she won't see what she posted as anything else but neutral, no matter what anyone else says to her. apparently her own perception of what she said is all that matters, even though she was addressing others....how those others perceived it is irrelevant, b/c that's 'not how she meant it'. we should ignore 'colloquial interpretations', even though by definition the majority of regular people are going to perceive the colloquial interpretation before the 'formal' one. it's our own fault for resorting to conversational styles rather than formal ones. for shame!


it is not that you should never use colloquial terms. It is that you should force meaning into what someone else says AFTER they say that was not what they meant. It is like me continually being offended by things you say even if you explain that was not the meaning of what you said. You would not like it if someone did it to you and yet you continually do it to me.

I would actually like you to consider a different perception of what was said than "ZOMG someone offended me now I must attack". Actually consider the fact that it was intended neutrally and came across as "off". Instead of assuming it was negative despite me consistently telling you it was NOT.

I have already considered alternate ways to explain the same topic as discussed by certain people in the thread.


_________________
ADHD-diagnosed
Asperger's Syndrome-diagnosed


starvingartist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Oct 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,032

20 Jan 2009, 4:56 pm

Shiggily wrote:
starvingartist wrote:
Orwell wrote:
Shiggily, Sand, the question of whether the OP was insulting is better answered by quoting it.
Shiggily wrote:
are all together too angry and bitter for your own good.

well, most of you anyway.

How can you have a decent conversation when you hang from each others throats like rabid badgers?


Its uncivilized.


Put down the bats and machetes, stop screaming, raving like lunatics, and foaming at the mouth. "ahhhahhhh I am riiiight agree with meeee now you crazzyyyy f*ck!! !!!1"


...relax... let your blood pressure stabilize...


No one likes to listen to insane crazy angry idiot people. You make the people who disagree with you not want to be insane like you... and you make the people who would normally agree with you embarrassed to be associated with you.

I would have to say referring to the denizens of PPR as "insane crazy idiot people" is at least somewhat derogatory. Shiggily, don't try to pretend your comments were neutral in connotation. We're not *that* stupid.


sorry to say this orwell, but i think you're wasting your breath....she's been arguing her 'neutrality' for pages and pages. she won't see what she posted as anything else but neutral, no matter what anyone else says to her. apparently her own perception of what she said is all that matters, even though she was addressing others....how those others perceived it is irrelevant, b/c that's 'not how she meant it'. we should ignore 'colloquial interpretations', even though by definition the majority of regular people are going to perceive the colloquial interpretation before the 'formal' one. it's our own fault for resorting to conversational styles rather than formal ones. for shame!


it is not that you should never use colloquial terms. It is that you should force meaning into what someone else says AFTER they say that was not what they meant. It is like me continually being offended by things you say even if you explain that was not the meaning of what you said. You would not like it if someone did it to you and yet you continually do it to me.

I would actually like you to consider a different perception of what was said than "ZOMG someone offended me now I must attack". Actually consider the fact that it was intended neutrally and came across as "off". Instead of assuming it was negative despite me consistently telling you it was NOT.

I have already considered alternate ways to explain the same topic as discussed by certain people in the thread.


since no one else has said it in quite these terms yet, i will try in the hopes that it will help you understand why so many people 'read your post the wrong way' and continue to insist that it is pretty obviously meant to be derogatory--it's not that we haven't heard you say time and time again that you didn't mean it to be derogatory....it's that we don't believe you didn't mean it that way.

before you instantly deny this, consider one thing, please--is it possible that consciously, on the top of your mind, you didn't mean it to sound quite so 'snobbish'....but perhaps subconsciously you did? and perhaps that is what showed through in the message, and not your 'tongue-in-cheek' humour? and that may explain why so many read it that way? all i ask is you consider that.....although i highly doubt you would question yourself to that extent. please try. questioning your own motives is a healthy thing to do, i swear :lol: