Steel Cage Forums: A Wrestling Forum That Won't Make You Sick And Kill You

[Hard Hit Prince]

I love you.

He doesn't need that!

 

[Nate DaMac]

Just so we're all clear, Wrestlingmasters is a fucking ******.

 

[Nate DaMac]

THT I feel like you're a little bit autistic

Also, I nominate this guy to be Sly's replacement.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

Could I have done things differently? Yeah. I didn't have to respond to Rob Taylor's indirect comment about my choice of words, just like he didn't have to try to white knight for someone else.

I'm not angling to get my spot back, what's done is done, but it has become clear that Rob Taylor didn't do this out of the kindness of his heart. He had an agenda. He claims he wants disabled people to be treated as equals, but then says I should have reported my own disability to Sly. Why? Am I supposed to wear a pin? One that says "Hi, I'm different." Should my user title read "Disabled: Please treat accordingly." Doesn't seem like that is equal treatment. It seems that it is being insinuated that my disability would have prevented me from doing my job here. Who knows, maybe it did. Maybe I'm the one who is fucking ******ed.

I'm not sure what his end game was. I could list plenty of reasons as to why I think he did it, but it will change nothing. He has shown his true colors, made this entire situation about himself, proven to be a liar and a hypocrite, and went on a crusade. In the end, he won, but ask yourself, at what cost?

Just because I am disabled, doesn't mean I owe it to myself or anyone to go above and beyond for others who are disabled. If I choose to do something, great. If I choose to focus on myself, I'm not automatically an awful person. No one here knows me that well outside the forums. Some of you I am lucky enough to call friends and interact with on Facebook or online gaming communities or other services, but I'm the only person here who knows what goes on in my day to life, who knows what type of person I am and how I treat people I meet. I've fully admitted to be an asshole on the internet. It isn't a good thing, and admitting it doesn't automatically make it better, but I can separate an angry remark made on the internet from a person's real life actions.

In the end, my life will go on with or without WrestleZone. I don't need to talk about how valuable I was here anymore. I don't need to flaunt my real life accomplishments here. I will simply continue to be Yaz, just without the bold name. I'll eventually find something else to fill that void in my life that modding here filled. I don't need fake sympathy from someone who thinks they know me. I don't need hollow words from someone with a clear agenda.

Also, considering this started as an issue between myself and wrestlingmaster, if wrestlingmaster wants me to apologize, I will consider it. i will have a civil discussion if he wishes it. If he is satisfied someone else was outraged for him, so be it. He knows how to PM me. I already sent him a PM before all this went down, saying that he could address any issues he had with me Sly or KB, provided him links to both profiles, and told him I would lay off for a few days until he got his complaint sorted. All of that was never brought up because of the faux outrage, agendas, and rash decisions. Since it has become about much more, I'm sorry my choice of words caused it all.

Until such time as this blows over or the forum shuts down, I will likely just stick to the WZCW section. I've caused enough trouble elsewhere. I invite wrestlingmaster to chat with me if he feels so include and I give my word I will remain civil. I also invite Rob Taylor to kiss every square inch of my fat ass.

A shame... There's more I can say but not doing it this publicly.. do as you do round the forums.... if you change too much you lose... but tempering the choice of words, especially around disability which you have? small change to make.

 

[BaconBits]

A shame... There's more I can say but not doing it this publicly.. do as you do round the forums.... if you change too much you lose... but tempering the choice of words, especially around disability which you have? small change to make.

Grow. The. Fuck. Up.

 

[future admin]

Also, I nominate this guy to be Sly's replacement.

'preciated

 

[Slyfox696]

A shame... There's more I can say but not doing it this publicly.. do as you do round the forums.... if you change too much you lose... but tempering the choice of words, especially around disability which you have? small change to make.

Are you just not going to address the fact you're a blatant liar?

 

[ScreaminNormanSmiley]

A shame... There's more I can say but not doing it this publicly.. do as you do round the forums.... if you change too much you lose... but tempering the choice of words, especially around disability which you have? small change to make.

Christ, you are a two faced little prick. If only your accident was a little worse the world would be a better place.

 

[Shocky]

I’m just wondering who the whiny little bitch is? Oh and fuck Crave or whatever shitshow owns this place anymore.

 

[Shocky]

Ahhh, so Rob Taylor is the whiny little bitch.

 

[Gelgarin]

But the meaning hasn't changed. The meaning still remains what it is. Even if you want to say the word has taken on additional meaning, it doesn't change the fact the original meaning remains.

THAT'S how languages work. You don't get to arbitrarily cast aside definitions of words just because they are inconvenient to the narrative you wish to present.

Right. I was getting shirty enough about this line of discourse, but now you're getting into linguistics, so there's no way in fuck I'm reading any further without mouthing off. I'm skipping like, 10 pages, so if we've already been over this then skim away.

"******" is a slur, and anyone denying this does indeed lack a foundational understanding of how language works. Sorry Sly, but you're wide of the mark here.

I put "******" through some elementary corpus linguistic analysis using the COCA (Corpus of Contemporary America English - basically a database of 500-million words of authentic language) and, when used as a noun, the overwhelming majority of uses were using the word as, or referencing the word as, a slur. We're talking, like, 90% conformity, and the COCA is notoriously biased against slang. If you are trying to use a word to mean something other than what society understands it to mean, in a context where it can be easily confused for what society understands it to mean, then the problem is with your abilities as a communicator, not with how anybody else responds to it.

Clinging to an outdated definition on the grounds of it being "official" or "intended" is an illogical distortion even if it was done in sincerity, rather than as an act of semantic pedantry to allow you to be right. Personally, I have my doubts.

It's the same line of logic used by nine-year-olds to explain why negatively describing things as "gay" is wholly inoffensive, and it's the same line the Westboro Baptist Church trot out to defend their fixation with the word "***". Their website happily informs us that what the word really means is a bundle of sticks, or something, so it's all OK. Except of course its not, because language is a tool for communication, and you don't get to decide in isolation that words mean whatever suits your purpose.

"******", as a noun, is a term of abuse intended to refer to, or offensively compare others to, those with mental handicaps or disabilities. I don't have any opinions on it's appropriateness for use on an on-line wrestling forum (actually, I have strong and complex opinions matched only by my low expectations of how much anyone gives a shit) or how monumentally shitty Crave have been, or much else going down. 10:1 I agree with whatever Sam and Tasty had to say. But if forum drama is going to get derailed down a semantic rabbit hole, then we're going to get the foundations of what words mean correct.

 

[Slyfox696]

I put "******" through some elementary corpus linguistic analysis using the COCA (Corpus of Contemporary America English - basically a database of 500-million words of authentic language) and, when used as a noun, the overwhelming majority of uses were using the word as, or referencing the word as, a slur. We're talking, like, 90% conformity, and the COCA is notoriously biased against slang. If you are trying to use a word to mean something other than what society understands it to mean, in a context where it can be easily confused for what society understands it to mean, then the problem is with your abilities as a communicator, not with how anybody else responds to it.

What was it you said earlier?

I'm skipping like, 10 pages, so if we've already been over this then skim away.

As I said, I understand it is used in an insulting manner, but the manner it is used is consistent with its definition. Unlike some other slurs, which exist solely as slurs, if I say "you're ******ed" because you refuse to grasp basic logic, then I'm insulting you within the correct definition of the word.

Clinging to an outdated definition on the grounds of it being "official" or "intended"

It's not outdated in the least, no more than saying "cool" refers to something both considered socially acceptable or a temperature.

It's the same line of logic used by nine-year-olds to explain why negatively describing things as "gay" is wholly inoffensive, and it's the same line the Westboro Baptist Church trot out to defend their fixation with the word "***".

False, because when you use those words you are NOT using those words in their intended definition. If you do something I disapprove of and I call you "gay" for it, then I'm not saying you're happy, I'm saying you're bad, using the word outside of its official definition.

Their website happily informs us that what the word really means is a bundle of sticks, or something, so it's all OK.

If you call someone a "***", you're not calling them a bundle of sticks.

Do you see where you've gone wrong here?

 

[Gelgarin]

You keep talking about "correct" and "official" definitions, and I don't know where your getting the idea from.

Dictionaries, if that's where you're coming from, don't decide or dictate what words mean. They are a descriptive, not a proscriptive resource. There is no "official" meaning to a word - it means what people, as a collective, understand it to mean.

To take your example; "Cool" is a very clear homonym. A random sample corpus analysis shows about a 35:65 split in usage between description of temperate and general quality, which is heavily warped by the anti-slang bias present in most corpora as I mentioned earlier. Elementary analysis or, if playing with linguistic databases doesn't get you hard, basic common sense, tells everyone that its a word with multiple accepted and understood meanings.

The same is not said for "******". More technically it is, since it's also a verb which shares few to none of the negative connotations, but as a noun it's pretty singular. The word is only used (outside of discussions of the language itself) as an item with negative prosody. This imaginary neutral and "official" meaning you keep referring to does not exist within contemporary parlance.

If you publicly call someone a ****** then it is a disparaging slur, and will be taken as such.

As I said, I understand it is used in an insulting manner, but the manner it is used is consistent with its definition. Unlike some other slurs, which exist solely as slurs, if I say "you're ******ed" because you refuse to grasp basic logic, then I'm insulting you within the correct definition of the word.

"******" and "******" are insulting someone within the "correct" definitions of the word. That has no baring on the appropriately of the remark.

 

[Papa Pillman]

Not to needlessly add on, as I have no intention of playing this game on this site, but you can make all of the ridiculous semantic arguments that you want, "******" is an ableist slur, and its AS BAD AS any slur you can dream up. And you're either clueless, stuck in the 90s or earlier, or an unrepentant dick to use it as an insult in 2018. Hell, while I self-crit myself occasionally for using them in casual conversation, you won't catch me calling people "dumb" or "stupid" etc. in written text anymore either as they're also ableist slurs. The justification for calling people problematic shit in this thread has gone over-the-top, and frankly the follow-up thread about what "guidelines" are acceptable is gross, and people participating in it as if its funny should have their face dented in.

He surely probably doesn't want, and clearly doesn't need, my support; but what Gelgarin is saying is 100% on point.

 

[Gelgarin]

Not to needlessly add on, as I have no intention of playing this game on this site, but you can make all of the ridiculous semantic arguments that you want, "******" is an ableist slur, and its AS BAD AS any slur you can dream up. And you're either clueless, stuck in the 90s or earlier, or an unrepentant dick to use it as an insult in 2018. Hell, while I self-crit myself occasionally for using them in casual conversation, you won't catch me calling people "dumb" or "stupid" etc. in written text anymore either as they're also ableist slurs. The justification for calling people problematic shit in this thread has gone over-the-top, and frankly the follow-up thread about what "guidelines" are acceptable is gross, and people participating in it as if its funny should have their face dented in.

He surely probably doesn't want, and clearly doesn't need, my support; but what Gelgarin is saying is 100% on point.

Public aggrandisement is literally the only reason I write anything.

Though for the record, I actually think that there is slightly more nuance to the issue of the word's appropriately in a place like this. Don't get me wrong, it's a totally shitty thing to say, and I feel pretty bad about the times I've done so myself, but so is... I dunno... "fuck off, you fuck", and we're pretty accepting of that around here.

In any kind of subculture you have a certain latitude to re-codify or even re-define language and its acceptability. The classic examples are slur reclamation in minority communities, or the varying prosody of a formally wholly derogatory expression like "****" depending on precisely who is talking to whom. For a more down to earth example, I would be quite happy calling my friends "fucking idiots" because in our social group we've subconsciously agreed that "fucking" is just an expression used for humorous emphasis rather than a vulgarity, and that idiot is not a notably offensive expression. However; I would never dream of using such an expression at work or with strangers, because the standards of my social circle do not reflect the mainstream consensus.

And that's very much the crux of the issue. You can make Wrestlezone a place where calling people "******ed" is acceptable. I certainly don't think you should, but I come here once every six months, so I probably don't get a vote. That's up to the community as a whole to find a point of consensus on. What you can't do is then act surprised or aggrieved when people enter this public space and take exception to your use of slurs and abuse and treat them as slurs and abuse because... you know... they're slurs and abuse.

 

[ABMorales787]

We've reached a point were referring to someone as "stupid" or "dumb" is considered offensive.

I'd say we should update our rules, but oh wait. If somebody just happened to crave on the idea of discussion rule updates in this house, man. That would be so swell.

Also I want my ******ed, stupid ass Forum File prize. I won it. I want it.

 

[Papa Pillman]

We've reached a point were referring to someone as "stupid" or "dumb" is considered offensive.

To be clear, I don't expect everyone to follow the same rigid guidelines of respectful language that I have adopted to impose upon myself; however, expecting most people here(there are certain people here I expect to be pieces of shit) to be able to avoid objective slurs, of which "******" is a prime example, I don't think is a lot to ask considering the relatively high intellect of this board.

 

[ABMorales787]

To be clear, I don't expect everyone to follow the same rigid guidelines of respectful language that I have adopted to impose upon myself; however, expecting most people here(there are certain people here I expect to be pieces of shit) to be able to avoid objective slurs, of which "******" is a prime example, I don't think is a lot to ask considering the relatively high intellect of this board.

*looks at your sig*

 

[Slyfox696]

You keep talking about "correct" and "official" definitions, and I don't know where your getting the idea from.

My apologies, I should be saying "dictionary definition".

Dictionaries, if that's where you're coming from, don't decide or dictate what words mean.

They are a recognized authority of meaning of words. Certainly there are examples of words having meanings not included in the dictionary, but society generally accepts a dictionary's definition of a word.

The same is not said for "******". More technically it is, since it's also a verb which shares few to none of the negative connotations, but as a noun it's pretty singular. The word is only used (outside of discussions of the language itself) as an item with negative prosody.

Well that is just patently false. If you have a mental disability and I say you are mentally ******ed, I'm using the word exactly as it is defined in the dictionary.

If there is a negative stigma attached to it (and I agree there is), it is ONLY because society has arbitrarily decided it be so, but such an arbitrary decision of the collective, no matter how widely recognized, still doesn't negate the OTHER recognized uses of the word.

If you publicly call someone a ****** then it is a disparaging slur, and will be taken as such.

If you refuse to understand logic and I call you ******ed, I am quite literally using the word as it is defined. As I said in my last post, I'm not saying it is not an insult, but simply being an insult has no bearing on whether the word is being used appropriately.

"******" and "******" are insulting someone within the "correct" definitions of the word.

This is false, these words are pejorative and, using them in the way you're discussing, has always been intended as such and do not fit any other accepted definition of the word.

****** is not the same. 30 years ago, if I were to say I work with the mentally ******ed, it would have been understood I'm working with those whose cognitive development processes are slower than what is considered normal. And if I were to call you ******ed now, it would share the same characteristics as it did 30 years ago.

That has no baring on the appropriately of the remark.

As I said, I'm not saying I condone nor am I denying it is used as an insult. All I am saying, and have said, is that when it is used as an insult, it is being used within the general framework of the accepted definition of the word.

"******" is an ableist slur, and its AS BAD AS any slur you can dream up. And you're either clueless, stuck in the 90s or earlier, or an unrepentant dick to use it as an insult in 2018. Hell, while I self-crit myself occasionally for using them in casual conversation, you won't catch me calling people "dumb" or "stupid" etc. in written text anymore either as they're also ableist slurs. The justification for calling people problematic shit in this thread has gone over-the-top, and frankly the follow-up thread about what "guidelines" are acceptable is gross, and people participating in it as if its funny should have their face dented in.

He surely probably doesn't want, and clearly doesn't need, my support; but what Gelgarin is saying is 100% on point.

Your sig has the word "dummy" in it, a variation of the word "dumb", a word whose origin stems from those who suffer from the disability of being unable to speak.

Hypocrite much? But let me guess...that's "different", right?

To be clear, I don't expect everyone to follow the same rigid guidelines of respectful language that I have adopted to impose upon myself;

Like calling women "ho's" as you have done in your user title?

 

[Papa Pillman]

*looks at your sig*

Right. And I've read a million problematic statements here, and made a hundred others. And I'd never think about reporting one, especially from a high quality poster like Yaz who I respect. But in a conversation of the nuance of language usage, it seems rather dated and reactionary to die on the hill of "******" as a defensible term.

 

[Slyfox696]

Right. And I've read a million problematic statements here, and made a hundred others. And I'd never think about reporting one, especially from a high quality poster like Yaz who I respect. But in a conversation of the nuance of language usage, it seems rather dated and reactionary to die on the hill of "******" as a defensible term.

No one has died on that hill that I'm aware of.

 

[ABMorales787]

Right. And I've read a million problematic statements here, and made a hundred others. And I'd never think about reporting one, especially from a high quality poster like Yaz who I respect. But in a conversation of the nuance of language usage, it seems rather dated and reactionary to die on the hill of "******" as a defensible term.

Who's dying on the hill? You know, besides Rob Taylor who's trying not to fall off it. No one here is trying to defend it as an acceptable word to use it. It's a matter of whether the term is inappropriate enough to warrant the undiscussed dismissing of two staff members here without a single ounce of communication to find out what went down, why, etc. And guess what. It's not an inappropriate word in the terms of the rules slated for this forum. This entire redundant argument over how bad the word is just constantly continues to miss the Goddamn, stupid, dumb, ******ed point.

Instead of coming in to revise the rules or telling us what to do, Crave fired the guy in this place who could change them without bothering to ask him to and then fucked off. Leaving us with hundreds of posts of the guy who clearly did this for more than just "noble causes" to frantically avoid criticism and not fall off his tumbling pedestal.

 

[Papa Pillman]

No one has died on that hill that I'm aware of.

Here lies Sly, he loved him some semantics. That would be on the tombstone, except I guess I'm wrong about you dying on this hill.

 

[Slyfox696]

Here lies Sly, he loved him some semantics. That would be on the tombstone, except I guess I'm wrong about you dying on this hill.

So...you said something which was either wrong or nonsensical and somehow that's my fault?

Also, you complaining about someone discussing semantics in the midst of a discussion which is almost entirely semantic in nature is rather humorous. The fact is no one has died on this hill, we're just engaging in a discussion over the meaning/usage of a word.

 

[Papa Pillman]

Who's dying on the hill? You know, besides Rob Taylor who's trying not to fall off it. No one here is trying to defend it as an acceptable word to use it. It's a matter of whether the term is inappropriate enough to warrant the undiscussed dismissing of two staff members here without a single ounce of communication to find out what went down, why, etc. And guess what. It's not an inappropriate word in the terms of the rules slated for this forum. This entire redundant argument over how bad the word is just constantly continues to miss the Goddamn, stupid, dumb, ******ed point.

Instead of coming in to revise the rules or telling us what to do, Crave fired the guy in this place who could change them without bothering to ask him to and then fucked off. Leaving us with hundreds of posts of the guy who clearly did this for more than just "noble causes" to frantically avoid criticism and not fall off his tumbling pedestal.

You're 100% right here KJ. This was all handled in a curious and overdone manner, and definitely shouldn't have played out toward Sly or Yaz in the way that it did. My only real issue is the defense I've seen of the term(which should be indefensible once its been brought up as issue, even in an environment where I and others have been conditioned to look the other way) which caused the issue, and the way that its been played for jokes since.