Making Quartertothree a more welcoming place

To get them to stop being shrill.

Duh.

The only thing Terry Crews, Rob Halford, and Barney Fife have in common is an annoyingly high-pitched voice.

But as @Nesrie pointed out, we don’t know what her voice sounds like.

So to call an unheard voice “shrill”, as opposed to a neutral term like “annoying”, requires making a generalization based on gender.

As @Telefrog suggested, there’s no way that’s not sexist.

sorry Rich, I meant Rick like Armando said.

I don’t think I am that more unique than say the other 20 or so voices that are prominent on the site. I just have a different perspective and background than some others. It’s not as if no one knows who Armando is for example or Tom or Timex or a host of others too. At some point, i just decided I want some of my identity info to be known because it’s not the default assumption.

Your premise requires a leap into the imaginary, but what the hell, it’s all the rage lately to respond to what you can make appear in your head versus those plain boring old words on the screen.

Don’t bring me into this fucked up thread!

Wait… I didn’t use an @ symbol. You should not have been summoned.

That’s definitionally trolling.

The smart thing to do may be to ignore it. But it definitely doesn’t make the trolling OK.

Now maybe Nesrie would have an easier time ignoring it if she knew there were other people who are less emotionally invested and to whom the troll might respond better who would address the issue.

I think there’s a difference between posting something like “You know what, I think over the next year Chris Roberts is going to pull it all together and a decent game will come out of this” on the Star Citizen thread, and posting “Oh look Nesrie is being all SJW again” somewhere. (To pick two examples not at all at random).

Both are trolling, but the first seems to be entirely in the spirit of QT3, whereas the second is just being a dick - there are other ways to have the same impact and express disagreement without attacking Nesrie personally.

EDIT: Obviously the Malathor exception applies - some perspectives are sufficiently out of the acceptable range for sufficiently many forum posters that the poster gets repeatedly flamed. That isn’t nice, but it’s also very much a part of the QT3 culture it seems.

No worries. FWIW I agree on the ‘shrill’ comment. And I’m surprised at those that don’t. Mostly.

So why can’t people accept that “shrill” has a connotation beyond the dictionary definition? The connotation is that it is used to dismiss a woman’s argument: She is a shrill, therefore her opinion can be ignored. QED. There is at least a little bit of that going on with @Nesrie, some people trying to dismiss her opinion out of hand.

It is like if you want to criticize, say, a particular Jew for being greedy (idk, maybe Jesus Christ?) you better make it is clear you are not riding on the negative stereotype of “all Jews are greedy”. You want to focus on the person’s greed with plenty of evidence, and make it clear you are not anti-Semitic. That would be an inclusive approach IMO. Not being careful would be non-inclusive.

I think someone said it upthread before, being non-inclusive is not the same as being exclusive. Non-inclusiveness sometimes is just not being careful with words, like the the T-shirt with insensitive word (was it a @ArmandoPenblade example?). Outright exclusiveness would be e.g. the neo-Nazis.

This is a vast space of non-inclusiveness, imo it is worthwhile to move the needle in conversation towards inclusiveness rather than the other way. To not care about how language use can hurt people points to a lack of self-awareness, and I don’t want to be lacking in self-awareness. (What a mouthful, but I want to say it right!)

Did anyone other than JMJ refer to Nesrie as shrill? Asking because I truly can’t keep up. The other “pro-shrill” posts (an exaggeration) I saw were along the lines of “there are still times it’s okay to use it”.

Nope, the rest is discussing if it has a valid use outside of being a sexist put down. Some think yes and some no, has it got anyone anywhere, nope

Because a connotation that does not resonate with the public falls short of being an actual connotation.

If you want to change the language that’s a valid goal (not one I’m on board with, but valid), but let’s not pretend something new to the “woke” has been there all along.

Example: does “Pure Vermont” refer to maple syrup or is it code for white supremacy?

It’s also been pointed out to me (by a black person, no less) that Black Lives Matter would have fared better in the public eye if it had been Black Lives Matter Too, but that ship has sailed.

Ive seen that said, but I’m skeptical of that. Since, often, the people who criticize it for the choice of name as a means of delegitimizing it would just as easily find another avenue of attack.

Thread is totally reaching its goals now.

Let me google that for you!

The Long, Sexist History of ‘Shrill’ Women.

I want more @RichVR!

Thanks! Your point is clearly established by noted internet authority “Guy who has one thing published on the TIME website this one time to condemn people who complained about Hillary Clinton’s voice.” Seriously hard-hitting shit, like:

In ancient Greece, public female vocality often bore associations with prostitution, madness, witchcraft and androgyny.

At least he got some value from his liberal arts degree, right?

Which was exactly my point that just because someone can imagine it, “let’s not pretend something new to the “woke” has been there all along.”

Goodness me, if you google “women shrill” you will find a bunch of different articles from reputable sources saying the same thing.

So either you are going to dismiss all of them as coming out from the same echo chamber, or you are going to accept that “shrill” is a derogative term sometimes used to silence women. If your response is the former, then I think we have to agree to disagree.

If I had a dollar for every time I heard that. I still couldn’t afford a cup of coffee.