Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[pisskop]

'sussed out the truth' or 'sussed out the answer' is how Im familiar with the word sus.

I think we could spend a lot of time covering what if scenarios.  Ultimately we have to strike a balance between being aware of people's feelings and identity and allowing freedom of expression and the emergence of culture.

[hector13]

There are various everyday phrases that are related to suspicions of homosexuality or the practice thereof.

Down-low, for example, refers to an outwardly heterosexual man who sleeps with other men.

[hector13]

Bought things on Amazon on Tuesday, say I want them the following Monday.

Receive an email on Thursday saying they will in fact arrive on Saturday.

They arrive on Friday though.

[MaxTheFox]

I never heard of "sus" meaning anything other than "suspicious" or "a region in Morocco" or "the scientific name for the genus of pigs".

I think if we're gonna get our panties in a twist over some random word having an incredibly obscure second (or third or fourth or fifth or bazillionth) meaning, then every word will soon be offensive.

I mean look at, IDK, Urban Dictionary or something. A lot of words have crude slang meanings that are otherwise very rarely used.

[bloop_bleep]

People in general need to calm down with the political correctness stuff. It's one thing if it's clearly and obviously meant as a slur, or even used as such out of ignorance or indifference, but attacking people for using a word that is common in everyday conversation because someone at some point used it to mean something somewhat vaguely offensive is just entitlement and arrogance, in my opinion.

These people then ride off the "liberal" coattail and dilute meaningful liberal causes with their trifles.

[KittyTac]

I know it from TOS.

[delphonso]

I'm not exactly sure how up-in-arms the LGBTQ community is about the particular phrase, so I'm not exactly sure about how I feel about it relative to whom it may hurt the most. My first reaction would be 'give it a rest' and 'you're making something out of nothing,' but that's the sort of reaction that leads to the sort of head-in-the-sand conservatism that drives the party towards regressive behaviors and to ignore current social developments, at least in my opinions, so I try to keep an open mind that doesn't shut out ongoing discussions.

This is a good thing to keep in mind - PETA, for example, do not speak for all vegetarians. In fact, they don't speak for most vegetarians and only represent a small, extreme opinion.

[Rolan7]

"Sexual preference" was used very strategically by anti-homosexual religious corpor- organizations like JW to promote their agenda that homosexuality is a choice, not a thing people naturally are.

The thing about "political correctness" is that there is no tangible downside to using a term like "Sexual preference" except in the court of public opinion.  The marketplace of ideas.  I don't think most people even *want* to stop them, just call them out on it.  Explain it, and let people decide.

That is literally all "canceling" is.  It is just people being associated with their public statements, in full context, such that people (and corporations) can make informed decisions about supporting them.

(Harassing individuals or calling for violence is a matter for the actual courts instead of public opinion)

Anyway I didn't know about "sus" as a slur.  I'm even a bit skeptical about it being one.  So I now sit at a crossroads:  Do I continue using the term because I don't consider it a slur?  Or do I let my language evolve a bit?

(The third option would be to do more research until I know the answer which is technically correct, yet doesn't really change the moral calculus at all).

[MaxTheFox]

I will continue using it because I don't think it's a slur. Same for most other people. Because unlike, I don't know, the N-word, it has several other meanings that are more common than the offensive one.

[Frumple]

Not a word I've used much, and most of the context I've heard it used in was by very much lgbt etc friendly folks so the homophobic claim is also kinda' dubious to me, but at the end of the day if you're using it and someone asks you to not it doesn't exactly hurt to just... not. In that case, or just in general.

All that said, suss/sussed is, like... a lot older than any common use of sus I'm aware of. Similar origin words, but the latter's pretty recent for significant use and the former's at least from the 1960s.

[methylatedspirit]

Mm, that reminds me of a bit I read about the term 'sexual preference' being contentious and possibly a dogwhistle in homophobic circles, given 'preference' insinuates that sexual attraction is a choice which goes against current understanding of (example given) homosexual or other binary orientations, which, hypothetically again, goes against the sort of liberation sought by evaluating orientation via the Kinsey scale.

I'm not trying to offend anyone, but isn't the Kinsey scale still a simplification of representing orientation, as much as binary orientations are a (even more of a) simplification of representing orientation? Not that it's a bad thing; go too complex and people won't understand you, which defeats the whole damn point of describing your orientation to people.

I mean, consider this complex system: there are 4 variables, "romantic attraction to same gender", "sexual attraction to same gender", "romantic attraction to opposite gender", and "sexual attraction to opposite gender". Each variable can have a value from -1 to +1, -1 is "maximal repulsion", +1 is "maximal attraction", and 0 is "completely neutral", and each variable is able to take any value in between. For those familiar with vectors, yeah, this is describing orientation as a 4-dimensional vector. There are 4 independent variables at play here. Someone who is completely asexual and aromantic (and I mean completely, wants-absolutely-nothing-to-do-with-it, couldn't-care-less, but isn't repulsed at all) would be classified as a (0,0,0,0) under this system.

This is a very detailed way of describing orientation, though that's not to say that this is the most detailed and accurate method possible; I'm sure those in the LGBT community can extend it with more variables, split variables further, or so on. I'm not sure if it works for nonbinary people, for instance. Its main problem is that it's too complex to reasonably be used on a day-to-day basis. Imagine trying to describe this system to people every time you want to describe your orientation.

I believe there's a tradeoff here. Too complex, and you end up confusing people. Too simple, and you end up excluding groups of people. It's good to avoid excluding people, but it's also bad to end up with a complex system that people can't understand. Where you stand on this is your own opinion, and I won't stop you if you want this complex system. Personally, I use this 4-variable system internally to keep track of myself, but when describing myself to others, I drop down to the binary orientation representation, because I have a personal belief that people's time is money, and that the less time people spend interpreting things, the better.

That's my opinion on that, anyway. I'm sorry if this offends you; I'm just trying to make a point that every system to describe orientation is just a simplification of the underlying truth, however close it might be to that truth.

[Mathel]

I will continue using it because I don't think it's a slur. Same for most other people. Because unlike, I don't know, the N-word, it has several other meanings that are more common than the offensive one.

There is a river in south America called Rio Negro. Named after it's color in spanish. Most "offensive" words were originaly regular words that gained offensive meaning later. (Sometimes, like this, in different language).

[MaxTheFox]

I will continue using it because I don't think it's a slur. Same for most other people. Because unlike, I don't know, the N-word, it has several other meanings that are more common than the offensive one.

There is a river in south America called Rio Negro. Named after it's color in spanish. Most "offensive" words were originaly regular words that gained offensive meaning later. (Sometimes, like this, in different language).

Well if it does become an actual slur (i.e more people start using it as one than people using it innocently) then I'll stop using it. Simple as that.

[Maximum Spin]

I mean, "Negro" is still the Spanish word for black and I still routinely use it, for example, when describing frijoles.

Just, like, don't use it as a slur and you're fine?

[scriver]

"The N Word" isn't the same as negro and you know it. Hell, it isn't even the same as the American negro, the "neegro". Just the difference in the taboo of saying it should make that clear.

I mean, I strongly dislike the notion of taboo making us do the whole N/F/C word thing, it's literally medieval to me, and it's still strong enough for me to not be able to write the actual word without a bad conscience, and I have no problem writing negro, negro, or the Swedish variant (neger). Or fuck or cunt for that matter.

And I'm Swedish. It's not even my goddamn taboo.