Vampires, werewolves, and Otherkin, oh my!

[TeaDidikai]

Recursive Paradox

I'm not terribly fond of the word gender identity or gender for all instances of being trans to begin with.

What is the correct term to identify male and female when applied to what a person is born as biologically and is there a more accurate term to apply when speaking of what a person either identifies as, is transitioning their physical body to match or other such things which I am ignorant of?

I can understand a person not being fond of it- even more so when it conflicts with internal/personal understandings of your situation, but what terms are to be used correctly?

Also, as a point of etiquette, since your position directly contradicts other individuals I know, some of whom also participate in this guild, how do I satisfy both?  

[Recursive Paradox]

TeaDidikai

Recursive Paradox

I'm not terribly fond of the word gender identity or gender for all instances of being trans to begin with.

What is the correct term to identify male and female when applied to what a person is born as biologically and is there a more accurate term to apply when speaking of what a person either identifies as, is transitioning their physical body to match or other such things which I am ignorant of?

Gender identity. My personal lack of fondness for it doesn't in the least change that it is the correct term.

Quote:

I can understand a person not being fond of it- even more so when it conflicts with internal/personal understandings of your situation, but what terms are to be used correctly?

Unfortunately for my comfort, gender identity is the correct term.

Quote:

Also, as a point of etiquette, since your position directly contradicts other individuals I know, some of whom also participate in this guild, how do I satisfy both?

Use gender identity. My lack of fondness for it is not so extreme that it would require an adjustment of any wording around me. It's just a personal issue.  

[TeaDidikai]

Recursive Paradox

TeaDidikai

Recursive Paradox

I'm not terribly fond of the word gender identity or gender for all instances of being trans to begin with.

What is the correct term to identify male and female when applied to what a person is born as biologically and is there a more accurate term to apply when speaking of what a person either identifies as, is transitioning their physical body to match or other such things which I am ignorant of?

Gender identity. My personal lack of fondness for it doesn't in the least change that it is the correct term.

Quote:

I can understand a person not being fond of it- even more so when it conflicts with internal/personal understandings of your situation, but what terms are to be used correctly?

Unfortunately for my comfort, gender identity is the correct term.

Quote:

Also, as a point of etiquette, since your position directly contradicts other individuals I know, some of whom also participate in this guild, how do I satisfy both?

Use gender identity. My lack of fondness for it is not so extreme that it would require an adjustment of any wording around me. It's just a personal issue.

I apologize for upsetting you, and if there is something I can do differently in the future, please let me know.  

[Recursive Paradox]

Collowrath

Recursive Paradox

@Kuroiban: Please don't use the word crazy to describe erratic, irrational or emotional. It's ableist.

That's not asking you to not use it correctly, that's asking you not to use it at all. And with further description, using it correctly in contexts where no people with disabilities have problems with it.

Quote:

And it's been defined at least twice now.

The definition doesn't really change much. Which I've said more than twice now.

Quote:

From Oxford English: a mad or eccentric person, Full of cracks or flaws; damaged, impaired, unsound; liable to break or fall to pieces; frail, ‘shaky’. (Now usually of ships, buildings, etc.) and US English slang, as Extremely; ‘madly’.

Which once again, has and can (based on your own previous logic) be used to describe mentally ill folk and is, in slur format. The reason why it is offensive and operates as a slur is largely because of the appropriate usage of it, which carries "damaged, flawed, impaired, unsound" and a variety of other othering attacks regularly applied to people with disabilities. It's highly unsurprising it became a slur for the mentally ill as well because of that mad part in there.

Quote:

Essentially, yeah, it means erratic, irrational, eccentric, unsound, etc. My use was correct, and you said "don't use it that way."

I suppose you didn't read the parts where I expanded on that then.

Quote:

My problem was with claiming it was ableist.

Unfortunately, you having a problem with it being ableist doesn't do much to change it from being ableist.

Quote:

Not really, I was just establishing that I had not seen crazy used at all in the same regard as tranny.

Which is entirely irrelevant to its actual usage. Like I said, I'd be more inclined to trust a person of a given race about how much their slurs are used than a white person.

Quote:

Also, you still haven't shown that crazy is a slur, aside from you not liking it.

Funny. I seem to recall pointing out its consistent usage against mentally ill people (including myself) and describing how slurs function. How you got, "I just don't like it from that" is something that boggles my mind.

Quote:

Quote:

There's another operative problem here. Difference and eccentricity (even when not from mental illness) are not necessarily problems, yet crazy is used to construct them as so by many people. This, in and of itself is othering and by virtue of that, ableist.

Why is marking something as different from the mainstream necessarily bad and ableist?

Maybe you should read that definition again. Different is not necessarily bad. Crazy however has a lot of very negative elements in it (damaged, broken, etc). It's like using the word retarded to describe something that is simply slow and then pulling, "well, slow isn't bad you know" when people call you on it.

Come on.

Quote:

Please show that marking something as not like something else, or an established norm, is inherently harmful in every case.

See above for my response to your strawman fallacy.

Quote:

Quote:

Also, crazy being applied to people with mental illness often uses the same logic you used here. To those people, mental illness is the problem, the effects of it on behavior is the strangeness and eccentricity. Can you not see how this becomes problematic? Crazy's usage as a slur actually fits its proper use when a mentally ill person appears "eccentric" and then it not only is used as a base slur, it's meaning is used to other the person with the disability, which is a major component of marginalization.

I actually intended to mention this in my last post, but didn't have the time. I apologize.

Okay.

Quote:

In cases like this, there needs to be an open dialogue about mental illness. Yes, it would be correct through the base definition to refer to someone with a mental illness. But there are better ways to discuss it. For instance, I have an aunt who is bipolar with schizophrenic tendencies (I think there is a different diagnosis for it now). She appears to do irrational, crazy things sometimes because of this. But there is a better way to discuss what's going on than "she's crazy" - she is bipolar, not just eccentric or irrational.

Unfortunately, people are attached to using their words and will offer up the exact same argument you have ("I'm using it correctly, what's your problem?").

Quote:

Quote:

Besides, do you have mental illness?

As much as this might help the discussion, I'm really not comfortable discussing it. :/

That's fine. We'll step away from that angle then. Whether you have one or not, your experiences of a slur use do not match everyone else's and simply are not usable as a means to dismiss the idea that something is a slur.

Quote:

I simply stated that I hadn't really seen it used as a slur so much in explanation of my reaction to your claims. That is all.

So, why exactly are you continuing to exhibit this reaction now that you experiences have been shown to not match what others have and been told that your experiences don't change whether it's a slur?

Quote:

Quote:

Anyone could easily use your logic to describe the disorder as the problem that causes the eccentricity. So such a counter argument would be completely ineffective. And the word has redundancy with eccentric and strange in a sentence. It isn't like you lose the ability to describe a given concept by dropping the word, but what does disappear is the othering effect of crazy. Not a big loss.

I'm having trouble digging meaning out of this. sad

The word crazy interlaces eccentricity and difference with being broken and damaged. It is a problematic word to begin with because it others eccentric and different people. It is also a slur for mentally ill people. Eliminating it and merely referring to someone as eccentric means you are no longer equating their eccentricity to being broken and no longer using a slur. I don't see that as a huge loss.

Quote:

Quote:

More likely, strange is used as an attack word for multiple -isms, which tends to make it not function as a slur.

Really? So ****** isn't a slur because it's used in compound words to refer to different groups of people? :/

Each one would be a separate slur. Not the same slur. Is strange used in compound words to slur multiple groups of people? If so, you have an argument. If not, then you don't.

Quote:

Quote:

Marking something as an other for perceived difference (illness and irrationality especially) is problematic in and of itself (and often moves towards ableism).

So essentially, a better argument would be that we should be more careful with our use of the word crazy, because it rides the line of ableism and is thus problematic (which I've admitted), but the word itself isn't necessarily ableist in every use.

Sort of. Because of it's cooption by ableism as a weapon word it is an ableist slur. Its regular usage, your intent, people's interpretation, none of that changes it being a slur anymore than regular usage, intent and interpretation for words like f*****t changes whether it's a slur. There are certain contexts wherein you can avoid the slur effect, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a slur. So the word always has ableism issues (and is a slur word) but there are contexts wherein your use of it would not be ableist.

For instance, discussing the word crazy in an academic context (discussing how the word works, history, etc) is not ableist. Yes, it's a slur, but you are using it in a context where the slur effect is negated (there are other contexts where slur effect is negated. Reclamation, mentally ill folk being okay with the standard usage for eccentricity, and a few others too). Using it to describe another human being's behavior in a fairly neutral fashion (when individuals with mental illness can see or are around and are not fully okay with it), as an insult, using it to describe any mental illness, ever, all of those contexts are fully and completely ableist because the word is a slur.

The word overall is problematic (not just in an ableist sense) because it conflates eccentricity with damage, which is a serious goddamn problem and very othering to people who are different. In fact, throwing around words denoting other people as damaged is problematic in general, and edges towards ableism. But that's more a standpoint on the word if it wasn't a slur. If crazy had never gotten turned into a slur, it would be exactly what you said, a word that edges into very bad territory and probably should be replaced to be safe unless in certain contexts.

Quote:

Quote:

But the word sick has not, to my knowledge, been used as a slur. Neither has strange. I have tagged crazy as a problem for the fact that it is used to wound people with disabilities regularly enough in the past and now to become a slur. Which is what makes crazy problematic in and of itself. So you bringing up sick and strange does not establish crazy to be viable as a word because they possess different effects and the effects are what matters.

I think the problem here is one that you've pegged toward me earlier - you're assuming that your experience with the word crazy trumps mine because of a series of assumptions you've made about me.

Funny story: It isn't just me saying that it's a problem. And that's not even including the huge numbers of friends with visible mental illness who have to deal with this slur every day.

This is a slur and your individual experiences do not change this. The community deals with it even if you don't.

Quote:

Quote:

I mean, unless you don't care about hurting marginalized people.

I know emotive language like this is popular in debate, but please, the assumptions about me are getting to border on the ridiculous.

Well hey, when you try to defend your use of a slur with "but I don't want to lose this word" it gives a very bad impression. Get over it.

Quote:

Quote:

Then it wouldn't matter at all. This is not a shot at you either.

"You're an unethical bigot for not agreeing with me, but I'm not taking a shot at you!"

:/

You're only an unethical bigot if you think that keeping a word you like using is more important than marginalized people's needs. You seem convinced it isn't a slur at all, so I guess that's a bit better.

Quote:

Quote:

This is me pointing out that you are giving the impression of ignoring the well being of an entire group of people in favor of using a word you like to have around. It gives off a bad, fairly bigoted vibe.

This is more you being presumptuous and throwing nasty words at me because you don't like that I didn't just agree with you. Seriously? If you continue down this line, I'm going to have to just report you and leave it at that.

I avoided reporting the post that used the word crazy for ableist language but if we're going down this path, I'll be doing so.

You said yourself that you're using the word correctly and why lose a word because of this? Think about how that makes you look. It isn't my fault you gave a bad impression. That is entirely your doing. And you haven't done much to dispel it yet either.

Quote:

No, I didn't agree and still don't completely agree that crazy is necessarily ableist (though I do see your point and I do see that the word is problematic, thus why I offered to find alternatives) and you're construing me as a bigot, unethical, and for the marginalization of groups of people is uncalled for and smacks of trying to distract me and others from the actual discussion here.

Gee, I'm sorry that I called you out for appearing to elevate losing the use of the word crazy over people. You want me to quote the post where you gave the bad impression? Because I can.

you

Fixing that problem doesn't mean removing a useful word from vocabulary, it means telling someone "no, she's not crazy, she has such-and-such disorder."

This right after you just said the word is completely applicable to people with mental illness by its definition and with your whole basis for continuing to use it being "I used it correctly and it's a useful word". So yes, she would still be crazy provided someone used the exact same logic you're using with me. That gave me that impression. I'm glad the impression is wrong but that doesn't mean I shouldn't have called you out on it. I'm not a mind reader, I'm going to base your stance on what you write.

And Gee, I'm sorry I'm distracting from the topic of vampires to call you on ableist actions. I guess calling people out on apparent bigotry or on unintentionally bigoted actions is just too much of a distraction to do.

You want me to actually become nasty? Continue derailing and construing calling people out on -isms or -ism behavior as a "distraction" from other things and I will.

Quote:

Quote:

As an aside, constructing my questioning of your ethics in terms of harming marginalized people as censorship is a fairly common derailing tactic, which also creates a very bad bad impression of you and your intentions.

You misunderstood my usage of the word - which is thoroughly understandable given that censorship is a pretty shitty buzzword. I simply meant the kind of self-censorship that people use all the time for the sake of not being an a*****e.

Oh, that's fine then.

Quote:

For instance, assume for a second that I'm a hobbyist mechanic with a penchant for expensive European cars (not a hard assumption, given the way I've been drooling over this Audi recently...), and thus have used tranny quite often in respect to transmissions - but I've never heard of tranny used as an insult. Someone hears me saying it somewhere and tells me about its other usage. Seeing the harm my naiveté was causing, I tag the word for self-censorship and use transmission in the future.

That is entirely what I've been asking for. The analogy is golden for this situation.

Quote:

You shouldn't be confused. I recognized that you weren't comfortable with the word and offered to find alternatives. I'm still pretty free to disagree with your charge of ableism, especially when your evidence amounted to "I don't like it."

I'm only going to say this one more time. My evidence for it being a slur has nothing to do with whether I personally like it or not (in fact, I used to use crazy quite a lot to describe intense situations, as per American slang, and had to put some serious effort to remove it from my vocabulary when I discovered it was ableist. I still work on that.) My evidence for it being a slur has everything to do with its usage against the mentally ill (something you have freely admitted occurs) and the widespread request by the community to push it out of widespread usage.  

[TeaDidikai]

Teh Bloody Princess

You are simply all trying to disprove this.

Actually, we're demonstrating the complete lack of proof and the clinical evidence that contradicts your position. If you're unable to fathom that objective reality disagrees with your position and are unable to provide evidence for your position, that is more a function of your Willful Ignorance then any action on our part.

This is a Rehabilitation guild. The reason this guild exists is to take individuals who are entrenched in their delusions and help them be critically thinking people.

Quote:

And saying I have a mental disorder is extremly rude.

If you have a mental disorder, which is suggested by your statements, pointing it out is the first step in you getting help.

Quote:

Don't you think I've gone to Doctors for this, read as much as I could?

Nope. I don't think you've gone to a doctor for this. If you had, they would have told you that there is no clinical need for you to consume blood and would have either provided you with information on nutritional supplements and how to balance your diet, or would have referred you to a therapist to help you with your delusion.

Quote:

If there was a pill to get those nutrients I would take it! But no matter how much I try NOTHING is the same.

For some reason I doubt you would.

There are pills that provide nutrients. Hell, a once daily multi-vit works wonders- though having a clinical nutritionist address your specific needs is better, since genetics can play a factor in how one processes such things- and often the generic forms, while containing high levels of various nutrients, do not always contain them in a form that the body can process.

Thankfully, huge amounts of research over the last fifty years or so have yielded combination and forms of various vitamins and minerals that are easily processed. I, for example, can process oyster-shell derived calcium about as well as my car can handle bourbon. Sure, it will get me a few feet down the road, but then it does crap all.

Teh Bloody Princess

I have tried to get the extra nutrients else were and it doesn't help.

Two things:
Either you tried poor quality supplements, or if they are of quality, then you're demonstrating that this really is psychological in nature, not biological.

Quote:

How about you read my post before you smash it?

We did. That is why we pointed out the horrible flaws.

Quote:

I thought this guild was for people who had been trashed for being to nice or not knowing enough and being trashed on for it. Not for jerks.

Flaming people is against the Terms of Service. I'm happy to direct the Guild Crew to this post of yours.

Second, this is a rehabilitation guild. Your posts are being corrected because your assertions are wrong. We're not here to mollycoddle you. Correcting you doesn't make us jerks.

I recommend contacting your local version of Social Health Services. Sometimes they are able to provide people with free psychologist, or maybe able to direct you to someone who works on a sliding scale.  

[Kuroiban]

Teh Bloody Princess

No its generally what you say when your ganged up on for being the only one to say something different.

You're not being ganged up on; your being asked to prove what you say. Sorry if you can't tell the difference.

Teh Bloody Princess

Blood also carries oxygen to oter parts of the body. I know what blood does. I have tried to get the extra nutrients else were and it doesn't help.

Have you seen a therapist about it? Last I knew, modern science considered vampirism and similar behavior a psychological issue, not a physical one.

Teh Bloody Princess

How about you read my post before you smash it?

I thought this guild was for people who had been trashed for being to nice or not knowing enough and being trashed on for it. Not for jerks.

How about you read the introduction to a guild before you join it?

The Guild Front Page

You've found the right place. The Rehab Center is a place for Pagans of all kinds to gather and talk things out, discuss and yes, we argue passionately and challenge assumptions. We are intellectually rigorous, picking apart posts and arguments, so that we can create and strengthen them into something better.

If you want a group that is going to smile and nod at everything you say, no matter what you say, you're at the wrong place.

This guild questions things. It investigates things, it talks them over, it question the reasoning and the evidence behind what is claimed. We're treating you no different then anyone else. Just because we question what you say doesn't mean we're bashing you. If you don't believe me, go to GD or ED and post the same things and see what kind of responses you get.

No one laughed at you. No one made fun of you. No one bashed you. If you can't see that, then vampirism is the least of your problem.  

[CuAnnan]

"Vampirism" is a fetish.
Nothing more nothing less.
When you make it out to be anything other than a fetish, you are delusional. This is not an opinion, it is a statement of fact.
If you believe that your "sanguinarianism" is anything other than a fetish, then you are delusional. You are choosing to ignore objective reality and believe things that are demonstrably false.
You have not been to a doctor about this, if you had there would have been anonymous case studies about your condition. Ask your doctor under what name he published them and by what name he referred to you as.  

[Collowrath]

Recursive Paradox

Which once again, has and can (based on your own previous logic) be used to describe mentally ill folk and is, in slur format. The reason why it is offensive and operates as a slur is largely because of the appropriate usage of it, which carries "damaged, flawed, impaired, unsound" and a variety of other othering attacks regularly applied to people with disabilities. It's highly unsurprising it became a slur for the mentally ill as well because of that mad part in there.

I see.

Quote:

I suppose you didn't read the parts where I expanded on that then.

Sometimes I have trouble parsing your sentences, I'm sorry. I might have missed it.

Quote:

Quote:

My problem was with claiming it was ableist.

Unfortunately, you having a problem with it being ableist doesn't do much to change it from being ableist.

No, but of course if it is and I wasn't aware, it's usually nice to get more than just pointing it out, which is why I responded the way I did. *shrug*

Quote:

Quote:

Also, you still haven't shown that crazy is a slur, aside from you not liking it.

Funny. I seem to recall pointing out its consistent usage against mentally ill people (including myself) and describing how slurs function. How you got, "I just don't like it from that" is something that boggles my mind.

Your highly emotive language on the issue (which is perfectly understandable imho) sometimes makes it difficult for me to get to the meat of the issue. This post has been more helpful.

Quote:

Quote:

There's another operative problem here. Difference and eccentricity (even when not from mental illness) are not necessarily problems, yet crazy is used to construct them as so by many people. This, in and of itself is othering and by virtue of that, ableist.

Why is marking something as different from the mainstream necessarily bad and ableist?

Maybe you should read that definition again. Different is not necessarily bad. Crazy however has a lot of very negative elements in it (damaged, broken, etc). It's like using the word retarded to describe something that is simply slow and then pulling, "well, slow isn't bad you know" when people call you on it.

I see now, thanks.

Quote:

Quote:

Please show that marking something as not like something else, or an established norm, is inherently harmful in every case.

See above for my response to your strawman fallacy.

Just wanted clarification on the last point (it's othering, therefore ableist). *shrug*

Quote:

Quote:

In cases like this, there needs to be an open dialogue about mental illness. Yes, it would be correct through the base definition to refer to someone with a mental illness. But there are better ways to discuss it. For instance, I have an aunt who is bipolar with schizophrenic tendencies (I think there is a different diagnosis for it now). She appears to do irrational, crazy things sometimes because of this. But there is a better way to discuss what's going on than "she's crazy" - she is bipolar, not just eccentric or irrational.

Unfortunately, people are attached to using their words and will offer up the exact same argument you have ("I'm using it correctly, what's your problem?").

*shrug* For me, not so much attachment as it was new and didn't quite mesh with my own experience. I see the problem now though, thanks.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Besides, do you have mental illness?

As much as this might help the discussion, I'm really not comfortable discussing it. :/

That's fine. We'll step away from that angle then. Whether you have one or not, your experiences of a slur use do not match everyone else's and simply are not usable as a means to dismiss the idea that something is a slur.

Thanks.

Quote:

Quote:

I simply stated that I hadn't really seen it used as a slur so much in explanation of my reaction to your claims. That is all.

So, why exactly are you continuing to exhibit this reaction now that you experiences have been shown to not match what others have and been told that your experiences don't change whether it's a slur?

Because if something wasn't making sense, I'd like for it to come together and make sense.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Anyone could easily use your logic to describe the disorder as the problem that causes the eccentricity. So such a counter argument would be completely ineffective. And the word has redundancy with eccentric and strange in a sentence. It isn't like you lose the ability to describe a given concept by dropping the word, but what does disappear is the othering effect of crazy. Not a big loss.

I'm having trouble digging meaning out of this. sad

The word crazy interlaces eccentricity and difference with being broken and damaged. It is a problematic word to begin with because it others eccentric and different people. It is also a slur for mentally ill people. Eliminating it and merely referring to someone as eccentric means you are no longer equating their eccentricity to being broken and no longer using a slur. I don't see that as a huge loss.

It's not really - thanks for the clarifications.

What could we do to prevent the word eccentric, itself referring to differences, from becoming a slur in the same way crazy has? Or are we gonna be stuck in a perpetual cycle of ableism in the same way the word can't seem to get over racism (on a whole)? (which I don't mean to make the whole thing seem trivial - on the contrary, that would make it more important to be informed and aware, imo)

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

More likely, strange is used as an attack word for multiple -isms, which tends to make it not function as a slur.

Really? So ****** isn't a slur because it's used in compound words to refer to different groups of people? :/

Each one would be a separate slur. Not the same slur. Is strange used in compound words to slur multiple groups of people? If so, you have an argument. If not, then you don't.

I see.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Marking something as an other for perceived difference (illness and irrationality especially) is problematic in and of itself (and often moves towards ableism).

So essentially, a better argument would be that we should be more careful with our use of the word crazy, because it rides the line of ableism and is thus problematic (which I've admitted), but the word itself isn't necessarily ableist in every use.

Sort of. Because of it's cooption by ableism as a weapon word it is an ableist slur. Its regular usage, your intent, people's interpretation, none of that changes it being a slur anymore than regular usage, intent and interpretation for words like f*****t changes whether it's a slur. There are certain contexts wherein you can avoid the slur effect, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a slur. So the word always has ableism issues (and is a slur word) but there are contexts wherein your use of it would not be ableist.

For instance, discussing the word crazy in an academic context (discussing how the word works, history, etc) is not ableist. Yes, it's a slur, but you are using it in a context where the slur effect is negated (there are other contexts where slur effect is negated. Reclamation, mentally ill folk being okay with the standard usage for eccentricity, and a few others too). Using it to describe another human being's behavior in a fairly neutral fashion (when individuals with mental illness can see or are around and are not fully okay with it), as an insult, using it to describe any mental illness, ever, all of those contexts are fully and completely ableist because the word is a slur.

The word overall is problematic (not just in an ableist sense) because it conflates eccentricity with damage, which is a serious goddamn problem and very othering to people who are different. In fact, throwing around words denoting other people as damaged is problematic in general, and edges towards ableism. But that's more a standpoint on the word if it wasn't a slur. If crazy had never gotten turned into a slur, it would be exactly what you said, a word that edges into very bad territory and probably should be replaced to be safe unless in certain contexts.

I see now, thanks.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

But the word sick has not, to my knowledge, been used as a slur. Neither has strange. I have tagged crazy as a problem for the fact that it is used to wound people with disabilities regularly enough in the past and now to become a slur. Which is what makes crazy problematic in and of itself. So you bringing up sick and strange does not establish crazy to be viable as a word because they possess different effects and the effects are what matters.

I think the problem here is one that you've pegged toward me earlier - you're assuming that your experience with the word crazy trumps mine because of a series of assumptions you've made about me.

Funny story: It isn't just me saying that it's a problem. And that's not even including the huge numbers of friends with visible mental illness who have to deal with this slur every day.

This is a slur and your individual experiences do not change this. The community deals with it even if you don't.

Thanks, the links help. In the future, I will remember to ask for links into the community for further information.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

This is me pointing out that you are giving the impression of ignoring the well being of an entire group of people in favor of using a word you like to have around. It gives off a bad, fairly bigoted vibe.

This is more you being presumptuous and throwing nasty words at me because you don't like that I didn't just agree with you. Seriously? If you continue down this line, I'm going to have to just report you and leave it at that.

I avoided reporting the post that used the word crazy for ableist language but if we're going down this path, I'll be doing so.

If you think it's fair to.

Quote:

You said yourself that you're using the word correctly and why lose a word because of this? Think about how that makes you look. It isn't my fault you gave a bad impression. That is entirely your doing. And you haven't done much to dispel it yet either.

*shrug* It's not my fault that you took a line of questioning based on my clearly not understanding and used it to presume things about my character, and then proceed to repeatedly smear me in your post. It's not helpful toward understanding or making your point. However, it is my problem because I'm to one that would have to deal with the consequences of being pegged a bigot, etc, despite it being more that I just didn't agree with you on the particular issue at hand.

Either way, I think it was presumptuous and premature to jump to those conclusions.

Quote:

This right after you just said the word is completely applicable to people with mental illness by its definition and with your whole basis for continuing to use it being "I used it correctly and it's a useful word". So yes, she would still be crazy provided someone used the exact same logic you're using with me. That gave me that impression. I'm glad the impression is wrong but that doesn't mean I shouldn't have called you out on it. I'm not a mind reader, I'm going to base your stance on what you write.

I see. Thanks for pointing it out.

Quote:

And Gee, I'm sorry I'm distracting from the topic of vampires to call you on ableist actions. I guess calling people out on apparent bigotry or on unintentionally bigoted actions is just too much of a distraction to do.

Again, this isn't what I meant, I'm sorry if I was vague. I meant that it seemed as though you were trying to distract from the conversation we're having by insulting me. Your "calling me out" was premature and presumptuous.

Quote:

Quote:

For instance, assume for a second that I'm a hobbyist mechanic with a penchant for expensive European cars (not a hard assumption, given the way I've been drooling over this Audi recently...), and thus have used tranny quite often in respect to transmissions - but I've never heard of tranny used as an insult. Someone hears me saying it somewhere and tells me about its other usage. Seeing the harm my naiveté was causing, I tag the word for self-censorship and use transmission in the future.

That is entirely what I've been asking for. The analogy is golden for this situation.

This is probably one of the more clarifying things in the exchange, along with the links. Thanks.  

[Synnthetika]

celticfireguardian

Sophist

celticfireguardian

Recursive Paradox

celticfireguardian

...there are people who crave blood. It is some sort of mental thing, or in some cases they have like anemia and need the iron and so they crave it.

Anemia doesn't make you crave blood. That's ridiculous.

For the misinformed:
The Science of Vampires an article, and it references a great book that I have read.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,577037,00.html

That article does not support the idea that iron-deficiency or anemia makes you crave blood. The article says it makes people crave iron-rich foods, like a bloody steak or spinach.

Like I said, they need the iron and it says that if you have anemia it makes you want that sort of thing

Anemia = condition in which the body does not have enough healthy red blood cells. Red blood cells provide oxygen to body tissues.

Hemoglobin is the oxygen-carrying protein inside red blood cells. It gives red blood cells their red color. People with anemia do not have enough hemoglobin. (Mayo Clinic)

The problem with anemia as to why it causes bad symptoms is because the hemoglobin is decreasing, with or without the red blood cells themselves decreasing. The low-iron levels arise from that fact that when the red blood cell reaches the end of its life cycle, the hemoglobin is recycled and the iron is released. Well, if hemoglobin protein is not being made, then it can't be recycled, and there's not enough iron to make more hemoglobin, etc.

Thus, if you consume more iron, you will help produce more hemoglobin. However, this article, I find, is inaccurate because spinach has little to no usable iron. You can find this out by opening any beginner level Nutrition book and while blood steak might help, the best sources of iron include: liver (and other meat), and kidney beans. Also, good old Vitamin C helps the absorption rate of iron, so just eat some meat and drink some vitamin C. Plus, if you have a cast iron skillet, cook your non-heme (like kidney beans) in that, and that too helps the absorption rate of iron!

There's no logical reason why someone would crave human blood, even in diseases like porphyria.  

[Shadow Queen79]

Synnthetika

celticfireguardian

Sophist

celticfireguardian

Recursive Paradox

celticfireguardian

...there are people who crave blood. It is some sort of mental thing, or in some cases they have like anemia and need the iron and so they crave it.

Anemia doesn't make you crave blood. That's ridiculous.

For the misinformed:
The Science of Vampires an article, and it references a great book that I have read.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,577037,00.html

That article does not support the idea that iron-deficiency or anemia makes you crave blood. The article says it makes people crave iron-rich foods, like a bloody steak or spinach.

Like I said, they need the iron and it says that if you have anemia it makes you want that sort of thing

Anemia = condition in which the body does not have enough healthy red blood cells. Red blood cells provide oxygen to body tissues.

Hemoglobin is the oxygen-carrying protein inside red blood cells. It gives red blood cells their red color. People with anemia do not have enough hemoglobin. (Mayo Clinic)

The problem with anemia as to why it causes bad symptoms is because the hemoglobin is decreasing, with or without the red blood cells themselves decreasing. The low-iron levels arise from that fact that when the red blood cell reaches the end of its life cycle, the hemoglobin is recycled and the iron is released. Well, if hemoglobin protein is not being made, then it can't be recycled, and there's not enough iron to make more hemoglobin, etc.

Thus, if you consume more iron, you will help produce more hemoglobin. However, this article, I find, is inaccurate because spinach has little to no usable iron. You can find this out by opening any beginner level Nutrition book and while blood steak might help, the best sources of iron include: liver (and other meat), and kidney beans. Also, good old Vitamin C helps the absorption rate of iron, so just eat some meat and drink some vitamin C. Plus, if you have a cast iron skillet, cook your non-heme (like kidney beans) in that, and that too helps the absorption rate of iron!

There's no logical reason why someone would crave human blood, even in diseases like porphyria.

It may not be logical, but it's sort of like how a serial killer wants to eat other humans. It's some sort of disorder somewhere in the brain.  

[TeaDidikai]

lioness of midnight

It may not be logical, but it's sort of like how a serial killer wants to eat other humans. It's some sort of disorder somewhere in the brain.

HOSHIT! Who knew that Serial Killer = Cannibal!?

Oh wait. It doesn't.

And here's the crux of the situation. If someone has a psychological disease, they need to be treated, that isn't a justification, especially when their behavior can put others at risk.