The responses you’ve received have primarily been towards your attempt to create a fictional context for it in which the usage wasn’t sexist trash.
The initial usage didn’t bother so much as the lack of self-awareness and clinging to regressive patterns because they’re more comfortable than actual critical thinking.
Anyway, enough dead horse beating.
“attention sponge” ?
Exactly! The difficulty behind finding other terms that mean the same thing is because the denigration is so powerful.
I still need to remind myself that “idiot”, “dummy”, and “retard” deserve alternate approaches.
“Spunge” is an offensive term. We prefer the term “Porifera Americans.”
I guess I’m saying that I am baffled by people’s insistence on holding onto old terms after they’ve been told the terms are considered offensive. As if there is something super important about using a particular word that outweighs offending people (or that outweighs anything at all). When you look at historical changes in the way that people referred to people with developmental disabilities you might wonder whether there was really any point in changing a term like “moron” to a term like “idiot” or vice versa. What’s the point in going from A to B to C?
I don’t think that’s what’s happening, though. “Person with a developmental disability” is a far better term than “moron” because it is a bland, objective description that is pretty hard to attach negative connotations to (unless the speaker intends to admit bias against that group). Similarly, while “whore” imports centuries of negative attitudes towards people who exchange sex for money, “Sex worker” is comparatively neutral. It’s not three card monte, it’s a refinement of terms to be more accurate, convey more information, and convey less misinformation.
Even if someone doesn’t buy that I still don’t get what the objection is. It appears that some people regard it as too great a burden to bear.
I thought you asked very reasonably for clarification and the resulting discussion was good. It can be hard to convey appropriate context on an internet forum, so people get annoyed, but I think your “Oh, is that offensive? I will stop using the phrase, but could you help me understand better?” approach was super.
It’s a work in progress for all of us.
You still have a liver? This study has to start ASAP!!
Who is the “you” in that sentence? I’m having an interesting dialogue about the word’s derivation? I am not using the word, nor have I directed that word at anyone.
I’m looking forward to that. A year or so ago I had a cold, and I turned on my own surveillance cameras, and it went away in a week. With their stuff, the NSA could probably have blown it away in a few hours!
Won’t somebody think about the antivaxer’s privacy?!
Pearl clutch! Gasp!
Fine. Don’t come crying to my door if you’re ever spied upon because you’re wrong about something.
Entirely my mistake.
Sub “you” with “the regular users of that phrase” for greater accuracy.
He is a tosser.
Dr Steve Novella is one of the hosts of The Skeptics Guide to the Universe podcast. I remember this whole thing clearly. They suspected it was all in her head for a while before it came out.
@anon50609448 explained it about as concisely as I think is humanly possible.
I’d say read that post one more time, form a view on whether you think it’s acceptable, and move on with your life!
Edit: Oh wow, I should have kept reading the thread… that escalated quickly!
Never apologise to a pedant for feeding then a mistake to correct. You’re doing them a favour.
Really? We can’t use the term “attention whore” any more?
That’s it. I’m voting for Trump.
Well, I think the point is that people can use any terms they want to use. I avoid using the word “whore” as an insult (or at all) because I don’t want to use it. I don’t want to use it because it implies that sex work (and, fundamentally sex itself) is degrading.
So I recommend we swap to “attention hairdresser”. After all, hairdressers are totally willing to sell their time and the use of their bodies for money. And who would go to a hairdresser? Everyone has a friend with a pair of scissors, so only losers would have to use their services. So the phrase indicates someone with the willingness to do anything in a base desire for money - even cut and touch other people’s hair.
She’s not “wrong about something”
She’s staging an elaborate hoax with the purpose of spreading a pseudoscientific agenda that gets babies and the medically frail killed.
F her
At some point though, I have to think that whether it’s an intentional hoax or some kind of psychosomatic disorder, fundamentally she’s got serious mental problems and deserves more pity than scorn.
But, until they observed her, they had no proof that she was “staging an elaborate hoax with the purpose of spreading a pseudoscientific agenda that gets babies and the medically frail killed.”
As I’ve said previously, I have no problems with what they did, if they just surveilled her in public. However, had they gone into her house, planted cameras, and watched her using hidden cameras for weeks or months in her own home, that would have been crossing the line, regardless of any proof they might have obtained by doing so.
