Red Mosquito

BurtReynolds wrote:

VinylGuy wrote:Burt , language is always changing. Don’t feel so stressed about it.

I swear to God I'm not going to repeat myself. I've already replied several times to this.

34610 posts.

BurtReynolds wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:a "prostitute" is someone who has no agency in what she's doing; a "sex worker" has full control, is safe and able to assert boundaries

Fiction! I'm not going to check in with you, the self appointed authority on what words mean, every time I need to say something. I'll use the commonly accepted ones.

our social circles are very different; your social circle "commonly accepts" words that mine does not, and vice versa

And?

and context affects meaning

And?

and, sometimes the dismissal of others' choice of language sends the message "I don't give a shit about your social context"

You can take whatever message you want. It's got nothing to do with me.

oh, can I? really? you're finally giving me permission to use my experience and my social context to interpret the way you communicate? we're finally getting somewhere

..

.

Mickey wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

VinylGuy wrote:Burt , language is always changing. Don’t feel so stressed about it.

I swear to God I'm not going to repeat myself. I've already replied several times to this.

34610 posts.

Isn't this type of post-modern nonsense your area of expertise? Help us out!

BurtReynolds wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:a "prostitute" is someone who has no agency in what she's doing; a "sex worker" has full control, is safe and able to assert boundaries

Fiction! I'm not going to check in with you, the self appointed authority on what words mean, every time I need to say something. I'll use the commonly accepted ones.

our social circles are very different; your social circle "commonly accepts" words that mine does not, and vice versa

And?

and context affects meaning

And?

and, sometimes the dismissal of others' choice of language sends the message "I don't give a shit about your social context"

You can take whatever message you want. It's got nothing to do with me.

oh, can I? really? you're finally giving me permission to use my experience and my social context to interpret the way you communicate? we're finally getting somewhere

Lol yes that was always allowed!

I thought you believed I was psychic but all along you just didn't care about my social context? woah

.

.

.

just throw a "you're crazy and making no sense" into the conversation and the ball is back in your court

Ms Harmless wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:Careful Harmless, you're about a hair width away from justifying the term "MAP" here.

abuse isn't a right, and that includes paedophiles and incels

but nice job equating sex work with abuse

Sex work is abusive because the parties involved cannot truly consent when options are fuck or starve. That was the point of #MeToo. The original tweet and many of the replies in the chain seemed to imply that somehow sex work is the one thing where increasing the supply with not follow the same economic laws everything else does and create price competition in the market, but that's simply untrue and to take your example if you look back at the reactions of sex workers to OnlyFans when that d-grade actress joined and made like a million dollars the first day, you'll see the reality of it. It's not going to be the Bunny Ranch with 401k's, it's going to be high school seniors behind Applebees trading blowjobs for gas money and don't act like that isn't exactly what the Harvey Weinsteins and Jeffrey Epsteins of the world want. They want to convince vulnerable people that selling sex is no different than flipping burgers, not because it might help with stigma or shame, but because it makes it easier for them to buy it.


But in the post above, in context, you were saying not to use the word 'prostitute' and use 'sex worker' instead because of how it makes that in-group feel. Same underlying meaning, but a shift in vocabulary to remove a term that was in the past used for hate. Ok, fine. I'm just not sure that is meaningfully different than a 'pedophile' demanding to be called a 'Minor Attracted Person' for the same reason.

.

Bi_3 wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:Careful Harmless, you're about a hair width away from justifying the term "MAP" here.

abuse isn't a right, and that includes paedophiles and incels

but nice job equating sex work with abuse

Sex work is abusive because the parties involved cannot truly consent when options are fuck or starve. That was the point of #MeToo.

#MeToo was not anti-sex work, I have no idea how to make you understand that

#MeToo was about holding rapists accountable

ALL work is abusive when the parties cannot truly consent because the options are WORK or starve; welcome to capitalism

sex workers have a right to earn money to keep food on the table, that is why we ALL work, and if we all had the choice not to work, many of us would stop; AS LONG AS people are consensually fucking, people have a right to get paid to do it; do you think they're people who may like sex or all just starving dirty wenches?

I only skimmed the rest but if you can't tell the difference between genuinely marginalised people, and abusers co-opting social justice language to normalise abuse, I can't help you, but hate groups throughout history have tried to paint the former as the latter so that people feel great about not listening to them

BurtReynolds wrote:Well pedophiles aren't entitled to feel good about themselves, unlike other groups, marginalized or otherwise, so I don't think the comparison is fair.

everyone who isn't an abusive dickhead is "entitled to feel good about themselves"

who hurt you?

.

BurtReynolds wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Well pedophiles aren't entitled to feel good about themselves, unlike other groups, marginalized or otherwise, so I don't think the comparison is fair.

everyone who isn't an abusive dickhead is "entitled to feel good about themselves"

who hurt you?

So that would hopefully disqualify pedos, right? I wasn't being sarcastic.

OK, righto, yes it would

Ms Harmless wrote:
....

ALL work is abusive when the parties cannot truly consent because the options are WORK or starve; welcome to capitalism

sex workers have a right to earn money to keep food on the table, that is why we ALL work, and if we all had the choice not to work, many of us would stop; AS LONG AS people are consensually fucking, people have a right to get paid to do it; do you think they're people who may like sex or all just starving dirty wenches?


....

JFC Harmless, how are you not connecting these two things? You literally typed one right after the other.

Bi_3 wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:
....

ALL work is abusive when the parties cannot truly consent because the options are WORK or starve; welcome to capitalism

sex workers have a right to earn money to keep food on the table, that is why we ALL work, and if we all had the choice not to work, many of us would stop; AS LONG AS people are consensually fucking, people have a right to get paid to do it; do you think they're people who may like sex or all just starving dirty wenches?


....

JFC Harmless, how are you not connecting these two things? You literally typed one right after the other.

they are truths that co-exist

or are you choosing which forms of work are allowed to exist?

just say "nobody should have to work" and we'd agree, you don't have to broadbrush sex workers as sluts without agency to do that