So in a local FB Group called the Atheist Experience there is a no ableism rule. For a while I didn't realize how encompassing this was until a discussion came up over the word lame. Here is the example I will use. Discussion I hope can stay civil and cite sources and reasons why pro or against.
Here is the definition: a·ble·ism
ˈābəˌlizəm/Submit
noun
discrimination in favor of able-bodied people.
Example:
"That is a lame excuse"
definition of Lame:
adjective, lamer, lamest.
1.crippled or physically disabled, especially in the foot or leg so as to limp or walk with difficulty.
2.impaired or disabled through defect or injury:
a lame arm.
3.weak; inadequate; unsatisfactory; clumsy:
a lame excuse.
According to anti ableism people, that word lame should never be used, even though it has multiple meanings as with many words in the english language. It could possibly offend someone somewhere and hurting peoples feelings is bad.
I came back with the english dictionary definition to defend this poor person and was told context, logic, and definitions have no meaning, its listed on a website as a bad word, so don't use it. Definition 3 fits the context in this example. Intent and context have no meaning. It is a movement online within "enlightened" groups that seems to be taking a huge foothold and they have almost become bullies in the way they enforce the way you speak, talk, think. Its at the forefront of regressiveness which is why I can no longer associate with many of these groups I joined to have conversations with where reason, logic, and science based discussion.
So what are dakkas thoughts on this? Is saying thats a lame excuse akin to racial slurs or is it just as it seems to be?
If you're not living with a disability - who are you to say a word is or isn't offensive to someone who is living with one?
And if you are living with a disability - your opinion is not blanket.
I'm a lefty liberal as some will have noticed, and I do go out of my way to adapt my vocabulary so I'm at as little risk of inadvertently offending someone as possible.
I mean, there's some offensive terms which to me just sound funny - but upon looking up their origin, I don't use anymore.
Let's consider the word right at the top of the Swearing Pantheon - The C Word. Now, I know, and you may know, it's derived from the medically correct Old English word for the body part is still describes (and that word seems derived from the Welsh Gaelic 'Cwm', which means Valley. That also became quim). But now, it's a singularly offensive word, and can only be used offensively. As are words like Spastic, Negro etc. All once perfectly acceptable and used in the dictionary etc - but society moves faster than dictionaries.
If someone asks you not to use a word - you don't use it.
We have so many words, with so many different meanings that it is impossible to be totally unoffensive. If people are unable to have basic conversation with people then they shouldn't be having conversations. Go replace your modem with a block of cheese and do something else with your time.
For example! As a Brit, I might have f*****s for tea. A f***** being a type of meat. Or I might be talking about collecting a f***** of wood. (There is a good chance DakkaDakka will block the word I'm using here)
You can't look at something and then ignore the intent and context, words don't work like that.
I find it ironic that the same people hyper-sensitive to vocabulary correctness have no issue with the destruction of certain symbols no matter how inflammatory, such as a religious symbol or a flag. Words are nothing more than linguistic symbols representing the very same things, yet they are sacrosanct.
We have so many words, with so many different meanings that it is impossible to be totally unoffensive. If people are unable to have basic conversation with people then they shouldn't be having conversations. Go replace your modem with a block of cheese and do something else with your time.
For example! As a Brit, I might have f*****s for tea. A f***** being a type of meat. Or I might be talking about collecting a f***** of wood. (There is a good chance DakkaDakka will block the word I'm using here)
You can't look at something and then ignore the intent and context, words don't work like that.
Again - who are you to say the next person shouldn't take offence? By all means you can disagree with them....but you don't get to say 'stop being offended'.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Let's consider the word right at the top of the Swearing Pantheon - The C Word.... But now, it's a singularly offensive word, and can only be used offensively.
You've obviously never been to Australia It's basically now a generic term that can mean a bunch of things depending on the context, many of which are good. Being labelled a " sick c*** " is a great compliment and sign of respect.
Ha ha read this thread incorrectly. Thought it was preventing Abe-ism, the prime minister of Japan. I was like these guys can talk about Japanese politics.
Tough call. Back in the 80's "r*tard" was a commonly-used term, but isn't PC now. Looking back, I agree that it shouldn't be used, especially since it is a derogatory term with the context of someone who has mental disabilities.
Will "lame" be the same? Only time will tell, but I can see the atheist point of view because it can be used as a derogatory term that insults those with a disability. I mean "lame" is generally not, maybe never a positive term.
I edited this because Dakka's software automatically corrected r*tard to "slow". Wow.
redleger wrote: So in a local FB Group called the Atheist Experience there is a no ableism rule. For a while I didn't realize how encompassing this was until a discussion came up over the word lame. Here is the example I will use. Discussion I hope can stay civil and cite sources and reasons why pro or against.
Here is the definition: a·ble·ism
ˈābəˌlizəm/Submit
noun
discrimination in favor of able-bodied people.
Example:
"That is a lame excuse"
definition of Lame:
adjective, lamer, lamest.
1.crippled or physically disabled, especially in the foot or leg so as to limp or walk with difficulty.
2.impaired or disabled through defect or injury:
a lame arm.
3.weak; inadequate; unsatisfactory; clumsy:
a lame excuse.
According to anti ableism people, that word lame should never be used, even though it has multiple meanings as with many words in the english language. It could possibly offend someone somewhere and hurting peoples feelings is bad.
I came back with the english dictionary definition to defend this poor person and was told context, logic, and definitions have no meaning, its listed on a website as a bad word, so don't use it. Definition 3 fits the context in this example. Intent and context have no meaning. It is a movement online within "enlightened" groups that seems to be taking a huge foothold and they have almost become bullies in the way they enforce the way you speak, talk, think. Its at the forefront of regressiveness which is why I can no longer associate with many of these groups I joined to have conversations with where reason, logic, and science based discussion.
So what are dakkas thoughts on this? Is saying thats a lame excuse akin to racial slurs or is it just as it seems to be?
In the words of the President of the United States: "They can go themselves. "
Popsghostly wrote: Tough call. Back in the 80's "r*tard" was a commonly-used term, but isn't PC now. Looking back, I agree that it shouldn't be used, especially since it is a derogatory term with the context of someone who has mental disabilities.
The problem is just usage. There's nothing inherently derogatory about the word r-tard, it just means slowed, delayed, impeded, etc. From my understanding the term "mental r-tard" was originally introduced because other words like stupid, imbecile, moron, idiot, etc were considered derogatory. So we introduced the phrase "mentally r-tarded" and... guess what.... people started using it in a derogatory fashion so now we can't use it anymore
kronk wrote: How about the term "Lame Duck" in reference to a politician's term ending?
The rules suggest you cannot use it.
Although as an adjective: (of an explanation or excuse) unconvincingly feeble. Being 'Feeble' could be disqualified on the same grounds.
Nor can you cripple an enemies means to wage war.
One would think that 'crippling pain' is a grey area.
Well who knows what the future will hold. It wasn't long ago when those Chinese mushrooms were called "J*w ear mushrooms" or hazelnuts were called "n*gger toes" or it was OK to say "not a Chin*man's chance".
Popsghostly wrote: Tough call. Back in the 80's "r*tard" was a commonly-used term, but isn't PC now. Looking back, I agree that it shouldn't be used, especially since it is a derogatory term with the context of someone who has mental disabilities.
The problem is just usage. There's nothing inherently derogatory about the word r-tard, it just means slowed, delayed, impeded, etc. From my understanding the term "mental r-tard" was originally introduced because other words like stupid, imbecile, moron, idiot, etc were considered derogatory. So we introduced the phrase "mentally r-tarded" and... guess what.... people started using it in a derogatory fashion so now we can't use it anymore
True. Didn't think about the other uses of r*tard such as to r*tard the movement of something. It has a lot to do with how people use the word.
redleger wrote: So in a local FB Group called the Atheist Experience there is a no ableism rule. For a while I didn't realize how encompassing this was until a discussion came up over the word lame. Here is the example I will use. Discussion I hope can stay civil and cite sources and reasons why pro or against.
Here is the definition: a·ble·ism
ˈābəˌlizəm/Submit
noun
discrimination in favor of able-bodied people.
Example:
"That is a lame excuse"
definition of Lame:
adjective, lamer, lamest.
1.crippled or physically disabled, especially in the foot or leg so as to limp or walk with difficulty.
2.impaired or disabled through defect or injury:
a lame arm.
3.weak; inadequate; unsatisfactory; clumsy:
a lame excuse.
According to anti ableism people, that word lame should never be used, even though it has multiple meanings as with many words in the english language. It could possibly offend someone somewhere and hurting peoples feelings is bad.
I came back with the english dictionary definition to defend this poor person and was told context, logic, and definitions have no meaning, its listed on a website as a bad word, so don't use it. Definition 3 fits the context in this example. Intent and context have no meaning. It is a movement online within "enlightened" groups that seems to be taking a huge foothold and they have almost become bullies in the way they enforce the way you speak, talk, think. Its at the forefront of regressiveness which is why I can no longer associate with many of these groups I joined to have conversations with where reason, logic, and science based discussion.
So what are dakkas thoughts on this? Is saying thats a lame excuse akin to racial slurs or is it just as it seems to be?
In the words of the President of the United States: "They can go themselves. "
I think there is only one quality worse than hardness of heart and that is softness of head.
We have so many words, with so many different meanings that it is impossible to be totally unoffensive. If people are unable to have basic conversation with people then they shouldn't be having conversations. Go replace your modem with a block of cheese and do something else with your time.
For example! As a Brit, I might have f*****s for tea. A f***** being a type of meat. Or I might be talking about collecting a f***** of wood. (There is a good chance DakkaDakka will block the word I'm using here)
You can't look at something and then ignore the intent and context, words don't work like that.
Again - who are you to say the next person shouldn't take offence? By all means you can disagree with them....but you don't get to say 'stop being offended'.
If people are getting offended by the word lame, then yes we should be able to say to them stop being offended.
There is a certain level you can reach where people are taking offence at things that shouldn't be able to offend anyone. Lame is one of those words. Are we suggesting we have to start censoring the Simpson's now?
Well it should depend on the context of the word being used rather than being hypersensitive and being offended at every and any use of it. Some words exist only as derogatory and should be treated as such, but others like lame, it feels more like a grey area at best.
We have so many words, with so many different meanings that it is impossible to be totally unoffensive. If people are unable to have basic conversation with people then they shouldn't be having conversations. Go replace your modem with a block of cheese and do something else with your time.
For example! As a Brit, I might have f*****s for tea. A f***** being a type of meat. Or I might be talking about collecting a f***** of wood. (There is a good chance DakkaDakka will block the word I'm using here)
You can't look at something and then ignore the intent and context, words don't work like that.
Again - who are you to say the next person shouldn't take offence? By all means you can disagree with them....but you don't get to say 'stop being offended'.
If people are getting offended by the word lame, then yes we should be able to say to them stop being offended.
There is a certain level you can reach where people are taking offence at things that shouldn't be able to offend anyone. Lame is one of those words. Are we suggesting we have to start censoring the Simpson's now?
Agree that people can be able to say that people shouldn't take offense to something.
Along the "Simpson's" line of reasoning, it was OK at one point to use "J*p", even in Marvel comics. Sunfire is referred to as a "J*p" Times change and don't think Sunfire or Silver Samurai will be referred to as a "J*p" now.
So follow question, as this continues to kind of eat at me. At what point do we end up whittling down the English language to one word for each meaning? Vocabulary would become unnecessary, and descriptive words useless. Retardant is a perfect example. So now we saw fire resistant. Now somehow resistant becomes offensive to people fighting oppressive governments. I mean there needs to be a point where people learn to control their own emotions themselves without censoring everyone so they don't have to.
redleger wrote: So follow question, as this continues to kind of eat at me. At what point do we end up whittling down the English language to one word for each meaning? Vocabulary would become unnecessary, and descriptive words useless. Retardant is a perfect example. So now we saw fire resistant. Now somehow resistant becomes offensive to people fighting oppressive governments. I mean there needs to be a point where people learn to control their own emotions themselves without censoring everyone so they don't have to.
Well...
retardent is often used more to mean a chemical that puts out fires. Resistant means resists heat/flame.
redleger wrote: So follow question, as this continues to kind of eat at me. At what point do we end up whittling down the English language to one word for each meaning? Vocabulary would become unnecessary, and descriptive words useless. Retardant is a perfect example. So now we saw fire resistant. Now somehow resistant becomes offensive to people fighting oppressive governments. I mean there needs to be a point where people learn to control their own emotions themselves without censoring everyone so they don't have to.
Along those lines, we'd lose the "Lame"nter Chapter of mahreens! I think lame is commonly used now and this is the first time I've ever started questioning whether it is acceptable or not. By that token, I understand how it could be derogatory. That's why this is a very valuable thread because it is making us think about the term lame.
What is the correct extent people must control their emotions? Is it wrong for a person of African-descent to be upset with the use of the word "n*gger"? Is it wrong for a person that has a mentally disabled nephew to be upset with the use of the word "r*tard"? Is it wrong for a woman to get upset with the use of the phrase "it is OK to throw stones at girls" for a jewelry ad?
Racist terms are explicit. Sexist terms are explicit. insults to physical capability are explicit. None of them relate in any way to other usage of common words. Gimp is an insult. crippled is a term.
As a gimp magoo neanderthal I find only insults insulting. Terms are terms and offense taken of them are typically from "virtue signallers" who are generally a waste of skin.
Racist terms are explicit. Sexist terms are explicit. insults to physical capability are explicit. None of them relate in any way to other usage of common words.
Gimp is an insult. crippled is a term.
Ha, like lame, never thought about the (possible) derogatory nature of the term gimp either. Every time I hear it, I just think of a guy wearing a leather mask with a chain around his neck and a pommel horse.
Edit: As to my explanation above for gimp, it refers to Pulp Fiction. The movie is over 20 years old now!!!
....Anyhow, There probably are those, at this very minute seething with outrage over the use of the words retardant and resistant and are planning how best to liberate them from their current use. In ancient times they would never be known, their manuscripts of dubious rhetoric tossed in the house clearance skip. Now they can connect with other like minded fools and thus a movement is born.
There are probably groups dedicated to excising whole swathes of the English Language. In fact look at the amount of attention 'cis' naming gets.
Popsghostly wrote: Ha ha read this thread incorrectly. Thought it was preventing Abe-ism, the prime minister of Japan. I was like these guys can talk about Japanese politics.
Tough call. Back in the 80's "r*tard" was a commonly-used term, but isn't PC now. Looking back, I agree that it shouldn't be used, especially since it is a derogatory term with the context of someone who has mental disabilities.
Will "lame" be the same? Only time will tell, but I can see the atheist point of view because it can be used as a derogatory term that insults those with a disability. I mean "lame" is generally not, maybe never a positive term.
I edited this because Dakka's software automatically corrected r*tard to "slow". Wow.
Yeah, I was on a forum for car guys a while back and was discussing how much to r**ard the timing on my ignition. That got changed to slow as well. Kind of weird.
Again, who are you to say whether a given person should or should not be taking offence?
I'm a proper sweary-Mary. I can make Sailors blush and indeed have no less than three accepted entries in Roger's Profanisaurus. Yet I still tailor my vocabulary to the audience, whomever they might be.
Here's another one. Rape. It's an unpleasant word for an unpleasant action. Yet we see it time and again used in other senses - such as 'I raped his army lolololol'. As a victim of rape, I find such usage (but not the word) incredibly and personally offensive. It's not for you or anyone else to tell me to simply not be offended. That's not how it works.
For someone who lives with a disability of any kind, various words will quite possibly have been used as insults direct toward them. It's not for you, me or anyone else that isn't that person to tell them 'stop being offended'.
It matters not one iota if offence was intended. Indeed in many cases that can be worse. If someone calls you out on your language, learn from it.
redleger wrote: So follow question, as this continues to kind of eat at me. At what point do we end up whittling down the English language to one word for each meaning? Vocabulary would become unnecessary, and descriptive words useless. Retardant is a perfect example. So now we saw fire resistant. Now somehow resistant becomes offensive to people fighting oppressive governments. I mean there needs to be a point where people learn to control their own emotions themselves without censoring everyone so they don't have to.
Along those lines, we'd lose the "Lame"nter Chapter of mahreens! I think lame is commonly used now and this is the first time I've ever started questioning whether it is acceptable or not. By that token, I understand how it could be derogatory. That's why this is a very valuable thread because it is making us think about the term lame.
What is the correct extent people must control their emotions? Is it wrong for a person of African-descent to be upset with the use of the word "n*gger"? Is it wrong for a person that has a mentally disabled nephew to be upset with the use of the word "r*tard"? Is it wrong for a woman to get upset with the use of the phrase "it is OK to throw stones at girls" for a jewelry ad?
All good questions. I am not saying people can't be upset, i get upset quite often. What I don't do is allow my emotions to control me(usually) the point I am unable to function or operate at the necessary level to continue interacting with people. Everyone has triggers(I hate that word now BTW) but ones ability to manage themselves is one of the tenants of leaving adolescence and becoming an adult.
I know derogatory words used in context of denigration of people are wrong, most people do. The problem comes I believe when you ignore context. Your examples above are good in the fact that the first two when used badly are reasons to be upset, but not necessarily reason to behave irrationally in return. The last one is obviously a play on words and if you can't stop and think about the context then yes, you are expecting someone else to control your emotions for you because you can not think about the meaning. I mean most commercials have pictures that fill in the contextual meaning that radio wouldn't.
To my retardant example. look up the meaning, apply proper context then you know how it is being used. That's reasoning and critical thinking at its base. If its being used to explain something burns slowly based on its material make up, then its ok. If its used to describe a condition then its still possibly ok, because that is the name of the condition, or it was when it was developed as a word. If its being use to say someone who is mentally slowed is of no worth, and therefore calling someone else that is the ultimate insult, then yes you are denigrating the people being mentioned. You can not make a blanket statement banning most words without limiting communication.
I also had an instance where someone insisted that I stop using the term "Black", as African American was the prefered term. Nevermind that I was actually refering to the racial makeup of ancient Egypt. I'm pretty sure NONE of them were Americans of any type.
cuda1179 wrote: I also had an instance where someone insisted that I stop using the term "Black", as African American was the prefered term. Nevermind that I was actually refering to the racial makeup of ancient Egypt. I'm pretty sure NONE of them were Americans of any type.
depending on who you talk to neither of those terms should be used, but Ill save my mors vs denationalization thread for the future.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Again, who are you to say whether a given person should or should not be taking offence?
I am.
I'm a proper sweary-Mary. I can make Sailors blush and indeed have no less than three accepted entries in Roger's Profanisaurus. Yet I still tailor my vocabulary to the audience, whomever they might be.
Cool but these words we're discussing are not insults or slurs when used in their context. When used out of context almost anything can be an insult.
Here's another one. Rape. It's an unpleasant word for an unpleasant action. Yet we see it time and again used in other senses - such as 'I raped his army lolololol'. As a victim of rape, I find such usage (but not the word) incredibly and personally offensive. It's not for you or anyone else to tell me to simply not be offended. That's not how it works.
Your argument supports mine, not yours actually. In its proper use it is not an insult. In its improper use its lame and I've told more than one kid to shut the hole in his face.
For someone who lives with a disability of any kind, various words will quite possibly have been used as insults direct toward them. It's not for you, me or anyone else that isn't that person to tell them 'stop being offended'.
Like being a gimp magoo neanderthal like me....
It matters not one iota if offence was intended. Indeed in many cases that can be worse. If someone calls you out on your language, learn from it.
Literally no one but my mother has called me out on my language. I miss her sweet "watch you language you bastad" qups.
Your argument is lame. Some people look for offense where none is intended. em.
Outside of describing a horse's physical condition, I don't even understand the issue. Of course its a slur. EDIT: Kind of like "cat person" the greatest insult I could ever contemplate. Woof!
The Issue is this Frazz
Whiny people are upset because words hurt.
Whatever happened to
"Sticks and Stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me"
Because we need to be saying that ALOT more often.
As a Wargamer with severe Hemophilia, Degenerative Joint Disease, Muscle Atrophy, Osteoarthritis and Contracture of 3 joints I have been called lame, gimp, cripple, hobbles, Howard (like the duck, because I waddle) and Sir Limps Alot....by my closest friends and family. It's because of them these words don't hurt me and I feel like all of the energy people spend being offended by them could be better used putting chairs by the tables in Games Workshops, I would like to sit down.
Hmmm... as a non english native speaker I have a question.
What relation has all of this with... atheism?
Now, in the topic, in Spain a problem similar to this happen 1 or 2 years ago. We have here a terrorism victim called Irene Villa that after the terrorist attack she loses his two arms and legs. And yeah, many many jokes generate around that.
Someone on twitter did a joke of that girl, and as he was a Political figure, everyone beging calling him insensitive about terrorism victims and all that. Then, when the proper Irene Villa say that she don't get offendet of the jokes that people do about his disgrace, the same people that attack the first guy began calling her a "Terrorist victim with stockolm syndrome".
After knowing many really disable people with medical problems, etc... I have seen that in the mayority of cases, they rarely be offended by this kind of things. Its more people with 0 problems that chose to be offended for other people.
zeragrin wrote: As a Wargamer with severe Hemophilia, Degenerative Joint Disease, Muscle Atrophy, Osteoarthritis and Contracture of 3 joints I have been called lame, gimp, cripple, hobbles, Howard (like the duck, because I waddle) and Sir Limps Alot....by my closest friends and family. It's because of them these words don't hurt me and I feel like all of the energy people spend being offended by them could be better used putting chairs by the tables in Games Workshops, I would like to sit down.
Good to hear you have thick skin. It's a valuable trait very integral for success.
But, what if people that weren't your closest friends and family called you these terms? Someone you didn't know? Or if they just referred to you as that guy, you know the "fill-in-the-blank term you described above" that plays Warhammer? How do your friends/family feel when others call you those terms? Or if you had a child that had those conditions and she/he cried when people called him/her those terms?
Galas wrote: Hmmm... as a non english native speaker I have a question.
What relation has all of this with... atheism?
None necessarily, but the problem with the given example came up on a page I used to follow. Too many soft hearts there though.
One of the thigs that I have noticed its that today people used the term Politically Correct with things that 10 years ago were simple basic education.
I'm a polite person, if something that I said offend anyone, and my intention was not to offend, I apoligice and move on. Then, in my private life with my friends I can't be more uneducate and impolite with everyone, like calling my friends and family off Canary Islands "f***ins africaans" and all that.
zeragrin wrote: As a Wargamer with severe Hemophilia, Degenerative Joint Disease, Muscle Atrophy, Osteoarthritis and Contracture of 3 joints I have been called lame, gimp, cripple, hobbles, Howard (like the duck, because I waddle) and Sir Limps Alot....by my closest friends and family. It's because of them these words don't hurt me and I feel like all of the energy people spend being offended by them could be better used putting chairs by the tables in Games Workshops, I would like to sit down.
Good to hear you have thick skin. It's a valuable trait very integral for success.
But, what if people that weren't your closest friends and family called you these terms? Someone you didn't know? Or if they just referred to you as that guy, you know the "fill-in-the-blank term you described above" that plays Warhammer? How do your friends/family feel when others call you those terms? Or if you had a child that had those conditions and she/he cried when people called him/her those terms?
I've been called those names by other people and my loved ones would definitely be more offended than me. I honestly can't explain to you how little I care about what others think of me as I don't receive my validation in life from sources other than myself. As an intelligent person who understands genetics I won't be having children, my wife and I never even considered it, so I have no worldview to accurately answer your last question. I can only give you my anecdotal experiences and the advice based on them.
Galas wrote: Hmmm... as a non english native speaker I have a question.
What relation has all of this with... atheism?
None necessarily, but the problem with the given example came up on a page I used to follow. Too many soft hearts there though.
One of the thigs that I have noticed its that today people used the term Politically Correct with things that 10 years ago were simple basic education.
I'm a polite person, if something that I said offend anyone, and my intention was not to offend, I apoligice and move on. Then, in my private life with my friends I can't be more uneducate and implite with everyone, like calling my friends in Canary Islands "f***ins africaans" and all that.
I think that is the point though. I'm not talking about discussions between friends. Veteran speak would make some people literally cry. I'm talking about everyday words with multiple legitimate meaning that people want banned because they could if used incorrectly hurt someone's feeling. These are not cases of misunderstanding but of regression that plagues what was once a progressive community.
hotsauceman1 wrote: The Issue is this Frazz
Whiny people are upset because words hurt.
Whatever happened to
"Sticks and Stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me"
Because we need to be saying that ALOT more often.
Try using that one to get around Rule #1, see how far it gets you.
Galas wrote: I'm talking about everyday words with multiple legitimate meaning that people want banned because they could if used incorrectly hurt someone's feeling.
This exactly, what people don't understand is that you can't tell people how to speak because that is one step closer to losing freedom of speech, no matter whose feelings it hurts the right to free speech is paramount.
Edited
Trash formatting but you get the picture.
zeragrin wrote: As a Wargamer with severe Hemophilia, Degenerative Joint Disease, Muscle Atrophy, Osteoarthritis and Contracture of 3 joints I have been called lame, gimp, cripple, hobbles, Howard (like the duck, because I waddle) and Sir Limps Alot....by my closest friends and family. It's because of them these words don't hurt me and I feel like all of the energy people spend being offended by them could be better used putting chairs by the tables in Games Workshops, I would like to sit down.
Good to hear you have thick skin. It's a valuable trait very integral for success.
But, what if people that weren't your closest friends and family called you these terms? Someone you didn't know? Or if they just referred to you as that guy, you know the "fill-in-the-blank term you described above" that plays Warhammer? How do your friends/family feel when others call you those terms? Or if you had a child that had those conditions and she/he cried when people called him/her those terms?
I've been called those names by other people and my loved ones would definitely be more offended than me. I honestly can't explain to you how little I care about what others think of me as I don't receive my validation in life from sources other than myself. As an intelligent person who understands genetics I won't be having children, my wife and I never even considered it, so I have no worldview to accurately answer your last question. I can only give you my anecdotal experiences and the advice based on them.
Well. As other point, vocabulary and lenguage don't stop changing with time. What 30 years ago was accepted today maybe iss offensive. What 60 years ago was accepted 30 years ago was totally offensive.
Etc, etc...
And as a Spaniard I find funny that "Negro" (Negro just means black) its a peyorative term in english.
hotsauceman1 wrote: The Issue is this Frazz
Whiny people are upset because words hurt.
Whatever happened to
"Sticks and Stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me"
Because we need to be saying that ALOT more often.
Try using that one to get around Rule #1, see how far it gets you.
Yes, that is no excuse to break rule #1. It is not an excuse to be impolite by any means. It is a personal philosophy that could be used to prevent filling out hurt feelings reports though when you happen to hear something you don't like.
zeragrin wrote: As a Wargamer with severe Hemophilia, Degenerative Joint Disease, Muscle Atrophy, Osteoarthritis and Contracture of 3 joints I have been called lame, gimp, cripple, hobbles, Howard (like the duck, because I waddle) and Sir Limps Alot....by my closest friends and family. It's because of them these words don't hurt me and I feel like all of the energy people spend being offended by them could be better used putting chairs by the tables in Games Workshops, I would like to sit down.
Good to hear you have thick skin. It's a valuable trait very integral for success.
But, what if people that weren't your closest friends and family called you these terms? Someone you didn't know? Or if they just referred to you as that guy, you know the "fill-in-the-blank term you described above" that plays Warhammer? How do your friends/family feel when others call you those terms? Or if you had a child that had those conditions and she/he cried when people called him/her those terms?
I've been called those names by other people and my loved ones would definitely be more offended than me. I honestly can't explain to you how little I care about what others think of me as I don't receive my validation in life from sources other than myself. As an intelligent person who understands genetics I won't be having children, my wife and I never even considered it, so I have no worldview to accurately answer your last question. I can only give you my anecdotal experiences and the advice based on them.
Edited for spelling.
I salute you. This is the ttitude I take as well.
You know it took me a long time to get there but limiting how people can speak is not what got me here.
So, we use a word that compares something to a class of people in order to express a negative opinion of that something, then tell the class of people used as a descriptor of negative value not to be offended by us using them as the standard of that which is terrible and substandard?
Like, if I said Frazz was a total Texas who texased up this thread until it was all Texas, a state of being I and all good people find distasteful, then it would be Frazzled's fault for being offended by the usage of the idea that being Texan in nature is a horrible, horrible thing that connotes all kinds of unpleasantness? We can count on Frazzled not to be offended when we use his very texasness as an insult for people we don't like.
The difference being that Frazzled can move out of Texas and shed his horrible texasness, but a lame person cannot choose to stop being lame. And that's just Texas for that poor person.*
*At first I was going to use the verb "to Jew", but I've heard people use it and then tell me to stop whining when I was offended. However, in the past that analogy has been less than successful on Dakka, so I went for phrasing that might actually communicate the idea to others.
zeragrin wrote: As a Wargamer with severe Hemophilia, Degenerative Joint Disease, Muscle Atrophy, Osteoarthritis and Contracture of 3 joints I have been called lame, gimp, cripple, hobbles, Howard (like the duck, because I waddle) and Sir Limps Alot....by my closest friends and family. It's because of them these words don't hurt me and I feel like all of the energy people spend being offended by them could be better used putting chairs by the tables in Games Workshops, I would like to sit down.
Good to hear you have thick skin. It's a valuable trait very integral for success.
But, what if people that weren't your closest friends and family called you these terms? Someone you didn't know? Or if they just referred to you as that guy, you know the "fill-in-the-blank term you described above" that plays Warhammer? How do your friends/family feel when others call you those terms? Or if you had a child that had those conditions and she/he cried when people called him/her those terms?
I've been called those names by other people and my loved ones would definitely be more offended than me. I honestly can't explain to you how little I care about what others think of me as I don't receive my validation in life from sources other than myself. As an intelligent person who understands genetics I won't be having children, my wife and I never even considered it, so I have no worldview to accurately answer your last question. I can only give you my anecdotal experiences and the advice based on them.
Edited for spelling.
Good answer. I agree that more effort needs to be placed on things like getting chairs for you at the table and making everything more accessible to all people rather than just taking offense. Nothing irks me more than not being able to get a stroller up the stairs because there's no elevator/ramp/escalator!!!
BobtheInquisitor wrote: So, we use a word that compares something to a class of people in order to express a negative opinion of that something, then tell the class of people used as a descriptor of negative value not to be offended by us using them as the standard of that which is terrible and substandard?
Like, if I said Frazz was a total Texas who texased up this thread until it was all Texas, a state of being I and all good people find distasteful, then it would be Frazzled's fault for being offended by the usage of the idea that being Texan in nature is a horrible, horrible thing that connotes all kinds of unpleasantness? We can count on Frazzled not to be offended when we use his very texasness as an insult for people we don't like.
The difference being that Frazzled can move out of Texas and shed his horrible texasness, but a lame person cannot choose to stop being lame. And that's just Texas for that poor person.*
*At first I was going to use the verb "to Jew", but I've heard people use it and then tell me to stop whining when I was offended. However, in the past that analogy has been less than successful on Dakka, so I went for phrasing that might actually communicate the idea to others.
I'm from Galicia. Galicia its a "Estate" of Spain.
In all of Southamerica, they call the spanish people "Gallegos". "Gallegos" in that context means lazy and stupid. The reason for that its because after the Civil War, the mayority of the spanish Emigrants to Southamerica where from Galicia, so that xenophobe term remains today. And no, I'm not offended when someone from Southamerica uses the term "Gallego" in a offensive manner, because as they said "the hurt who can not who wants"
(I don't know if that its how its spelled in English, I used google traductor to translate a spanish proverb )
zeragrin wrote: As a Wargamer with severe Hemophilia, Degenerative Joint Disease, Muscle Atrophy, Osteoarthritis and Contracture of 3 joints I have been called lame, gimp, cripple, hobbles, Howard (like the duck, because I waddle) and Sir Limps Alot....by my closest friends and family. It's because of them these words don't hurt me and I feel like all of the energy people spend being offended by them could be better used putting chairs by the tables in Games Workshops, I would like to sit down.
Good to hear you have thick skin. It's a valuable trait very integral for success.
But, what if people that weren't your closest friends and family called you these terms? Someone you didn't know? Or if they just referred to you as that guy, you know the "fill-in-the-blank term you described above" that plays Warhammer? How do your friends/family feel when others call you those terms? Or if you had a child that had those conditions and she/he cried when people called him/her those terms?
I've been called those names by other people and my loved ones would definitely be more offended than me. I honestly can't explain to you how little I care about what others think of me as I don't receive my validation in life from sources other than myself. As an intelligent person who understands genetics I won't be having children, my wife and I never even considered it, so I have no worldview to accurately answer your last question. I can only give you my anecdotal experiences and the advice based on them.
Edited for spelling.
Good answer. I agree that more effort needs to be placed on things like getting chairs for you at the table and making everything more accessible to all people rather than just taking offense. Nothing irks me more than not being able to get a stroller up the stairs because there's no elevator/ramp/escalator!!!
Ahh if only elevators and chairs were everywhere When my legs got bad enough that I couldn't get to the store by myself anymore it actually pushed me into buying my first terrain sets and crafting my own table for home play. Got my wife playing, brother in law, a couple of friends. When I do go to the occasional event at the store I usually call the manager ahead of time and explain my situation and ask if it's alright if I bring my own stool. I've never had anyone say no.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: So, we use a word that compares something to a class of people in order to express a negative opinion of that something, then tell the class of people used as a descriptor of negative value not to be offended by us using them as the standard of that which is terrible and substandard?
Like, if I said Frazz was a total Texas who texased up this thread until it was all Texas, a state of being I and all good people find distasteful, then it would be Frazzled's fault for being offended by the usage of the idea that being Texan in nature is a horrible, horrible thing that connotes all kinds of unpleasantness? We can count on Frazzled not to be offended when we use his very texasness as an insult for people we don't like.
The difference being that Frazzled can move out of Texas and shed his horrible texasness, but a lame person cannot choose to stop being lame. And that's just Texas for that poor person.*
*At first I was going to use the verb "to Jew", but I've heard people use it and then tell me to stop whining when I was offended. However, in the past that analogy has been less than successful on Dakka, so I went for phrasing that might actually communicate the idea to others.
Not disagreeing with you, but as a spin on this, someone says I have black hair. Or someone says the word "black", perhaps asking for their coffee, as a pure adjective. I get offended by the use of that adjective describing something completely unrelated to me, or get offended by someone pointing out I have black hair.
Am I permitted to censor them for using the term black to describe things? Or am I wrong for being offended when someone points out my physiology or a descriptive term/adjective?
hotsauceman1 wrote: The Issue is this Frazz
Whiny people are upset because words hurt.
Whatever happened to
"Sticks and Stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me"
Because we need to be saying that ALOT more often.
Try using that one to get around Rule #1, see how far it gets you.
Yes, that is no excuse to break rule #1. It is not an excuse to be impolite by any means. It is a personal philosophy that could be used to prevent filling out hurt feelings reports though when you happen to hear something you don't like.
Agree. As soon as people are treated negatively beyond words or the words themselves are used in a derogatory fashion, then that's where the impoliteness steps in and behavior/use must stop.
First off, the claims that the free speech is under attack are quite frankly BS. No government is involved. The situation as described is you visit someone's home, they ask you not to do something, you do it anyway, so they ask you to leave.
Second off, I could see how 'lame' is offensive. The term is originally used to describe a medical condition. However, people have decided to conflate that medical condition with something that is boring or bad. Think of it this way...if someone mentions that a person you have no knowledge of being lame, is your first thought that they have trouble walking or is your first thought about them something else?
Really it comes down to being polite and respectful for other people. Unfortunately, that is something that certain people have issues with.
skyth wrote: First off, the claims that the free speech is under attack are quite frankly BS. No government is involved. The situation as described is you visit someone's home, they ask you not to do something, you do it anyway, so they ask you to leave.
Second off, I could see how 'lame' is offensive. The term is originally used to describe a medical condition. However, people have decided to conflate that medical condition with something that is boring or bad. Think of it this way...if someone mentions that a person you have no knowledge of being lame, is your first thought that they have trouble walking or is your first thought about them something else?
Really it comes down to being polite and respectful for other people. Unfortunately, that is something that certain people have issues with.
So definitions from the dictionary have no meaning then?
skyth wrote: First off, the claims that the free speech is under attack are quite frankly BS. No government is involved. The situation as described is you visit someone's home, they ask you not to do something, you do it anyway, so they ask you to leave.
Second off, I could see how 'lame' is offensive. The term is originally used to describe a medical condition. However, people have decided to conflate that medical condition with something that is boring or bad. Think of it this way...if someone mentions that a person you have no knowledge of being lame, is your first thought that they have trouble walking or is your first thought about them something else?
Really it comes down to being polite and respectful for other people. Unfortunately, that is something that certain people have issues with.
Telling someone how they can and cannot refer to things absolutely is an assault on free speech. Furthermore it's a form of mind control because of the way words shape our world. Hold on I have primary sources on these I'll brb.
skyth wrote: First off, the claims that the free speech is under attack are quite frankly BS. No government is involved. The situation as described is you visit someone's home, they ask you not to do something, you do it anyway, so they ask you to leave.
Second off, I could see how 'lame' is offensive. The term is originally used to describe a medical condition. However, people have decided to conflate that medical condition with something that is boring or bad. Think of it this way...if someone mentions that a person you have no knowledge of being lame, is your first thought that they have trouble walking or is your first thought about them something else?
Really it comes down to being polite and respectful for other people. Unfortunately, that is something that certain people have issues with.
Totally right. I can't count how many times I tell one kid to stop calling the other one something because it is hurting their feeling. What was it last week, oh yeah... Bowser from Mario Kart. But they just keep on doing it until the name caller is crying because I yelled at her!!!
skyth wrote: First off, the claims that the free speech is under attack are quite frankly BS. No government is involved. The situation as described is you visit someone's home, they ask you not to do something, you do it anyway, so they ask you to leave.
Second off, I could see how 'lame' is offensive. The term is originally used to describe a medical condition. However, people have decided to conflate that medical condition with something that is boring or bad. Think of it this way...if someone mentions that a person you have no knowledge of being lame, is your first thought that they have trouble walking or is your first thought about them something else?
Really it comes down to being polite and respectful for other people. Unfortunately, that is something that certain people have issues with.
So definitions from the dictionary have no meaning then?
The dictionary definitions are meaningless without the history especially when a new meaning was derived from the original and intended to be deragatory.
People should be free to speak as they want and say what they want.
Then, in base of what they say, consequences can apply.
Remember that the Chart of Human Rights recognise the free of speech, but also says that free speech its not free of consequences.
skyth wrote: First off, the claims that the free speech is under attack are quite frankly BS. No government is involved. The situation as described is you visit someone's home, they ask you not to do something, you do it anyway, so they ask you to leave.
Second off, I could see how 'lame' is offensive. The term is originally used to describe a medical condition. However, people have decided to conflate that medical condition with something that is boring or bad. Think of it this way...if someone mentions that a person you have no knowledge of being lame, is your first thought that they have trouble walking or is your first thought about them something else?
Really it comes down to being polite and respectful for other people. Unfortunately, that is something that certain people have issues with.
So definitions from the dictionary have no meaning then?
The dictionary definitions are meaningless without the history especially when a new meaning was derived from the original and intended to be deragatory.
I agree to disagree with you. I believe context matters.
I don't have access to my repository as my Uni e-mail is no longer active but I was going to look an article by Mike Goodwin, in specific the one spoken about in this Wiki article (do your own research, wiki can be trash, but the man is real and so is the book.)
skyth wrote: First off, the claims that the free speech is under attack are quite frankly BS. No government is involved. The situation as described is you visit someone's home, they ask you not to do something, you do it anyway, so they ask you to leave.
Second off, I could see how 'lame' is offensive. The term is originally used to describe a medical condition. However, people have decided to conflate that medical condition with something that is boring or bad. Think of it this way...if someone mentions that a person you have no knowledge of being lame, is your first thought that they have trouble walking or is your first thought about them something else?
Really it comes down to being polite and respectful for other people. Unfortunately, that is something that certain people have issues with.
Telling someone how they can and cannot refer to things absolutely is an assault on free speech. Furthermore it's a form of mind control because of the way words shape our world. Hold on I have primary sources on these I'll brb.
No government involvement means no assault on free speech. Calling someone on them using offensive language is exercising free speech just the same as using that offensive language.
Free speech doesn't protect you from consequences of that speech other than from the government. It especially doesn't limit other people's free speech.
Yeah. I'm totally on board with free speech, but in today society "free speech" its something more like "Let me say what I want, but then just shut up and don't criticise me"
I was worried this thread would not be full of hyperbolic cries of oppression and stalwart defenders of free speech for imaginary attacks. I'm glad I was wrong.
skyth wrote: First off, the claims that the free speech is under attack are quite frankly BS. No government is involved. The situation as described is you visit someone's home, they ask you not to do something, you do it anyway, so they ask you to leave.
Second off, I could see how 'lame' is offensive. The term is originally used to describe a medical condition. However, people have decided to conflate that medical condition with something that is boring or bad. Think of it this way...if someone mentions that a person you have no knowledge of being lame, is your first thought that they have trouble walking or is your first thought about them something else?
Really it comes down to being polite and respectful for other people. Unfortunately, that is something that certain people have issues with.
Telling someone how they can and cannot refer to things absolutely is an assault on free speech. Furthermore it's a form of mind control because of the way words shape our world. Hold on I have primary sources on these I'll brb.
No government involvement means no assault on free speech. Calling someone on them using offensive language is exercising free speech just the same as using that offensive language.
Free speech doesn't protect you from consequences of that speech other than from the government. It especially doesn't limit other people's free speech.
Galas wrote: Yeah. I'm totally on board with free speech, but in today society "free speech" its something more like "Let me say what I want, but then just shut up and don't criticise me"
I agree but allowing people to meet with the consequences is their right. However we are not talking about yelling fire in a theater. Simply interpretation of one's words out of context.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Whatever happened to
"Sticks and Stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me"
Because we need to be saying that ALOT more often.
It was bs, still is bs, will still be bs.
zeragrin wrote: Telling someone how they can and cannot refer to things absolutely is an assault on free speech. Furthermore it's a form of mind control because of the way words shape our world. Hold on I have primary sources on these I'll brb.
OOooooh spooky! And telling people that they cannot tell you how you can refer to to things, is that also an attack on free speech? Why do you hate free speech Zeragrin?
I remember when “Free speech” was about fighting actual censorship not fighting criticism for saying gakky things. I 'member.
As for the offense debate, I have absolutely no problem with offending some people. You are offended because I belittled your religion? Fine by me. I just don't want to offend people by mistake, when I actually think the offense is justified.
Really it comes down to being polite and respectful for other people. Unfortunately, that is something that certain people have issues with.
No, it doesn't, at least not how its being discussed here. If a person if using the word correctly, and someone is trying to "correct them" then it comes down to someone trying to exert power over another.
In your instance if I say something is "lame" then that is not the appropriate use. If someone says that insulting to lame people then their point could be taken (I would tell them to F off most likely), unless the person saying it is actually lame in which case they have standing to pursue the claim.
If calling someone lame as an insult well thats a clearcut insult.
But if I say flamer retardent or Modelo Negro then I am using the correct term. If you then try to "correct me" you are trying to exert power over me and I will react to your despotic attempt with vitriol.
skyth wrote: First off, the claims that the free speech is under attack are quite frankly BS. No government is involved. The situation as described is you visit someone's home, they ask you not to do something, you do it anyway, so they ask you to leave.
If I go to someone's house and they tell me not to say something, i.e. "lame," they are probably way too thin skinned. That's not to say I won't censor myself in certain company, for instance I wouldn't dare say "r*tard" at my Uncle's house because his step daughter has Down Syndrome.
Second off, I could see how 'lame' is offensive. The term is originally used to describe a medical condition. However, people have decided to conflate that medical condition with something that is boring or bad. Think of it this way...if someone mentions that a person you have no knowledge of being lame, is your first thought that they have trouble walking or is your first thought about them something else?
I never hear "lame" used in reference to someone who has a physical handicap. If a person says someone is lame, I will automatically assume they mean the person is uninteresting. My brother's best friend is handicapped and not once in the decade I have known the guy has anyone referred to him as "lame."
Really it comes down to being polite and respectful for other people. Unfortunately, that is something that certain people have issues with.
I think the problem people have is having people police their word choice. Should I get "triggered" that everyone refers to me as white or slow?
skyth wrote: First off, the claims that the free speech is under attack are quite frankly BS. No government is involved. The situation as described is you visit someone's home, they ask you not to do something, you do it anyway, so they ask you to leave.
Second off, I could see how 'lame' is offensive. The term is originally used to describe a medical condition. However, people have decided to conflate that medical condition with something that is boring or bad. Think of it this way...if someone mentions that a person you have no knowledge of being lame, is your first thought that they have trouble walking or is your first thought about them something else?
Really it comes down to being polite and respectful for other people. Unfortunately, that is something that certain people have issues with.
Telling someone how they can and cannot refer to things absolutely is an assault on free speech. Furthermore it's a form of mind control because of the way words shape our world. Hold on I have primary sources on these I'll brb.
No government involvement means no assault on free speech. Calling someone on them using offensive language is exercising free speech just the same as using that offensive language.
Free speech doesn't protect you from consequences of that speech other than from the government. It especially doesn't limit other people's free speech.
Cool then that person has the same free speech right to tell you to go yourself when you try to exert dominion on them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galas wrote: Yeah. I'm totally on board with free speech, but in today society "free speech" its something more like "Let me say what I want, but then just shut up and don't criticise me"
No. Regardless of what comes next, you shouldn't be triggered. If you are triggered it means you had a traumatic experience and it's pretty sad. PTSD is seriously terrible.
There are plenty of available words to say something is uninteresting without relying on words derived from a type of person that paint that type of person in a negative light.
Cool then that person has the same free speech right to tell you to go yourself when you try to exert dominion on them.
Yep, basically.
So as I said early, its all down to respect and being polite to other people. Like when you were a child and say to other child "Son of a b*tch!" and he says that his mother was dead and you instantly apoligice.
But when I encounter someone with a skin to thin and "You should don't say that because MAYBE someone that isn't here can be offended" I just tend to ignore him. But, again, in public forums and in general, speaking in public, I restrain myself to a neutral and educated form of speech.
Thats why I hate Tweeter. So many entitled people that think that they have a holy right to just sput gak (In all directions of the political and social spectre) and receive no consequences from it, its disgusting.
Cool then that person has the same free speech right to tell you to go yourself when you try to exert dominion on them.
Yep, basically.
So as I said early, its all down to respect and being polite to other people. Like when you were a child and say to other child "Son of a b*tch!" and he says that his mother was dead and you instantly apoligice.
But when I encounter someone with a skin to thin and "You should don't say that because MAYBE someone that isn't here can be offended" I just tend to ignore him. But, again, in public forums and in general, speaking in public, I restrain myself to a neutral and educated form of speech.
Its this type of calmness that has no place on the internet!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skyth wrote: There are plenty of available words to say something is uninteresting without relying on words derived from a type of person that paint that type of person in a negative light.
skyth wrote: First off, the claims that the free speech is under attack are quite frankly BS. No government is involved. The situation as described is you visit someone's home, they ask you not to do something, you do it anyway, so they ask you to leave.
If I go to someone's house and they tell me not to say something, i.e. "lame," they are probably way too thin skinned. That's not to say I won't censor myself in certain company, for instance I wouldn't dare say "r*tard" at my Uncle's house because his step daughter has Down Syndrome.
Guess what, that person still has the right to ask you to leave their house and you are in the wrong if you don't leave.
But nice to know someone is 'thin skinned' if offended by something that doesn't affect you but not if they are someone you know and care about...
The difference being that Frazzled can move out of Texas and shed his horrible texasness, but a lame person cannot choose to stop being lame.
Unfortunately for the 'lame' person, the word lame has too many legitimate uses. As a horse (and other critter) owner, the word lame is a term that gets used, because well, it is the correct term. If a person is lame and is offended by my use of the term in day to day conversations with the farrier or vet or any other person with whom I talking about my critters they can deal with it. Easier and cheaper to deal with hurt feelings than a lame horse...
Actually, one of our goats, Moonshine, is currently lame after having foundered. I have to trim her hooves every 2 weeks or so and inject her with Banamine every other day or so. Hope to heck we can get it under control soon.
Galas wrote: But when I encounter someone with a skin to thin and "You should don't say that because MAYBE someone that isn't here can be offended" I just tend to ignore him.
Sometime it can be justified though. Say, if you are making a rape joke, you never know if there are rape survivors around, and just because no-one tells you they are doesn't mean no-one is.
Back to the Original Post, I agree with you on the point that context matters. One of the additives in my manufacturing process is a retarder, as in it delays a certain part of the chemical process for various reasons. In that context, there is nothing wrong with the word.
hotsauceman1 wrote: The Issue is this Frazz Whiny people are upset because words hurt. Whatever happened to "Sticks and Stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me" Because we need to be saying that ALOT more often.
Weren't you studying to be a counselor or Human Resources person or something like that?
No. Regardless of what comes next, you shouldn't be triggered. If you are triggered it means you had a traumatic experience and it's pretty sad. PTSD is seriously terrible.
Spoiler:
I am no stranger to PTSD. I used " "triggered" " in that sentence as a call to the special snowflake crowd and their liberal use of the word.
skyth wrote: First off, the claims that the free speech is under attack are quite frankly BS. No government is involved. The situation as described is you visit someone's home, they ask you not to do something, you do it anyway, so they ask you to leave.
If I go to someone's house and they tell me not to say something, i.e. "lame," they are probably way too thin skinned. That's not to say I won't censor myself in certain company, for instance I wouldn't dare say "r*tard" at my Uncle's house because his step daughter has Down Syndrome.
Guess what, that person still has the right to ask you to leave their house and you are in the wrong if you don't leave.
But nice to know someone is 'thin skinned' if offended by something that doesn't affect you but not if they are someone you know and care about...
Did you miss the part where I said I censor myself around people who would get offended by my word choice? I am not going to yell at someone for being deaf if there is a deaf person in the room regardless if they heard me or not.
The difference being that Frazzled can move out of Texas and shed his horrible texasness, but a lame person cannot choose to stop being lame.
Unfortunately for the 'lame' person, the word lame has too many legitimate uses. As a horse (and other critter) owner, the word lame is a term that gets used, because well, it is the correct term. If a person is lame and is offended by my use of the term in day to day conversations with the farrier or vet or any other person with whom I talking about my critters they can deal with it. Easier and cheaper to deal with hurt feelings than a lame horse...
Actually, one of our goats, Moonshine, is currently lame after having foundered. I have to trim her hooves every 2 weeks or so and inject her with Banamine every other day or so. Hope to heck we can get it under control soon.
Most people wouldn't be offended by calling a horse lame when they were speaking of being unable to walk.
Granted, I could see mods of a forum being tired of arguments that the word was used 'correctly' and decide to ban all use of the word.
Galas wrote: But when I encounter someone with a skin to thin and "You should don't say that because MAYBE someone that isn't here can be offended" I just tend to ignore him.
Sometime it can be justified though. Say, if you are making a rape joke, you never know if there are rape survivors around, and just because no-one tells you they are doesn't mean no-one is.
Yes. Thats the reason why I restrain myself and don't say in public spaces offensive jokes when its a plausible reality that people that have experience that can read them.
If I made a Joke of someone eating monkey hecces because one throw it to his mouth, its actually plausible that people exist that can be offended reading that (Just look at youtube, its full of examples ) but this its not an All or Nothing issue. Theres topic to joke about freely, and theres topics to don't do it.
The difference being that Frazzled can move out of Texas and shed his horrible texasness, but a lame person cannot choose to stop being lame.
Unfortunately for the 'lame' person, the word lame has too many legitimate uses. As a horse (and other critter) owner, the word lame is a term that gets used, because well, it is the correct term. If a person is lame and is offended by my use of the term in day to day conversations with the farrier or vet or any other person with whom I talking about my critters they can deal with it. Easier and cheaper to deal with hurt feelings than a lame horse...
Actually, one of our goats, Moonshine, is currently lame after having foundered. I have to trim her hooves every 2 weeks or so and inject her with Banamine every other day or so. Hope to heck we can get it under control soon.
Most people wouldn't be offended by calling a horse lame when they were speaking of being unable to walk.
Granted, I could see mods of a forum being tired of arguments that the word was used 'correctly' and decide to ban all use of the word.
My understanding of the issue is folks want the word to quit being used because it may be/is offensive to some. My point is there are very valid uses of the word. If I've misunderstood the point, well, I'm not always the sharpest knife in the drawer.
I am no stranger to PTSD. I used " "triggered" " in that sentence as a call to the special snowflake crowd and their liberal use of the word.
I always laught at the fact that the same people that has popularized the term "Special Snowflake" to refer to a group, its the same people that uses the term "Normie" to refer to the mayority of the people in the planet that don't understand what they understand, and are considered "inferior" from a social point of his view We are afterall our own Special Snowflakes.
The difference being that Frazzled can move out of Texas and shed his horrible texasness, but a lame person cannot choose to stop being lame.
Unfortunately for the 'lame' person, the word lame has too many legitimate uses. As a horse (and other critter) owner, the word lame is a term that gets used, because well, it is the correct term. If a person is lame and is offended by my use of the term in day to day conversations with the farrier or vet or any other person with whom I talking about my critters they can deal with it. Easier and cheaper to deal with hurt feelings than a lame horse...
Actually, one of our goats, Moonshine, is currently lame after having foundered. I have to trim her hooves every 2 weeks or so and inject her with Banamine every other day or so. Hope to heck we can get it under control soon.
Most people wouldn't be offended by calling a horse lame when they were speaking of being unable to walk.
Granted, I could see mods of a forum being tired of arguments that the word was used 'correctly' and decide to ban all use of the word.
My understanding of the issue is folks want the word to quit being used because it may be/is offensive to some. My point is there are very valid uses of the word. If I've misunderstood the point, well, I'm not always the sharpest knife in the drawer.
Nope, you understand the situation perfectly. That was the exact problem.
Need to look at the meaning: Ableism - a set of practices and beliefs that assign inferior value (worth) to people who have developmental, emotional, physical or psychiatric disabilities.
I agree that some words in certain contexts may need to be re-examined as something to not see much use.
A common expression in my childhood was to say things like "That is a slowed (ah! the rude word filter strikes!) way to do things.". Yes, I know. I think that use in the dictionary is labelled "informal offensive".
I still find it sneak into my language when sufficiently shocked.
The difficulty is trying to apply correction to a person depending on it's "casual'/thoughtless use vs hurtful use of the words.
I have "mild" dyslexia, my one kid has AD and is colour blind and one with AD/HD and Autism so any comment on mental function is a landmine state of affairs.
It all boils down to the same thing as any prejudice: it is not something we typically have experience with or knowledge so we treat it as uncommon or "foreign".
I tell you, Autism has been the hardest "mindset" for me to get straight in my head the thinking process or overall experience, my kid looks and usually behaves "normal" so he sees a reverse prejudice since most people think he is a "normal" person acting different. Even wording can be strange, he is normal to me but throws the odd person for a loop who have not interacted with an autistic person before.
I guess all that is important is people be practical about it.
Not to infer more challenges than there are with a given person.
A deaf person would have zero issue with mechanical design, but a deaf person would have significant challenges in being a sound engineer.
This language militant behavior can be helpful to remind but can quickly make people upset if the point is made too forcefully: all in moderation.
I have a serious issue with the fixation of gender in language especially with the French and Spanish language's obsession to assign gender to inanimate objects.
Political correctness at least appears to be dead if American politics are any indication.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: So, we use a word that compares something to a class of people in order to express a negative opinion of that something, then tell the class of people used as a descriptor of negative value not to be offended by us using them as the standard of that which is terrible and substandard?
Like, if I said Frazz was a total Texas who texased up this thread until it was all Texas, a state of being I and all good people find distasteful, then it would be Frazzled's fault for being offended by the usage of the idea that being Texan in nature is a horrible, horrible thing that connotes all kinds of unpleasantness? We can count on Frazzled not to be offended when we use his very texasness as an insult for people we don't like.
The difference being that Frazzled can move out of Texas and shed his horrible texasness, but a lame person cannot choose to stop being lame. And that's just Texas for that poor person.*
*At first I was going to use the verb "to Jew", but I've heard people use it and then tell me to stop whining when I was offended. However, in the past that analogy has been less than successful on Dakka, so I went for phrasing that might actually communicate the idea to others.
Not disagreeing with you, but as a spin on this, someone says I have black hair. Or someone says the word "black", perhaps asking for their coffee, as a pure adjective. I get offended by the use of that adjective describing something completely unrelated to me, or get offended by someone pointing out I have black hair.
Am I permitted to censor them for using the term black to describe things? Or am I wrong for being offended when someone points out my physiology or a descriptive term/adjective?
I'm not talking about censoring. You would, however, have the right, perhaps even the obligation to say, "I find the use of the word 'black' offensive in this context, and here's why..." Most people don't want to be dicks. Sometimes they get defensive when they think you're calling them a dick for something they didn't feel was dickish. Explaining to them that sometimes that behavior comes across as dickish is doing them a favor, and it is up to them to decide to moderate their behavior or not. Typically, people seem to go through a period of "but I always say that" and later become more conscious of how they use language. However, sometimes people are just unrepentant dicks.
At the very least you would start a conversation. Who knows--it might change how the word 'black' affects you, too, without the blame-the-victim internalization implied by 'growing a thicker skin'.
amanita wrote: So what about words that offend people but not for the reasons some might think?
Say, "niggardly" for example? Which means miserly. Just throwing it out there! Any other words like that come to mind?
I would not use that term. Ever.
Having spent a lot of time in urban and rural South (Louisiana), just don't.
Indeed. Yes, I understand there is a word for a bundle of wood, but I also understand words come to mean different things over time and some aren't really acceptable in casual usage.
Anyway, back to the OP, I've found the actual number of people who are offended by minor stuff to be pretty small - easily dwarfed by the outrage farmers who actively seek out such people to work themselves up into a lather about.
The difference being that Frazzled can move out of Texas and shed his horrible texasness, but a lame person cannot choose to stop being lame.
Unfortunately for the 'lame' person, the word lame has too many legitimate uses. As a horse (and other critter) owner, the word lame is a term that gets used, because well, it is the correct term. If a person is lame and is offended by my use of the term in day to day conversations with the farrier or vet or any other person with whom I talking about my critters they can deal with it. Easier and cheaper to deal with hurt feelings than a lame horse...
Actually, one of our goats, Moonshine, is currently lame after having foundered. I have to trim her hooves every 2 weeks or so and inject her with Banamine every other day or so. Hope to heck we can get it under control soon.
"Lame" is probably a border case word, at least, since it has legitimate uses as well as such a long history as a derogatory descriptor that it has been grandfathered in with words like cretin and moron. Honestly, I still use it to describe something uncool or embarrassing sometimes due to habit. However, I would be much more careful not to use it around anyone with a physical disability.
I also don't find the term "lame duck" to be an intended insult by proxy since lame is being used to describe the state of the duck. If someone told me he was offended by that usage, I would stop using it around him. (I may or may not roll my eyes depending on how he informs me.) I'd push back against anyone who requested I refrain from using it to describe a horse with a farrier, for example. Context makes a huge difference.
amanita wrote: So what about words that offend people but not for the reasons some might think?
Say, "niggardly" for example? Which means miserly. Just throwing it out there! Any other words like that come to mind?
I would not use that term. Ever.
Having spent a lot of time in urban and rural South (Louisiana), just don't.
Indeed. Yes, I understand there is a word for a bundle of wood, but I also understand words come to mean different things over time and some aren't really acceptable in casual usage.
Anyway, back to the OP, I've found the actual number of people who are offended by minor stuff to be pretty small - easily dwarfed by the outrage farmers who actively seek out such people to work themselves up into a lather about.
Internet its full of hyperbole (And this its an hyperbole )
Exagerating the "enemy" its a basic strategy to further your points. Just create a problem to the solution you want to push.
My understanding of the issue is folks want the word to quit being used because it may be/is offensive to some. My point is there are very valid uses of the word. If I've misunderstood the point, well, I'm not always the sharpest knife in the drawer.
My understanding was different. I thought people wanted others to stop using the word specifically as a negative descriptor. Similarly, I know many people who are against calling someone "slowed" but have no problem with someone saying their progress or a fire was "slowed". Pretty soon I expect to see the same kind of debates over the word "special" because so many people use that as an insult that compares the insultee to a class of people diminishing both, whereas special will still be fine for sauce, blue lights and of-the-day.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
amanita wrote: So what about words that offend people but not for the reasons some might think?
Say, "niggardly" for example? Which means miserly. Just throwing it out there! Any other words like that come to mind?
Use that as a teaching moment. If you want to be passive aggressive, buy that person a word of the day calendar.
My understanding of the issue is folks want the word to quit being used because it may be/is offensive to some. My point is there are very valid uses of the word. If I've misunderstood the point, well, I'm not always the sharpest knife in the drawer.
My understanding was different. I thought people wanted others to stop using the word specifically as a negative descriptor. Similarly, I know many people who are against calling someone "slowed" but have no problem with someone saying their progress or a fire was "slowed". Pretty soon I expect to see the same kind of debates over the word "special" because so many people use that as an insult that compares the insultee to a class of people diminishing both, whereas special will still be fine for sauce, blue lights and of-the-day.
From the first post (see below), I think CptJake's take on it is right, but we just have one side of the story, obviously.
I came back with the english dictionary definition to defend this poor person and was told context, logic, and definitions have no meaning, its listed on a website as a bad word, so don't use it.
The dictionary definition really isn't a defense if the poster was using the word as an insult rather than in its technical capacity. That would be like saying, "I called that shopkeeper a circumcised descendant of Judah who keeps the covenant with God; it's right here in the dictionary!" Without the context of how the word was used, we can't know whether the usage was legitimate or a slur.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: The dictionary definition really isn't a defense if the poster was using the word as an insult rather than in its technical capacity. That would be like saying, "I called that shopkeeper a circumcised descendant of Judah who keeps the covenant with God; it's right here in the dictionary!" Without the context of how the word was used, we can't know whether the usage was legitimate or a slur.
As I said, we only have the one side of the story.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: "That's a lame excuse" is closer to "That excuse is slowed" than it is to "That excuse does not march."
In my head, I immediately translate "That's a lame excuse" for "That's a poor excuse" or, more accurately, "You're full of gak", so I wouldn't immediately see it as an insult to "lame" or handicapped people.
However, going back to only hearing one side of the story, maybe the guy had been told not to use that 20 times and they came down hard on him (baned!) on the 21st? I dunno, as I said.
I wouldn't have made an issue out of it, myself. I don't really feel like casual usage of such an old insult has any teeth any more. However, if someone told me he was offended by the usage, I would abide by his request since it is such an easy accomodation to make.
Having been a member of a few atheist groups in my time, I suspect the real culprit is a buildup of frustration and free-floating anger looking for expression. If it wasn't this, there would have been a crowd-halting screaming rant over one atheist unconsciously saying "bless you" to another atheist who sneezed.*
BobtheInquisitor wrote: "That's a lame excuse" is closer to "That excuse is slowed" than it is to "That excuse does not march."
In my head, I immediately translate "That's a lame excuse" for "That's a poor excuse" or, more accurately, "You're full of gak", so I wouldn't immediately see it as an insult to "lame" or handicapped people.
However, going back to only hearing one side of the story, maybe the guy had been told not to use that 20 times and they came down hard on him (baned!) on the 21st? I dunno, as I said.
That's a lame excuse = That's a poor excuse.
lame = poor
You are equating people who are lame with people who are substandard. That's the insult by proxy that's offending someone.
Since lame has been used that way for lifetimes already, it's not immediately obvious, nor does it have much in the way of teeth. Unless perhaps you have a disability best described with the same word, making it personal.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: The dictionary definition really isn't a defense if the poster was using the word as an insult rather than in its technical capacity. That would be like saying, "I called that shopkeeper a circumcised descendant of Judah who keeps the covenant with God; it's right here in the dictionary!" Without the context of how the word was used, we can't know whether the usage was legitimate or a slur.
As to whether this person was being censured for excessive use I do not know. I read entire thread and it was mostly based on whether or not the word lame was always inappropriate in civilized conversation. I attempted to converse with those who were overly aggressive in asserting it was always inappropriate and the rest of the story is in OP. For a few days I thought on it. I prefer to do moral inventory prior to making a stink of things but I also know most people here can use sense when discussing something not relating to religion or guns.
Truth is no matter how I look at it I see context as the only way to tell intent. There are many phrases and words no moral person would argue as fit for use. Many words have multiple meanings so assigning feeling to someone is the wrong answer in that situation, much like the example given.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I don't really feel like casual usage of such an old insult has any teeth any more. However, if someone told me he was offended by the usage, I would abide by his request since it is such an easy accomodation to make.
This at least shows me that you and I are on the same page. I would not intentionally continue to use the word lame knowing its use is offensive to an acquaintance, buddy, chum, or someone I just met.
Funny, I remember a weird moment where I almost had my head punched in by words I used I thought were "normal".
I was in a factory in Michigan and one of our assembly machines was just not working out, things were out of alignment.
I had said "That jig is garbage!"
That is when some rather large colored dude jumped off his fork lift and one-armed me into the wall with his fist cocked at me.
I then responded "What the heck is wrong?? What are you doing?? Why are you so angry about that jig??"
I guess from somewhere he came from a "jig" is some derogatory term for a colored person.
Ah, here in the "Urban Dictionary" "In the carnival industry, this is used as a derogatory word for black people. (Short for "Jigaboo")."
What is weird is that I never talked to this guy before, was not looking at him and yet he had enough offence to try to lay a beating on me in the workplace.
I was asked if I wanted to press charges or to have him fired, I just asked to talk with him alone.
We came away better and he was freaking out on how close he was to losing his job.
I just wanted to know what got him to that point... all that rage... it is not something I see where I live, ever.
I think like with anything you need to be in that person's shoes to truly understand.
Statements like "What, you cannot find it? Are ya blind?" like with anything can be terribly hurtful depending on the context and who is listening.
Jig is a bad slang word, but is very well known to apply to a !Achine or even fishing lures. So this is a perfect example. Personally I would have asked to talk to him and pressed charges. His behaviouris exactly the kind of thing that I am talking about by expecting other people to control your emotions for you.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: So, we use a word that compares something to a class of people in order to express a negative opinion of that something, then tell the class of people used as a descriptor of negative value not to be offended by us using them as the standard of that which is terrible and substandard?
Like, if I said Frazz was a total Texas who texased up this thread until it was all Texas, a state of being I and all good people find distasteful, then it would be Frazzled's fault for being offended by the usage of the idea that being Texan in nature is a horrible, horrible thing that connotes all kinds of unpleasantness? We can count on Frazzled not to be offended when we use his very texasness as an insult for people we don't like.
The difference being that Frazzled can move out of Texas and shed his horrible texasness, but a lame person cannot choose to stop being lame. And that's just Texas for that poor person.*
*At first I was going to use the verb "to Jew", but I've heard people use it and then tell me to stop whining when I was offended. However, in the past that analogy has been less than successful on Dakka, so I went for phrasing that might actually communicate the idea to others.
Not disagreeing with you, but as a spin on this, someone says I have black hair. Or someone says the word "black", perhaps asking for their coffee, as a pure adjective. I get offended by the use of that adjective describing something completely unrelated to me, or get offended by someone pointing out I have black hair.
Am I permitted to censor them for using the term black to describe things? Or am I wrong for being offended when someone points out my physiology or a descriptive term/adjective?
I'm not talking about censoring. You would, however, have the right, perhaps even the obligation to say, "I find the use of the word 'black' offensive in this context, and here's why..." Most people don't want to be dicks. Sometimes they get defensive when they think you're calling them a dick for something they didn't feel was dickish. Explaining to them that sometimes that behavior comes across as dickish is doing them a favor, and it is up to them to decide to moderate their behavior or not. Typically, people seem to go through a period of "but I always say that" and later become more conscious of how they use language. However, sometimes people are just unrepentant dicks.
At the very least you would start a conversation. Who knows--it might change how the word 'black' affects you, too, without the blame-the-victim internalization implied by 'growing a thicker skin'.
But is the person I say "I find X word offensive in this context, etc etc" obliged/required to change their vocabulary? Even when asking for a hypothetical coffee? How else are they meant to do so, or refer to that particular colour, if not?
Either they are required to cease use of a perfectly innocuous word, in this context of not even directed at me, or I am overreacting.
I'm not talking about censoring. You would, however, have the right, perhaps even the obligation to say, "I find the use of the word 'black' offensive in this context, and here's why..." Most people don't want to be dicks. Sometimes they get defensive when they think you're calling them a dick for something they didn't feel was dickish. Explaining to them that sometimes that behavior comes across as dickish is doing them a favor, and it is up to them to decide to moderate their behavior or not. Typically, people seem to go through a period of "but I always say that" and later become more conscious of how they use language. However, sometimes people are just unrepentant dicks.
At the very least you would start a conversation. Who knows--it might change how the word 'black' affects you, too, without the blame-the-victim internalization implied by 'growing a thicker skin'.
But is the person I say "I find X word offensive in this context, etc etc" obliged/required to change their vocabulary?
No one is required to change vocabulary. We are not the police. However, they would be obliged at least to be careful with that word around you for politeness, unless they just plain want to antagonize you. If they don't care about being a jerk to you, then that's that. It also tends to lead to all kinds of drama and hostile work environments and stress, so that might be something to consider.
Even when asking for a hypothetical coffee? How else are they meant to do so, or refer to that particular colour, if not?
"My apologies. I didn't realize the word would offend you. How would you like me to describe plain coffee in the future?" (I suggest "unbemilked sugarless".)
You can even mention that you were surprised such an anodyne word hurt them and ask for any other words or topics they would like you to avoid. If you communicate genuine interest, usually people will respond well. If you ask with your sarcasm voice, not so much. Even if you find their request preposterous, starting a dialogue can go a long way to patch over further misunderstandings before they get serious.
If they see you as someone willing to listen, they might give you some warning about saying "jig" before they start punching you.
Either they are required to cease use of a perfectly innocuous word, in this context of not even directed at me, or I am overreacting.
Perfectly innocuous to you. Obviously it isn't perfectly innocuous if it bothers someone. And again, nothing is "required" on your part except to think for a moment about how you want all of your future interactions with this person to go. Is sticking a point on vocabulary worth potentially years of antagonism, random HR complaints, and general stink-eye to you? Does your coworker merit so little consideration that you're not even willing to entertain his personal issue with a single word to help make his days a little more bearable?
If I may be so bold, I would have more respect for anyone in that situation with your same inflexibility who took the less craven path and just replaced "black" with "I don't give a gak about you."
"How do I want my coffee? I don't give a gak about you."
"I drive the I don't give a gak about you car."
"This job has hollowed out my body and soul to the point where I look ahead six months and all I see is I don't give a gak about you."
redleger wrote: Jig is a bad slang word, but is very well known to apply to a !Achine or even fishing lures. So this is a perfect example. Personally I would have asked to talk to him and pressed charges. His behaviouris exactly the kind of thing that I am talking about by expecting other people to control your emotions for you.
I've literally never heard of that. Here a jig is template form set up to better fabricate metal, or wood into a desired ship, often multiple times.
redleger wrote: Jig is a bad slang word, but is very well known to apply to a !Achine or even fishing lures. So this is a perfect example. Personally I would have asked to talk to him and pressed charges. His behaviouris exactly the kind of thing that I am talking about by expecting other people to control your emotions for you.
I've literally never heard of that. Here a jig is template form set up to better fabricate metal, or wood into a desired ship, often multiple times.
And this is why "being offended" to the point you get violent is lame.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BobtheInquisitor wrote: If I may be so bold, I would have more respect for anyone in that situation with your same inflexibility who took the less craven path and just replaced "black" with "I don't give a gak about you."
"How do I want my coffee? I don't give a gak about you."
"I drive the I don't give a gak about you car."
"This job has hollowed out my body and soul to the point where I look ahead six months and all I see is I don't give a gak about you."
So now using the descriptor black to describe something that is in fact black is the same thing as saying I don't give a gak about you. If someone took offense to me ordering my coffee black, which is how I drink it, then I would either no longer buy from them, or if not the vendor show them what it really means to be offended when I make them feel 1in tall. Then they can learn what truly offensive language is. Because the word black in and of it self is no more offensive than pink or purple.
redleger wrote: Jig is a bad slang word, but is very well known to apply to a !Achine or even fishing lures. So this is a perfect example. Personally I would have asked to talk to him and pressed charges. His behaviouris exactly the kind of thing that I am talking about by expecting other people to control your emotions for you.
I've literally never heard of that. Here a jig is template form set up to better fabricate metal, or wood into a desired ship, often multiple times.
I've never been a fan of anyone telling me what I can or can't say. Why the sudden urge to control language? Was it always like this? Instead of trying to police language, why can't people just do what we always did in the past and throw some words back at the other side?
Future War Cultist wrote: I've never been a fan of anyone telling me what I can or can't say. Why the sudden urge to control language? Was it always like this?
Frazzled wrote:Cool then that person has the same free speech right to tell you to go yourself when you try to exert dominion on them.
And these people in turn are free to interpret your reply as you being an easily offended snowflake with anger issues if you interpret them asking for a slight change in word usage as "exert dominion" and use words like that. I can't be sure but my guess is that you probably adjust your language all the time to your target audience (friends, family, work, young kids). They why get so offended yourself when somebody is not comfortable with a given situation? You could just ignore it and keep talking like before instead of reacting like that. They don't have power over you :/
Tactical_Spam wrote:I am no stranger to PTSD. I used " "triggered" " in that sentence as a call to the special snowflake crowd and their liberal use of the word.
Just for clarification, which is it? The special snowflake "free speech" crowd that throws around triggered all the time with more or less no context or reason, or the supposedly perpetually offended SJW crowd? Because at the moment the "free speech warriors" crowd seems to "liberally use the word" triggered more than all of the tumblr snowflakes combined (especially when they think it's some edgy retort).
Future War Cultist wrote:I've never been a fan of anyone telling me what I can or can't say. Why the sudden urge to control language? Was it always like this? Instead of trying to police language, why can't people just do what we always did in the past and throw some words back at the other side?
You know that when people ask you to adjust your vocabulary that's not an order. They are just uncomfortable with something and it's in your power to change that (or not, it's literary up to you). What would you do if you accidentally used "bad words" in front of somebody's kids and they asked you to stop. Would just just apologise and adjust or would you preach to them about free speech/safe spaces/thought police and people wanting to control language and double down on using offensive language to prove a point. This is similar, just for adults. For example, all over the world people manage to adjust when a friend asks them to not use a nickname because they don't like it (or similar situations). If you don't like to change then don't and these people might end up offended or not liking it and it might shade their perception of you (like thinking of you as insensitive or stubborn). And you are free to interpret that as them being oversensitive.
In the end there is no police going around shooting people for using "offensive language" and these days you can probably find more content with that type of language than at any other time in human history. If there's policing happening then it's doing a really bad job.
Oh yeah, of course I wouldn't swear in front of kids or call someone a disgusting slur to their face. That's just common sense and curtesy. I guess what I was talking about has more to do with opinions rather then words and is a separate issue.
Frazzled wrote:Cool then that person has the same free speech right to tell you to go yourself when you try to exert dominion on them.
And these people in turn are free to interpret your reply as you being an easily offended snowflake with anger issues if you interpret them asking for a slight change in word usage as "exert dominion" and use words like that. I can't be sure but my guess is that you probably adjust your language all the time to your target audience (friends, family, work, young kids). They why get so offended yourself when somebody is not comfortable with a given situation? You could just ignore it and keep talking like before instead of reacting like that. They don't have power over you :/
Tactical_Spam wrote:I am no stranger to PTSD. I used " "triggered" " in that sentence as a call to the special snowflake crowd and their liberal use of the word.
Just for clarification, which is it? The special snowflake "free speech" crowd that throws around triggered all the time with more or less no context or reason, or the supposedly perpetually offended SJW crowd? Because at the moment the "free speech warriors" crowd seems to "liberally use the word" triggered more than all of the tumblr snowflakes combined (especially when they think it's some edgy retort).
Future War Cultist wrote:I've never been a fan of anyone telling me what I can or can't say. Why the sudden urge to control language? Was it always like this? Instead of trying to police language, why can't people just do what we always did in the past and throw some words back at the other side?
You know that when people ask you to adjust your vocabulary that's not an order. They are just uncomfortable with something and it's in your power to change that (or not, it's literary up to you). What would you do if you accidentally used "bad words" in front of somebody's kids and they asked you to stop. Would just just apologise and adjust or would you preach to them about free speech/safe spaces/thought police and people wanting to control language and double down on using offensive language to prove a point. This is similar, just for adults. For example, all over the world people manage to adjust when a friend asks them to not use a nickname because they don't like it (or similar situations). If you don't like to change then don't and these people might end up offended or not liking it and it might shade their perception of you (like thinking of you as insensitive or stubborn). And you are free to interpret that as them being oversensitive.
In the end there is no police going around shooting people for using "offensive language" and these days you can probably find more content with that type of language than at any other time in human history. If there's policing happening then it's doing a really bad job.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: If I may be so bold, I would have more respect for anyone in that situation with your same inflexibility who took the less craven path and just replaced "black" with "I don't give a gak about you."
"How do I want my coffee? I don't give a gak about you."
"I drive the I don't give a gak about you car."
"This job has hollowed out my body and soul to the point where I look ahead six months and all I see is I don't give a gak about you."
So now using the descriptor black to describe something that is in fact black is the same thing as saying I don't give a gak about you. If someone took offense to me ordering my coffee black, which is how I drink it, then I would either no longer buy from them, or if not the vendor show them what it really means to be offended when I make them feel 1in tall. Then they can learn what truly offensive language is. Because the word black in and of it self is no more offensive than pink or purple.
I feel like you misunderstand what I wrote because you didn't read all of the posts in the reply chain.
First of all, I thought we were talking about a coworker or someone 'you' have to deal with. If this is a vendor or total stranger, then walking away is an option. Second, the hypothetical was ridiculous enough assuming a coworker. A coffee vendor who is offended by the term black coffee is such a stupid, childish hypothetical that it warrants derision. If that is the hypothetical, then it simply wouldn't be worth my time to play that game.
If we are talking about a coworker (or someone you can't safely assume is an unmedicated vagrant) who asks you not to use word x because it offends them, and you decide that you will keep using the word because your desire not to have to think or modify your behavior is more important than their desire not to have hurt feelings, then when you use word X you are implicitly telling that person you don't give a gak about them. That is exactly what it means when you dismiss someone else's request not to offend them. You don't give a gak about them. In fact, from your post you are so offended (!) by that person who asked you to not say one specific word (possibly for good reasons, but you"ll never know) that you will enjoy excoriating them, inflicting misery on them for your satisfaction. You care more about being right on an abstract principle such as "black is a safe word" than you do about another human being getting along with you. Sun Tzu once said the efficient path to victory is not to be such a dick that you make enemies out of allies, or some SJW crap like that.
Besides, as the "jig" conversation demonstrated, there might be a regional dialect somewhere that sees the word as very offensive. Rather than admit the possibility of your ignorance causing some accidental offense, you would make sure to cause offense on purpose to remove any doubt those around you might have of your character.
I wonder if this is part of a bigger political problem. Some people hear that they have hurt someone's feelings and their response is to lash out at a perceived attempt to abrogate their freedoms and verbally punish those who disagree in the name of freedom. Some people respond by taking the positive step to find out how to avoid such unpleasantness so everyone can exit the situation happier. Man, which one do I think leads to better outcomes...
Oh yeah, of course I wouldn't swear in front of kids or call someone a disgusting slur to their face. That's just common sense and curtesy. I guess what I was talking about has more to do with opinions rather then words and is a separate issue.
This whole issue is that one person said, "I consider that word a slur." Common sense and courtesy are a plot by the secret police.
No. Regardless of what comes next, you shouldn't be triggered. If you are triggered it means you had a traumatic experience and it's pretty sad. PTSD is seriously terrible.
Spoiler:
I am no stranger to PTSD. I used " "triggered" " in that sentence as a call to the special snowflake crowd and their liberal use of the word.
I didn't miss the point, you did. The fact they use the word wrong is no reason to do the same yourself, further stripping it of meaning.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: If I may be so bold, I would have more respect for anyone in that situation with your same inflexibility who took the less craven path and just replaced "black" with "I don't give a gak about you."
"How do I want my coffee? I don't give a gak about you."
"I drive the I don't give a gak about you car."
"This job has hollowed out my body and soul to the point where I look ahead six months and all I see is I don't give a gak about you."
So now using the descriptor black to describe something that is in fact black is the same thing as saying I don't give a gak about you. If someone took offense to me ordering my coffee black, which is how I drink it, then I would either no longer buy from them, or if not the vendor show them what it really means to be offended when I make them feel 1in tall. Then they can learn what truly offensive language is. Because the word black in and of it self is no more offensive than pink or purple.
I feel like you misunderstand what I wrote because you didn't read all of the posts in the reply chain.
First of all, I thought we were talking about a coworker or someone 'you' have to deal with. If this is a vendor or total stranger, then walking away is an option. Second, the hypothetical was ridiculous enough assuming a coworker. A coffee vendor who is offended by the term black coffee is such a stupid, childish hypothetical that it warrants derision. If that is the hypothetical, then it simply wouldn't be worth my time to play that game.
If we are talking about a coworker (or someone you can't safely assume is an unmedicated vagrant) who asks you not to use word x because it offends them, and you decide that you will keep using the word because your desire not to have to think or modify your behavior is more important than their desire not to have hurt feelings, then when you use word X you are implicitly telling that person you don't give a gak about them. That is exactly what it means when you dismiss someone else's request not to offend them. You don't give a gak about them. In fact, from your post you are so offended (!) by that person who asked you to not say one specific word (possibly for good reasons, but you"ll never know) that you will enjoy excoriating them, inflicting misery on them for your satisfaction. You care more about being right on an abstract principle such as "black is a safe word" than you do about another human being getting along with you. Sun Tzu once said the efficient path to victory is not to be such a dick that you make enemies out of allies, or some SJW crap like that.
Besides, as the "jig" conversation demonstrated, there might be a regional dialect somewhere that sees the word as very offensive. Rather than admit the possibility of your ignorance causing some accidental offense, you would make sure to cause offense on purpose to remove any doubt those around you might have of your character.
I wonder if this is part of a bigger political problem. Some people hear that they have hurt someone's feelings and their response is to lash out at a perceived attempt to abrogate their freedoms and verbally punish those who disagree in the name of freedom. Some people respond by taking the positive step to find out how to avoid such unpleasantness so everyone can exit the situation happier. Man, which one do I think leads to better outcomes...
I see the point you are making, and for most scenarios it rings true. However in the scenario of being expected to modify normal behavior every time someone asks you too where is the line. Innuendo can be drawn from literally almost anything from sex to race. At what point is it ok to say, no sir, that was not the context, you are reaching and please exit my personal space?
I see the point you are making, and for most scenarios it rings true. However in the scenario of being expected to modify normal behavior every time someone asks you too where is the line. Innuendo can be drawn from literally almost anything from sex to race. At what point is it ok to say, no sir, that was not the context, you are reaching and please exit my personal space?
You don't have to every time someone asks you to. You don't have to at all. I'm not even saying you should the first time if you are comfortable with the social blowback. I'm saying, ideally one should have a conversation and listen to the other person. They have their own feelings and perspective and want to be treated with as much respect as you want to be treated with. Usually that is enough to mollify them. The whole issue is about respect.
For the coffee example, unless they have a really compelling reason I would expect it to be enough just to be contrite. "Oh. I didn't realize that was offensive. I'll try not to say it again but I might forget and slip up since I haven't had my coffee yet. Please excuse me if I do."
For the "lame" discussion, it sounds like someone influential in that Facebook group has an issue with the word and avoiding using it is just the price of posting there drama free (freer?). You won't be locked up, but I assume they can kick you out if they want? If so, it's up to you whether to stay there and deal with their rules or not. The word might actually hurt their feelings, too, which I would consider a good reason to avoid using it.
In some place like a work environment, it really depends on your personal tolerance. Some people thrive when all their coworkers hate them. I sure don't. So, unless the request is truly onerous I find it is usually easier just to go along with what makes the least amount of office conflict. Also, I like being nice to people and dislike causing unnecessary pain, emotional or physical. If their request is onerous, I'd try my best to figure out a way to let them know I do care about their perspective while at the same time I am unable to comply with their request. I honestly can't think of a single time when this wasn't enough of an attempt at conciliation to satisfy the offended party.
redleger wrote: Jig is a bad slang word, but is very well known to apply to a !Achine or even fishing lures. So this is a perfect example. Personally I would have asked to talk to him and pressed charges. His behaviouris exactly the kind of thing that I am talking about by expecting other people to control your emotions for you.
I've literally never heard of that. Here a jig is template form set up to better fabricate metal, or wood into a desired ship, often multiple times.
And this is why "being offended" to the point you get violent is lame.
well in 1927 it was a different case all together,
Origin and Etymology of jig
short for jigaboo black person
First Known Use: 1927
but I do agree, violence is not the answer.
Or maybe, from Meriam Webster's Dictionary:
'perhaps from Medieval French giguer to frolic, from gigue fiddle, of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German gīga fiddle; akin to Old Norse geiga to turn aside
redleger wrote: So follow question, as this continues to kind of eat at me. At what point do we end up whittling down the English language to one word for each meaning? Vocabulary would become unnecessary, and descriptive words useless. Retardant is a perfect example. So now we saw fire resistant. Now somehow resistant becomes offensive to people fighting oppressive governments. I mean there needs to be a point where people learn to control their own emotions themselves without censoring everyone so they don't have to.
There's a really amazing irony in someone complaining about the loss of words in one sentence, and then in the next treating two words as synonyms when they have distinct meanings.
As to the use of words like 'lame'... I guess it all comes down to context. Saying the ending of a show was lame while there is a guy missing two legs sitting right next to you just isn't very thoughtful or smart. But on the other hand, if a person said that under a certain interpretation a law might be rendered lame... then it'd be contrived for some random third party to come in lecturing you about saying the word 'lame'.
Unfortunately, it looks like this will end up yet another proxy in the great culture war. The right wants to show their ideological cred by declaring people can say any word at any time because freedom. The left wants to show how much more enlightened they are by lecturing everyone about everything. Both sides are utterly insufferable.
redleger wrote: So follow question, as this continues to kind of eat at me. At what point do we end up whittling down the English language to one word for each meaning? Vocabulary would become unnecessary, and descriptive words useless. Retardant is a perfect example. So now we saw fire resistant. Now somehow resistant becomes offensive to people fighting oppressive governments. I mean there needs to be a point where people learn to control their own emotions themselves without censoring everyone so they don't have to.
There's a really amazing irony in someone complaining about the loss of words in one sentence, and then in the next treating two words as synonyms when they have distinct meanings.
As to the use of words like 'lame'... I guess it all comes down to context. Saying the ending of a show was lame while there is a guy missing two legs sitting right next to you just isn't very thoughtful or smart. But on the other hand, if a person said that under a certain interpretation a law might be rendered lame... then it'd be contrived for some random third party to come in lecturing you about saying the word 'lame'.
Unfortunately, it looks like this will end up yet another proxy in the great culture war. The right wants to show their ideological cred by declaring people can say any word at any time because freedom. The left wants to show how much more enlightened they are by lecturing everyone about everything. Both sides are utterly insufferable.
I actually love that, because its so true.
To your other point quick synonym check shows I used a very bad example. I concede that was a poor choice.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I believe it's a contraction of 'Jigaboo', which is a derogatory term for people of colour.
Perhaps not a widely used one, but derogatory all the same.
Its also a widely used term in metal and wood shops across the US. Thats just crazy stupid.
All I can say is the time I spent in Michigan in the Detroit (Dearborn) area, many people were not in their "happy place" and were pretty quick to offend.
Automotive industry is a rather intense environment but I had never seen so many people demanding respect yet showing precious little for the other person.
The company I was at was some "certified visible minority" establishment so I would figure it would not be a place people would be looking for problems.
BUT to be on topic, we all take some responsibility for what we choose to be offended by.
We also need to hold people accountable for ill manners and intentional hurtful language.
All this stems from our own prejudices which typically is from just lack of knowledge and some who genuinely just want to be controversial.
Easiest means to avoid the ableism issue is to sit down and talk with people who have these challenges.
I think too many of us tend to act like the person is not there if they make us uncomfortable.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I believe it's a contraction of 'Jigaboo', which is a derogatory term for people of colour.
Perhaps not a widely used one, but derogatory all the same.
Its also a widely used term in metal and wood shops across the US. Thats just crazy stupid.
No, it's not. A "Jig" is a commonly used term, "Jigaboo" is unabashedly a racial slur, albeit an older one.
Yeah I'm pretty sure Fraz was referring to "jig" with his comment rather than "jigaboo" for which it's supposedly a contraction.
Personally I use the term "jig" all the time (both in the context of metal working and also in the context of a dance) and have never even heard it used as a contraction for "jigaboo".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Again, who are you to say whether a given person should or should not be taking offence?
People can be offended by whatever they want. Just because someone is offended doesn't mean the other party was being offensive.
A tangentially related and somewhat funny video...
I totally forgot about the Irish dance and evidently its also a term for a fishing lure.
So if something has multiple meanings, one being a huge racial slur, then it's not a surprise for some to possibly be upset about it, making it not crazy stupid, numb nuts.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I believe it's a contraction of 'Jigaboo', which is a derogatory term for people of colour.
Perhaps not a widely used one, but derogatory all the same.
Its also a widely used term in metal and wood shops across the US. Thats just crazy stupid.
No, it's not. A "Jig" is a commonly used term, "Jigaboo" is unabashedly a racial slur, albeit an older one.
Yeah I'm pretty sure Fraz was referring to "jig" with his comment rather than "jigaboo" for which it's supposedly a contraction.
Personally I use the term "jig" all the time (both in the context of metal working and also in the context of a dance) and have never even heard it used as a contraction for "jigaboo".
I'm a concertina player and amateur builder, so in my world, "jig" is a necessary word to communicate with both dancers and fellow builders (you cannot build an instrument without quite a lot of specialized machining jigs and you want to be able to communicate a type of dance in a session fast and without any ambiguity). This shows exactly how pointless liberal leftist approach to language and feeling offended really is: if we'll keep baning words that someone gets offended by, two things will happen to languages:
- people who do not want to offend other people by chance, will have to reinvent their everyday communication, but in the process will either narrow available vocabulary or create artificial new words/meanings. And in cases like above "jig" within industrial application, the process of getting rid of an unwanted word (from entire language, not from a single workspace) may be lenghty and meet very reasonable resistance. For example, some areas of craftsmanship are very conservative - by imposing unoffending language we will (in some cases) irreversibly lose cultural continuity in those areas, because for historical reasons, many early XX century slang words originated from names of new tools/processes/occupations in the industry, because simple workers of that time drew them from available vocabulary. Which leads straight to my second point:
- people who want to offend/outburst their racist/fobic views will just adapt other words from available vocabulary for their purposes. This happens naturally, just compare what was considered harsh language 100 years ago and what is considered offensive language now. Baning certain words will just speed up the process.
There is another side to this leftist "holy war" with language and I'll try to describe it on an example: I'm an epileptic. In Polish, a word for epilepsy is "padaczka" and during my childhood, the common term for cars or appliances worn beyond usability/broken/old was "padaka", (you can read it as "padaczka" is just a smaller version of "padaka", I can't think of any english language equivalent for making "little" or "bigger" version of a noun). But because there was no internet back then, no leftist social justice warriors and no "everyone is entitled to feel offended by anything" reality, I didn't felt ofended and in fact I didn't even considered terms "padaka" and "padaczka" connected, because they were always used in totaly different context. This is obviously not the only such case, but you should get the picture. Nowadays I would be "educated" by leftist narrative, that I SHOULD feel offended and would probably FEEL bad couple of times a week, because this artificially imposed strong connection between words and intentions. What leftists forget is that native language is learnt by repetition in context, not by memorising dictionary definitions and "proper usage" and many, many words have a whole lot of obscure meanings or history, that nobody using them in good will is aware of...
Popsghostly wrote: Ha ha read this thread incorrectly. Thought it was preventing Abe-ism, the prime minister of Japan. I was like these guys can talk about Japanese politics.
Tough call. Back in the 80's "r*tard" was a commonly-used term, but isn't PC now. Looking back, I agree that it shouldn't be used, especially since it is a derogatory term with the context of someone who has mental disabilities.
Will "lame" be the same? Only time will tell, but I can see the atheist point of view because it can be used as a derogatory term that insults those with a disability. I mean "lame" is generally not, maybe never a positive term.
I edited this because Dakka's software automatically corrected r*tard to "slow". Wow.
People have just moved on to using "autistic" in the same way.
And yeah, you know that can be depressing, but to be honest I've just learned to use that as a barometer to help me decide who is and isn't worth my time.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I believe it's a contraction of 'Jigaboo', which is a derogatory term for people of colour.
Perhaps not a widely used one, but derogatory all the same.
Its also a widely used term in metal and wood shops across the US. Thats just crazy stupid.
No, it's not. A "Jig" is a commonly used term, "Jigaboo" is unabashedly a racial slur, albeit an older one.
Yeah I'm pretty sure Fraz was referring to "jig" with his comment rather than "jigaboo" for which it's supposedly a contraction.
Personally I use the term "jig" all the time (both in the context of metal working and also in the context of a dance) and have never even heard it used as a contraction for "jigaboo".
I'm a concertina player and amateur builder, so in my world, "jig" is a necessary word to communicate with both dancers and fellow builders (you cannot build an instrument without quite a lot of specialized machining jigs and you want to be able to communicate a type of dance in a session fast and without any ambiguity). This shows exactly how pointless liberal leftist approach to language and feeling offended really is: if we'll keep baning words that someone gets offended by, two things will happen to languages:
- people who do not want to offend other people by chance, will have to reinvent their everyday communication, but in the process will either narrow available vocabulary or create artificial new words/meanings. And in cases like above "jig" within industrial application, the process of getting rid of an unwanted word (from entire language, not from a single workspace) may be lenghty and meet very reasonable resistance. For example, some areas of craftsmanship are very conservative - by imposing unoffending language we will (in some cases) irreversibly lose cultural continuity in those areas, because for historical reasons, many early XX century slang words originated from names of new tools/processes/occupations in the industry, because simple workers of that time drew them from available vocabulary. Which leads straight to my second point:
- people who want to offend/outburst their racist/fobic views will just adapt other words from available vocabulary for their purposes. This happens naturally, just compare what was considered harsh language 100 years ago and what is considered offensive language now. Baning certain words will just speed up the process.
There is another side to this leftist "holy war" with language and I'll try to describe it on an example: I'm an epileptic. In Polish, a word for epilepsy is "padaczka" and during my childhood, the common term for cars or appliances worn beyond usability/broken/old was "padaka", (you can read it as "padaczka" is just a smaller version of "padaka", I can't think of any english language equivalent for making "little" or "bigger" version of a noun). But because there was no internet back then, no leftist social justice warriors and no "everyone is entitled to feel offended by anything" reality, I didn't felt ofended and in fact I didn't even considered terms "padaka" and "padaczka" connected, because they were always used in totaly different context. This is obviously not the only such case, but you should get the picture. Nowadays I would be "educated" by leftist narrative, that I SHOULD feel offended and would probably FEEL bad couple of times a week, because this artificially imposed strong connection between words and intentions. What leftists forget is that native language is learnt by repetition in context, not by memorising dictionary definitions and "proper usage" and many, many words have a whole lot of obscure meanings or history, that nobody using them in good will is aware of...
better to get rid of the offensive use I would think.
Who is saying you can never use the word jig? Just because some idiot committed a felony over it doesn't make that an actual position held by the left.
It's like claiming you can't ever say "flip" just because it's sometimes a racial slur or "snatch" because it's sometimes a sexist slur. No one is making that argument.
No gak sherlock. Thats what I said. I'd never even heard of jigaboo before. That must be some Yankee thing.
Just in case you ever visit the mid-Atlantic, calling someone a "jig" or a "jigaboo" is like the worst of the worst...probably worse than using the n-bomb. Avoid at all costs, those are definitely fighting words.
No gak sherlock. Thats what I said. I'd never even heard of jigaboo before. That must be some Yankee thing.
Just in case you ever visit the mid-Atlantic, calling someone a "jig" or a "jigaboo" is like the worst of the worst...probably worse than using the n-bomb. Avoid at all costs, those are definitely fighting words.
Cool. I am not certain why I would call someone a metal form though.. I don't generally call anyone by a term other than "sir" "maam" "youn g lady" "young man" or " HEY bag!"
No gak sherlock. Thats what I said. I'd never even heard of jigaboo before. That must be some Yankee thing.
Just in case you ever visit the mid-Atlantic, calling someone a "jig" or a "jigaboo" is like the worst of the worst...probably worse than using the n-bomb. Avoid at all costs, those are definitely fighting words.
Cool. I am not certain why I would call someone a metal form though.. I don't generally call anyone by a term other than "sir" "maam" "youn g lady" "young man" or " HEY bag!"
I've actually gotten grief from a couple northern ladies for using the term "ma'am". Apparently, to some people, it means something like "old maid", rather than the polite way to address a woman of any adult age, as I was raised. Ah, to live in the land of the perpetually offended.
Yep, it's sad now that calling someone ma'am, showing respect to them is offensive. This is the very core of this conversation. And yes there are people arguing that just because a word can be taken out of context it should remove. It's why I started this thread. It seems asinine to me. If you call someone a jig, yep hard to misinterpret that. If I say I'm going jigging, I'm fishing with a specific lure.
redleger wrote: This is the core of this conversation. Jig has 3 well known meaning shown here. I pointed out earlier that jig is a fishing lures. It is not short for a racial slur unless you begin reaching. I have heard the word jigaboo used many times growing up in South Texas and never ever was it shortened. So here we are again. Another example of someone thinking a word should be removed from is without context. Context is very important.
I have heard jig used as a slur in its shortened form. (I had a coworker who always said "jigger" from Futurama, and it lead to some misunderstandings.). Just because you haven't heard it doesn't mean it isn't used that way. I've never heard rolypolies called pill bugs in real life, either, but it doesn't mean people who use those words are wrong. I have heard some British people use the c-word casually, and around here it is considered as offensive as the n-word.
Anyway, who is telling you not to use jig at all? Was it the straw man?
Yep, it's sad now that calling someone ma'am, showing respect to them is offensive. This is the very core of this conversation. And yes there are people arguing that just because a word can be taken out of context it should remove. It's why I started this thread. It seems asinine to me. If you call someone a jig, yep hard to misinterpret that. If I say I'm going jigging, I'm fishing with a specific lure.
So, to play devil's advocates, words should have no consequence? People should be free to say anything? If so, I feel like any conversation would devolve into Xbox Live chat.
No gak sherlock. Thats what I said. I'd never even heard of jigaboo before. That must be some Yankee thing.
Just in case you ever visit the mid-Atlantic, calling someone a "jig" or a "jigaboo" is like the worst of the worst...probably worse than using the n-bomb. Avoid at all costs, those are definitely fighting words.
Cool. I am not certain why I would call someone a metal form though.. I don't generally call anyone by a term other than "sir" "maam" "youn g lady" "young man" or " HEY bag!"
I've actually gotten grief from a couple northern ladies for using the term "ma'am". Apparently, to some people, it means something like "old maid", rather than the polite way to address a woman of any adult age, as I was raised. Ah, to live in the land of the perpetually offended.
I don't think this its a case of being perpetually offended, just people of different parts of the world having different meanings to the same term.
For example, in Spain the verb "Coger" means "The action of taking something". In Southamerica, "Coger" means "The act of having sex"
One year I was in Argentina in a vacation, on a supermarket, and I tell my little brother "Coge esa bolsa de patatas" ("Take that bag of chips), and like 4-5 person stop in his place and then look at me as a mad-man. At that moment I didn't understand why everyone in the supermarket after that give me bad looks.
USA its very big, I find totally normal that different States have different (In some cases, totally different) meanings to the same words.
redleger wrote: Yep, it's sad now that calling someone ma'am, showing respect to them is offensive.
A young lady at an office I was visiting told me in a non-aggressive way that I was being sexist for holding the door open for her. The way I was raised, you ALWAYS hold the door open for women, the elderly, and the disabled. And if you're ever dining with a woman, the elderly, or the disabled, you ALWAYS pick up the bill.
Is that sexist? Is it ageist? Is it abilitist? To me, it's just a common courtesy, and to be honest, when I see men who do not extend these courtesies, I see it as evidence of a lack of character.
In the push for egalitarianism, it's my opinion that we should not throw the baby out with the ubathwater. But maybe the world is passing me by.
redleger wrote: Yep, it's sad now that calling someone ma'am, showing respect to them is offensive.
A young lady at an office I was visiting told me in a non-aggressive way that I was being sexist for holding the door open for her. The way I was raised, you ALWAYS hold the door one for women, the elderly, and the disabled. And if you're ever dining with a woman, the elderly, or the disabled, you ALWAYS pick up the bill.
Is that sexist? Is it ageist? Is it abilitist? To me, it's just a common courtesy, and to be honest, when I see men who do not extend these courtesies, I see it as evidence of a lack of character.
In the push for egalitarianism, it's my opinion that we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. But maybe the world is passing me by.
If you think about it, you were teached to hold the door to the women... the elderly... and the disabled. Didn't that say anything to you?
Here its courtesy to hold the door for everyone, even more if they are carrying something that weights.
redleger wrote: Yep, it's sad now that calling someone ma'am, showing respect to them is offensive.
A young lady at an office I was visiting told me in a non-aggressive way that I was being sexist for holding the door open for her. The way I was raised, you ALWAYS hold the door one for women, the elderly, and the disabled. And if you're ever dining with a woman, the elderly, or the disabled, you ALWAYS pick up the bill.
Is that sexist? Is it ageist? Is it abilitist? To me, it's just a common courtesy, and to be honest, when I see men who do not extend these courtesies, I see it as evidence of a lack of character.
In the push for egalitarianism, it's my opinion that we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. But maybe the world is passing me by.
If you think about it, you were teached to hold the door to the women... the elderly... and the disabled. Didn't that say anything to you?
Here its courtesy to hold the door for everyone, even more if they are carrying something that weights.
It taught me a couple things, actually. A) That women, the elderly, and the disabled are deserving of respect, and B) that by accident of being a healthy man, I have greater physical strength than most women, elderly folk, and disabled people, and therefore I should be polite and lend that strength out to help others, even in small ways.
I definitely think it's the right thing to do to hold the door for anyone at all when they are carrying a load or otherwise seem like they'd have some difficulty opening the door.
Yep, it's sad now that calling someone ma'am, showing respect to them is offensive. This is the very core of this conversation. And yes there are people arguing that just because a word can be taken out of context it should remove. It's why I started this thread. It seems asinine to me. If you call someone a jig, yep hard to misinterpret that. If I say I'm going jigging, I'm fishing with a specific lure.
So, to play devil's advocates, words should have no consequence? People should be free to say anything? If so, I feel like any conversation would devolve into Xbox Live chat.
Are you saying they shouldn't be? Just where do you find the power to do that again?
EDIT I avoid the door issue by taking a different tact. I hold the door closed.
redleger wrote: This is the core of this conversation. Jig has 3 well known meaning shown here. I pointed out earlier that jig is a fishing lures. It is not short for a racial slur unless you begin reaching. I have heard the word jigaboo used many times growing up in South Texas and never ever was it shortened. So here we are again. Another example of someone thinking a word should be removed from is without context. Context is very important.
I have heard jig used as a slur in its shortened form. (I had a coworker who always said "jigger" from Futurama, and it lead to some misunderstandings.). Just because you haven't heard it doesn't mean it isn't used that way. I've never heard rolypolies called pill bugs in real life, either, but it doesn't mean people who use those words are wrong. I have heard some British people use the c-word casually, and around here it is considered as offensive as the n-word.
Anyway, who is telling you not to use jig at all? Was it the straw man?
Think somewhere on page 3 two co-workers almost came to blows over one's use of jig in a non-derogatory manner. Then it went off from there.
As mentioned earlier, context counts. Assault is never acceptable, but I've heard people use phrases like "chink in the armor" in the presence of people of Chinese-descent, pretending to be using the word in common use but really just to get a rise out of them. Maybe the African-American co-worker experienced some type of racism like that with "jig".
Going on a tangent, personal feeling is that many here are white males (as in the tabletop wargaming industry) who have never faced discrimination but take the "if someone did that to me, I just wouldn't care" and "be tougher" stance. It's really quite different once you have had the experience of being singled out, called a name or treated differently (negatively) because you are indeed different. People need to keep this in mind when not understanding how even sometimes hearing "jig," "r*tard" or "chink" in a normal context can be a trigger for minorities/disabled people. Not that logically it necessarily should though, of course. Maybe we can get input from more minorities if they are out there.
I experienced the same thing while spending 9 years in Japan with the term "gaijin" which literally means outside person and used for all people not Japanese. It's a common word with really no other substitute, but for many non-Japanese people, they cringe when they hear it because at heart it means they are not part of major society, but an outsider (and it can be used, is and has been used in a derogatory manner).
zeragrin has actually faced discrimination and harsh words based on his condition and grew thick skin from experience. Kudos to him from overcoming that crap but, of course, completely unacceptable to all those who have treated him that way.
I'm quite impressed how few trolls there are here and how respectful this possibly volatile conversation has been, perhaps because we all share the love of a common-viewed as geeky hobby.
redleger wrote: Yep, it's sad now that calling someone ma'am, showing respect to them is offensive.
A young lady at an office I was visiting told me in a non-aggressive way that I was being sexist for holding the door open for her. The way I was raised, you ALWAYS hold the door open for women, the elderly, and the disabled. And if you're ever dining with a woman, the elderly, or the disabled, you ALWAYS pick up the bill.
Is that sexist? Is it ageist? Is it abilitist? To me, it's just a common courtesy, and to be honest, when I see men who do not extend these courtesies, I see it as evidence of a lack of character.
In the push for egalitarianism, it's my opinion that we should not throw the baby out with the ubathwater. But maybe the world is passing me by.
Understand how you feel. I was raised to hold the door open for people. I would just explain that to her in a non-aggressive way. But then again, maybe it wouldn't be worth the time and lead to more friction. It would be pretty uncomfortable not opening the door for her.
Edit: Just read Galas post below and agree with the inferiority/superiority undertones of holding the door for only women/children/elderly/disabled and how she might take offense. I think most of us hold doors for people behind us regardless of who's behind us.
redleger wrote: Yep, it's sad now that calling someone ma'am, showing respect to them is offensive.
A young lady at an office I was visiting told me in a non-aggressive way that I was being sexist for holding the door open for her. The way I was raised, you ALWAYS hold the door one for women, the elderly, and the disabled. And if you're ever dining with a woman, the elderly, or the disabled, you ALWAYS pick up the bill.
Is that sexist? Is it ageist? Is it abilitist? To me, it's just a common courtesy, and to be honest, when I see men who do not extend these courtesies, I see it as evidence of a lack of character.
In the push for egalitarianism, it's my opinion that we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. But maybe the world is passing me by.
If you think about it, you were teached to hold the door to the women... the elderly... and the disabled. Didn't that say anything to you?
Here its courtesy to hold the door for everyone, even more if they are carrying something that weights.
It taught me a couple things, actually. A) That women, the elderly, and the disabled are deserving of respect, and B) that by accident of being a healthy man, I have greater physical strength than most women, elderly folk, and disabled people, and therefore I should be polite and lend that strength out to help others, even in small ways.
I definitely think it's the right thing to do to hold the door for anyone at all when they are carrying a load or otherwise seem like they'd have some difficulty opening the door.
You are technically correct, the best thing of correct. But, or the doors in USA are made of steel and wheight a ton, or I think that 95% of the womens will have 0 problems in the physical act of opening it.
But, I don't say that its a bad thing to open doors to other people. I say that its totally normal to see it as an act of superiority if you only open it to the ones you think are inferior to you (Even in a biological and acurate inferiority. I don't need the build workers to carry my supermarket bags even when they have much more strenght than me. I can do it for myself.) Pride its a important part of own we see ourselves. I'm pretty sure you have done things that other people can do better or more easy than you in your life, but you want to do it for yourself.
This works both ways. As I find inapropiate the act of only opening doors to women, etc... and not for everyone, the "Women and children first" I think comes from the same perspective. Children should go first, sure. Men and Women, in the other hand... shoudlnt have preferences.
Yep, it's sad now that calling someone ma'am, showing respect to them is offensive. This is the very core of this conversation. And yes there are people arguing that just because a word can be taken out of context it should remove. It's why I started this thread. It seems asinine to me. If you call someone a jig, yep hard to misinterpret that. If I say I'm going jigging, I'm fishing with a specific lure.
So, to play devil's advocates, words should have no consequence? People should be free to say anything? If so, I feel like any conversation would devolve into Xbox Live chat.
Consequences, sure if the words warrant it. I'm not talking about how you should be able to say anything you want free of consequence if what you are saying could lead to illegal action or is illegal. What I am saying is reaching for a meaning to a phrase where it probably doesn't exist is exerting your will over someone else. The phrase I said in the quote is one such phrase. Google JIG and you find more references to fishing and dancing than anything else. So then why should I allow someone to make me feel bad for talking about fishing. If I say you are a jig, contextually it's hard to argue it was meant as anything but an insult. So this word is not bad, nor is the word black, lame, sex, among many others. But you can use those words in bad ways which is why context is important.
redleger wrote: Yep, it's sad now that calling someone ma'am, showing respect to them is offensive.
A young lady at an office I was visiting told me in a non-aggressive way that I was being sexist for holding the door open for her. The way I was raised, you ALWAYS hold the door one for women, the elderly, and the disabled. And if you're ever dining with a woman, the elderly, or the disabled, you ALWAYS pick up the bill.
Is that sexist? Is it ageist? Is it abilitist? To me, it's just a common courtesy, and to be honest, when I see men who do not extend these courtesies, I see it as evidence of a lack of character.
In the push for egalitarianism, it's my opinion that we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. But maybe the world is passing me by.
If you think about it, you were teached to hold the door to the women... the elderly... and the disabled. Didn't that say anything to you?
Here its courtesy to hold the door for everyone, even more if they are carrying something that weights.
It taught me a couple things, actually. A) That women, the elderly, and the disabled are deserving of respect, and B) that by accident of being a healthy man, I have greater physical strength than most women, elderly folk, and disabled people, and therefore I should be polite and lend that strength out to help others, even in small ways.
I definitely think it's the right thing to do to hold the door for anyone at all when they are carrying a load or otherwise seem like they'd have some difficulty opening the door.
You are technically correct, the best thing of correct. But, or the doors in USA are made of steel and wheight a ton, or I think that 95% of the womens will have 0 problems in the physical act of opening it.
But, I don't say that its a bad thing to open doors to other people. I say that its totally normal to see it as an act of superiority if you only open it to the ones you think are inferior to you (Even in a biological and acurate inferiority. I don't need the build workers to carry my supermarket bags even when they have much more strenght than me. I can do it for myself.) Pride its a important part of own we see ourselves. I'm pretty sure you have do things that other people can do better or more easy than you in your life, but you want to do it for yourself.
This works both ways. As I find inapropiate the act of only opening doors to women, etc... and not for everyone, the "Women and children first" I think comes from the same perspective. Children should go first, sure. Men and Women, in the other hand... shoudlnt have preferences.
I actually wonder if some of the "women and children first" stuff has roots in evolution. It seems intuitive to me that protecting children and women (being womb-bearers) would confer survival advantages for the species. Just a thought; caveat: I am not a scientist, just a layman interested in science.
Men are more violent than Women, thats biology. Men are more muscular and strong than Women.
If you have 1 men and 100 women you can have 100 babys a year. If you have 100 men and 1 women you can only have 1.
Thats why in history only men go to war.
Thats why you can't analice society without having account of our biology and animal instincts.
But as its clear, many of those things, in today society, have no real reason to be still in our social mentality. As a species we have pretty much surpass the point of possible extinction
Yep, it's sad now that calling someone ma'am, showing respect to them is offensive. This is the very core of this conversation. And yes there are people arguing that just because a word can be taken out of context it should remove. It's why I started this thread. It seems asinine to me. If you call someone a jig, yep hard to misinterpret that. If I say I'm going jigging, I'm fishing with a specific lure.
So, to play devil's advocates, words should have no consequence? People should be free to say anything? If so, I feel like any conversation would devolve into Xbox Live chat.
Are you saying they shouldn't be? Just where do you find the power to do that again?
People should take responsibility for their actions. You're allowed free speech, but with that right comes the idea that you shouldn't act like a savage. Just because you can say something doesn't mean you should.
Yep, it's sad now that calling someone ma'am, showing respect to them is offensive. This is the very core of this conversation. And yes there are people arguing that just because a word can be taken out of context it should remove. It's why I started this thread. It seems asinine to me. If you call someone a jig, yep hard to misinterpret that. If I say I'm going jigging, I'm fishing with a specific lure.
So, to play devil's advocates, words should have no consequence? People should be free to say anything? If so, I feel like any conversation would devolve into Xbox Live chat.
Consequences, sure if the words warrant it. I'm not talking about how you should be able to say anything you want free of consequence if what you are saying could lead to illegal action or is illegal. What I am saying is reaching for a meaning to a phrase where it probably doesn't exist is exerting your will over someone else. The phrase I said in the quote is one such phrase. Google JIG and you find more references to fishing and dancing than anything else. So then why should I allow someone to make me feel bad for talking about fishing. If I say you are a jig, contextually it's hard to argue it was meant as anything but an insult. So this word is not bad, nor is the word black, lame, sex, among many others. But you can use those words in bad ways which is why context is important.
Edit for bad tablet keyboard and spelling.
I'm not talking about legalities, I'm talking about manner and proper etiquette. If someone takes offense to something you say, then you should try and explain that it wasn't your intent, even if it's over something seemingly innocuous. I recently had this exchange with one of my coworkers. I was complaining about my neighbors and referred to them as "ghetto". She took offense because she saw that as derogatory. I apologized, said I wasn't trying to insult her, and we moved past it, like adults. Plus, I still use the word ghetto, I just don't use it with her because she thinks it's offensive. Simple stuff.
As bad as the left is about PC culture, the right has had a sudden resurgence in "I should be able to say whatever I want and if you think I'm a jerk, then you're overly sensitive".
I have never encounter one of those "I should be free to be a total jerk" that don't offend himself when you let free your inner jerk that one contain because we are all educated adults.
Someones, after that, realice that we all can be offended, just not by the same things. Other just keep going with his mantra. Ignore the second tipe.
Galas wrote: But as its clear, many of those things, in today society, have no real reason to be still in our social mentality. As a species we have pretty much surpass the point of possible extinction
That's highly debatable. Environmental degradation and destruction, the rise of drug resistant viruses and diseases, the ongoing threat of nuclear holocaust, the possibility of the rise of deleterious artificial intelligence, the almost inevitability of a disastrous impact from a large asteroid. And let's not forget the possibility that all of the signals we've been sending out into space are recieved by a malicious alien species of super-bugs bent on obtaining Earth's resources. But I guess that's a topic for another thread
One thing I do remember from BIO 101 is that you can't escape evolution. You can only trick your mind into believing that humanity has transcended evolution. We as humans are perpetually trapped inside Darwin's game. The only thing that changes about the game is the survival parameters.
And this is being overly construed. Ghetto is very easily associated with race. But knowing ghetto upset her and moving on is the way it should work, because it's not a far streatch, so I wouldn't necessarily call that reaching. If I say I bought a new jig for my new fishing pole, and you take offense to that, then I'm not entirely sure I would care. I would however limit interaction with that person from now on.
Galas wrote: But as its clear, many of those things, in today society, have no real reason to be still in our social mentality. As a species we have pretty much surpass the point of possible extinction
That's highly debatable. Environmental degradation and destruction, the rise of drug resistant viruses and diseases, the ongoing threat of nuclear holocaust, the possibility of the rise of deleterious artificial intelligence, the almost inevitability of a disastrous impact from a large asteroid. And let's not forget the possibility that all of the signals we've been sending out into space are recieved by a malicious alien species of super-bugs bent on obtaining Earth's resources. But I guess that's a topic for another thread
One thing I do remember from BIO 101 is that you can't escape evolution. You can only trick your mind into believing that humanity has transcended evolution. We as humans are perpetually trapped inside Darwin's game. The only thing that changes about the game is the survival parameters.
Don't forget zombies, and of course people who like cats-now there's a true threat to the species.
Galas wrote: But as its clear, many of those things, in today society, have no real reason to be still in our social mentality. As a species we have pretty much surpass the point of possible extinction
That's highly debatable. Environmental degradation and destruction, the rise of drug resistant viruses and diseases, the ongoing threat of nuclear holocaust, the possibility of the rise of deleterious artificial intelligence, the almost inevitability of a disastrous impact from a large asteroid. And let's not forget the possibility that all of the signals we've been sending out into space are recieved by a malicious alien species of super-bugs bent on obtaining Earth's resources. But I guess that's a topic for another thread
One thing I do remember from BIO 101 is that you can't escape evolution. You can only trick your mind into believing that humanity has transcended evolution. We as humans are perpetually trapped inside Darwin's game. The only thing that changes about the game is the survival parameters.
When the day come that an asteroid impact Earth, I don't think that how many doors did you have open to women matter at all And you are correct in all of what you say, but it didn't go against my previous point!
The "Opening door" debate I think comes down to, as I said early, pride and self image. I don't like when people do things for me that I can do myself, even with more effort. Thats why I can totally understand why some women can be offended by that.
But, in Spain, you encounter two types of people: The ones that close the door in your face and just don't care about your sex or condition, or educated people than open the door to the other person, independient of sex, age, etc...
I have never encounter a women that take offense of me opening the door for her, but maybe because I open the door to everyone that comes behind me. (Or after... you know, I'm entering a build and he/she exiting it!)
redleger wrote: Yep, it's sad now that calling someone ma'am, showing respect to them is offensive.
A young lady at an office I was visiting told me in a non-aggressive way that I was being sexist for holding the door open for her. The way I was raised, you ALWAYS hold the door open for women, the elderly, and the disabled. And if you're ever dining with a woman, the elderly, or the disabled, you ALWAYS pick up the bill.
Is that sexist? Is it ageist? Is it abilitist? To me, it's just a common courtesy, and to be honest, when I see men who do not extend these courtesies, I see it as evidence of a lack of character.
In the push for egalitarianism, it's my opinion that we should not throw the baby out with the ubathwater. But maybe the world is passing me by.
Dude, different places have different social conventions. It's really simple. It's not the death of decency because you met someone raised with different expectations to your own.
I'm not talking about legalities, I'm talking about manner and proper etiquette. If someone takes offense to something you say, then you should try and explain that it wasn't your intent, even if it's over something seemingly innocuous. I recently had this exchange with one of my coworkers. I was complaining about my neighbors and referred to them as "ghetto". She took offense because she saw that as derogatory. I apologized, said I wasn't trying to insult her, and we moved past it, like adults. Plus, I still use the word ghetto, I just don't use it with her because she thinks it's offensive. Simple stuff.
As bad as the left is about PC culture, the right has had a sudden resurgence in "I should be able to say whatever I want and if you think I'm a jerk, then you're overly sensitive".
Alternatively I might be nice but I would put them on the list of people not to talk to. *
*In actuality I only talk business at work with the exception of one or two people or very minor pleasantries. That avoids these problems alltogether.
redleger wrote: Yep, it's sad now that calling someone ma'am, showing respect to them is offensive.
A young lady at an office I was visiting told me in a non-aggressive way that I was being sexist for holding the door open for her. The way I was raised, you ALWAYS hold the door open for women, the elderly, and the disabled. And if you're ever dining with a woman, the elderly, or the disabled, you ALWAYS pick up the bill.
Is that sexist? Is it ageist? Is it abilitist? To me, it's just a common courtesy, and to be honest, when I see men who do not extend these courtesies, I see it as evidence of a lack of character.
In the push for egalitarianism, it's my opinion that we should not throw the baby out with the ubathwater. But maybe the world is passing me by.
Dude, different places have different social conventions. It's really simple. It's not the death of decency because you met someone raised with different expectations to your own.
It was in the same town that I work. I chalked it up as a generational thing. It did not make me angry at all, just a bit melancholy. Not all changes are for the better.
I'm not talking about legalities, I'm talking about manner and proper etiquette. If someone takes offense to something you say, then you should try and explain that it wasn't your intent, even if it's over something seemingly innocuous. I recently had this exchange with one of my coworkers. I was complaining about my neighbors and referred to them as "ghetto". She took offense because she saw that as derogatory. I apologized, said I wasn't trying to insult her, and we moved past it, like adults. Plus, I still use the word ghetto, I just don't use it with her because she thinks it's offensive. Simple stuff.
As bad as the left is about PC culture, the right has had a sudden resurgence in "I should be able to say whatever I want and if you think I'm a jerk, then you're overly sensitive".
Alternatively I might be nice but I would put them on the list of people not to talk to. *
*In actuality I only talk business at work with the exception of one or two people or very minor pleasantries. That avoids these problems alltogether.
Prior to getting out we saw each other 14 to 18 hours a day, so we talk about everything. Don't know if you have heard Soldiers in their native habitat, but this conversation would be about different kinds of language. Hopefully when I start working as a contractor the curve isn't so bad. Less hours around people might help.
Pops, the "jig" event was one person committing assault and battery over a misunderstanding. I think it's safe to say the fault lies with the criminal. It's also what I was talking about when I said sometimes a request is too onerous to comply with. If you work with a machine that's called a jig, and you you often need to specify that machine to coworkers, then it is an unreasonable burden to avoid the word jig. If a coworker has a problem with it, usually a simple conversation expressing lack of intent to use (or even awareness of) a slur should suffice. If your coworker attacks you without warning, that's on him and you probably don't need to worry about staying on his good side since he'll hopefully get shitcanned.
redleger wrote: And this is being overly construed. Ghetto is very easily associated with race. But knowing ghetto upset her and moving on is the way it should work, because it's not a far streatch, so I wouldn't necessarily call that reaching. If I say I bought a new jig for my new fishing pole, and you take offense to that, then I'm not entirely sure I would care. I would however limit interaction with that person from now on.
Perfectly reasonable.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote: The left wants to show how much more enlightened they are by lecturing everyone about everything. Both sides are utterly insufferable.
I'll own it. But don't knock what works; my son is one of the best behaved kids in his class because he'll do anything to avoid an insufferable lecture.
Still better than being one of those insufferable Golden Meanists.
Well, I guess you can say some places have not "progressed" as well as others.
A prior work of mine was like the United Nations with so many nationalities in it which was awesome.
BUT to be within this topic, they did not have anyone I knew of that had some disability in their employ (unless you count the guy who was 7'4" tall).
My main local hobby shop has this one small step right at their door and I know of at least 3 people confined to wheelchair in the area that want to play and post on Facebook.
They keep asking people to come over to their place "because it is easier".
I have harassed the store owner in that regard and his #1 reply is: "I rent the space, I am not allowed to change the facility."
One step. They have sufficient space and flat floor and even the tables are low... it could so easily accommodate.
Talizvar wrote: Well, I guess you can say some places have not "progressed" as well as others. A prior work of mine was like the United Nations with so many nationalities in it which was awesome. BUT to be within this topic, they did not have anyone I knew of that had some disability in their employ (unless you count the guy who was 7'4" tall).
My main local hobby shop has this one small step right at their door and I know of at least 3 people confined to wheelchair in the area that want to play and post on Facebook. They keep asking people to come over to their place "because it is easier". I have harassed the store owner in that regard and his #1 reply is: "I rent the space, I am not allowed to change the facility." One step. They have sufficient space and flat floor and even the tables are low... it could so easily accommodate.
Not hard to help your wheel chair bound buddy up one step. When my wife shattered her pelvis I got her up and down a handful of steps multiple times a day. Seems silly to let one step stop you from gaming in this case.
I'm not sure where the assumption that we can't use 'jig', 'black', and 'retardant' in the proper context from.
Is there an actual instance of someone ordering black coffee and getting grief over it?
Saying "that jig is garbage" in a workshop loud enough for a co-worker driving a forklift to hear and get enraged is an obvious misunderstanding, and kudos to the poster for discussing it with his co worker like an adult instead of hiding behind HR and the authorities.
There's an awful lot of histrionic smoke in here and no real fire.
Talizvar wrote: Well, I guess you can say some places have not "progressed" as well as others. A prior work of mine was like the United Nations with so many nationalities in it which was awesome. BUT to be within this topic, they did not have anyone I knew of that had some disability in their employ (unless you count the guy who was 7'4" tall).
My main local hobby shop has this one small step right at their door and I know of at least 3 people confined to wheelchair in the area that want to play and post on Facebook. They keep asking people to come over to their place "because it is easier". I have harassed the store owner in that regard and his #1 reply is: "I rent the space, I am not allowed to change the facility." One step. They have sufficient space and flat floor and even the tables are low... it could so easily accommodate.
Not hard to help your wheel chair bound buddy up one step. When my wife shattered her pelvis I got her up and down a handful of steps multiple times a day. Seems silly to let one step stop you from gaming in this case.
And if his buddy is on his own? I think the concern is more that the hobby shop is refusing to help customers with disabilities, like Stephen Hawking wanting to come pick up some dice.
Talizvar wrote: Well, I guess you can say some places have not "progressed" as well as others. A prior work of mine was like the United Nations with so many nationalities in it which was awesome. BUT to be within this topic, they did not have anyone I knew of that had some disability in their employ (unless you count the guy who was 7'4" tall).
My main local hobby shop has this one small step right at their door and I know of at least 3 people confined to wheelchair in the area that want to play and post on Facebook. They keep asking people to come over to their place "because it is easier". I have harassed the store owner in that regard and his #1 reply is: "I rent the space, I am not allowed to change the facility." One step. They have sufficient space and flat floor and even the tables are low... it could so easily accommodate.
Not hard to help your wheel chair bound buddy up one step. When my wife shattered her pelvis I got her up and down a handful of steps multiple times a day. Seems silly to let one step stop you from gaming in this case.
And if his buddy is on his own? I think the concern is more that the hobby shop is refusing to help customers with disabilities, like Stephen Hawking wanting to come pick up some dice.
I strongly suspect if someone wheeled up to the door and asked for help getting in, somebody, either a customer or employee, would give them a hand. If not, well, it wasn't a gaming community worth hanging out with anyway. No-one said they were refusing to help, what was said is they were refusing, allegedly based on their lease agreement, to alter the structure even to put in a ramp. Big difference in my mind.
redleger wrote: Yep, it's sad now that calling someone ma'am, showing respect to them is offensive.
A young lady at an office I was visiting told me in a non-aggressive way that I was being sexist for holding the door open for her. The way I was raised, you ALWAYS hold the door open for women, the elderly, and the disabled. And if you're ever dining with a woman, the elderly, or the disabled, you ALWAYS pick up the bill.
Is that sexist? Is it ageist? Is it abilitist? To me, it's just a common courtesy, and to be honest, when I see men who do not extend these courtesies, I see it as evidence of a lack of character.
In the push for egalitarianism, it's my opinion that we should not throw the baby out with the ubathwater. But maybe the world is passing me by.
I bet that same lady would be pissed if you didn't hold the elevator for her though. Doors are all fun & games, but anyone who watches the doors close as your coming up to an elevator is truely evil
I've heard stories like yours before, but they seem to be rarer than a bigfoot sighting, so feel free to hold the door.
Talizvar wrote: Well, I guess you can say some places have not "progressed" as well as others.
A prior work of mine was like the United Nations with so many nationalities in it which was awesome.
BUT to be within this topic, they did not have anyone I knew of that had some disability in their employ (unless you count the guy who was 7'4" tall).
My main local hobby shop has this one small step right at their door and I know of at least 3 people confined to wheelchair in the area that want to play and post on Facebook.
They keep asking people to come over to their place "because it is easier".
I have harassed the store owner in that regard and his #1 reply is: "I rent the space, I am not allowed to change the facility."
One step. They have sufficient space and flat floor and even the tables are low... it could so easily accommodate.
Not hard to help your wheel chair bound buddy up one step. When my wife shattered her pelvis I got her up and down a handful of steps multiple times a day. Seems silly to let one step stop you from gaming in this case.
And if his buddy is on his own? I think the concern is more that the hobby shop is refusing to help customers with disabilities, like Stephen Hawking wanting to come pick up some dice.
I strongly suspect if someone wheeled up to the door and asked for help getting in, somebody, either a customer or employee, would give them a hand. If not, well, it wasn't a gaming community worth hanging out with anyway. No-one said they were refusing to help, what was said is they were refusing, allegedly based on their lease agreement, to alter the structure even to put in a ramp. Big difference in my mind.
Well, this is where the scenario is a bit tough:
- The door opens outward so will take some effort to get open with the fairly strong door closer.
- The opening is a bit of a dog-leg so no-one would see this person trying to gain entrance so would have to wait till someone goes to enter or exit.
- I would argue the point with the landlord to get a ramp in just for the trolleys people bring in will all their gaming stuff if for some silly reason wheelchair access is not enough .
- Washroom would be a bit harder but it has the space and installing grab rails are not all that hard to do (Not tile so you do not have to go too crazy).
I think this would be a business advantage because they hold all kinds of MTG competitions and getting right into Pokémon as well as a 40k tournament this weekend so getting a name for inclusivity is helpful. LGBT community is well represented so it is a strange "one small step" to get stuck on.
redleger wrote: Yep, it's sad now that calling someone ma'am, showing respect to them is offensive.
A young lady at an office I was visiting told me in a non-aggressive way that I was being sexist for holding the door open for her. The way I was raised, you ALWAYS hold the door open for women, the elderly, and the disabled. And if you're ever dining with a woman, the elderly, or the disabled, you ALWAYS pick up the bill.
Is that sexist? Is it ageist? Is it abilitist? To me, it's just a common courtesy, and to be honest, when I see men who do not extend these courtesies, I see it as evidence of a lack of character.
In the push for egalitarianism, it's my opinion that we should not throw the baby out with the ubathwater. But maybe the world is passing me by.
I bet that same lady would be pissed if you didn't hold the elevator for her though. Doors are all fun & games, but anyone who watches the doors close as your coming up to an elevator is truely evil
I've heard stories like yours before, but they seem to be rarer than a bigfoot sighting, so feel free to hold the door.
Agreed on the elevator. Also agree on the rarity. When o think about it, I must've held thousands of doors, bit I've only ever been told it was sexist the one time.
With regards to the OP post...I don't think I've ever used, or heard used, the word "lame" to refer to someone with disabilities, aside from older books or movies set in like Victorian England and the like. "Lame", in all current usage I have encountered, is pretty much exclusively used to mean "uncool" with zero connotations of disability in my experience. That sounds like an odd one to get upset about.
Man this is crap. Words have multiple meanings and intent and use of the word matters more than the word itself. I'm sorry if this is a colorful world and things have gotten too real for some people but censoring words won't take away the bad things some of those words represent. For instance if you took away the word rape it's not like it'd go away.
This hyper-sensitivity is such crap and PC is only PC when it is based around politically left issues. If a christian or white male was insulted (calling a white guy a 'cracker') would the PC crowd even bat an eye at it? I kind of hate the first world nations now because of all this. I almost want to live in a slightly less developed nation so i can see what real problems are and appreciate them as such.
The anger about "Politically Correct" form of speaking its absurd. 40 years ago the people that today feel represed where the ones censoring what you can say and when you can say it.
Now the sides have fliped. In 40 years thing will be again at the inverse. Its pretty futile to be angry about this.
Human history its ciclical. As a species we face the same problems again and again. The thing that changes its how we answer those problems.
Hipocrisy its one of the things that really upset me, thats why the partisanism of today society its very tiresome to me. The "If my party do it, its right, if the other guys do it, its wrong" its infuriating.
PD: So many letters to don't say anything with substance
flamingkillamajig wrote: Man this is crap. Words have multiple meanings and intent and use of the word matters more than the word itself. I'm sorry if this is a colorful world and things have gotten too real for some people but censoring words won't take away the bad things some of those words represent. For instance if you took away the word rape it's not like it'd go away.
And often the other meanings are based on the original definition and seek to conflate those or belittle those people.
This hyper-sensitivity is such crap and PC is only PC when it is based around politically left issues. If a christian or white male was insulted (calling a white guy a 'cracker') would the PC crowd even bat an eye at it?
Yes, they would.
I kind of hate the first world nations now because of all this. I almost want to live in a slightly less developed nation so i can see what real problems are and appreciate them as such.
Just because other problems are worse doesn't make another problem isn't a problem, especially when it's a problem that can be dealt with somewhat easily.
As a right-wing Christian gun owner I often get upset when the leftist anti-gun atheists belittle my religion and political views here on Dakka. It triggers my anxiety disorder and sometimes causes panic attacks. As a result I hope you will all accommodate my needs and never again be critical of Christianity, the second amendment or conservatism on the forum. Easy enough to censor yourself so you don't offend me, right?
Or I could continue to wear a thick skin and not expect everyone else to conform to me all the time, like any sane adult in the real world.
This hyper-sensitivity is such crap and PC is only PC when it is based around politically left issues.
That's because the term political correctness is used by the right and aimed at the left in a derogatory way. The PC crowd can't be on the right by definition but you just try to say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" and you apparently start a War on Christmas. There's literary a whole TV network of thin-skinned snowflakes making money with that outrage during the winter months :/
Nostromodamus wrote: As a right-wing Christian gun owner I often get upset when the leftist anti-gun atheists belittle my religion and political views here on Dakka. It triggers my anxiety disorder and sometimes causes panic attacks. As a result I hope you will all accommodate my needs and never again be critical of Christianity, the second amendment or conservatism on the forum. Easy enough to censor yourself so you don't offend me, right?
Or I could continue to wear a thick skin and not expect everyone else to conform to me all the time, like any sane adult in the real world.
Well, this original discusion wasn't about opinions or ideology criticism, but about medical and physical conditions.
Religion its not a person, so even if you insult religion (Budhism, Islam, Christianism, etc...) you aren't attacking a person. If someone its offended because you have attacked an ideology, the fault of being offended its only theirs. I have meet Vegans and Vegetarians that take offense in a personal level when I criticise those things. I really don't care about that.
This its different if I attack "males/females", or black people, white people, disabled people, tall people, etc... because I'm not speaking about an Ideology, about a "External" thing of those people. I'm talking about conditionts that they didn't choose, and they can't change, so its totally normal when people take offense of attacks against their natural and biological conditions.
So, no. Its not the same if someone attack your ideology, that if somebody attack you for being white/black or male. (Or attack those groups of people that share a biological condition)
Summarizing: No one should be criticied and attacked by things they cant choose. Now, for things that we can chose, go ahead. Thats why we have freedom to chose them in the first place. No ideology should be free of criticism and derision. And I say this as a filthy marxist (Economical, social marxism its just absurd)
Nostromodamus wrote: As a right-wing Christian gun owner I often get upset when the leftist anti-gun atheists belittle my religion and political views here on Dakka. It triggers my anxiety disorder and sometimes causes panic attacks. As a result I hope you will all accommodate my needs and never again be critical of Christianity, the second amendment or conservatism on the forum. Easy enough to censor yourself so you don't offend me, right?
Or I could continue to wear a thick skin and not expect everyone else to conform to me all the time, like any sane adult in the real world.
You really think some of us haven't held back considerably as a courtesy to Christian feelings? Now who's a sensitive snowflake?
You really think some of us haven't held back considerably as a courtesy to Christian feelings?
I don't think that at all. If you don't make anti-religious remarks then my sarcastic reply doesn't apply to you. If you want to make anti-religious remarks, go ahead. My genuine reply applies in that case and I will accept it as another person's opinion and get on with life like any adult should do without demanding society change to my whims.
My point is that any mature, sane person should be able to deal with people using words they dislike without having to demand people act in a certain way and modify their vocabulary in their presence.
jasper76 wrote: A young lady at an office I was visiting told me in a non-aggressive way that I was being sexist for holding the door open for her. The way I was raised, you ALWAYS hold the door open for women, the elderly, and the disabled. And if you're ever dining with a woman, the elderly, or the disabled, you ALWAYS pick up the bill.
Is that sexist?
Yes. Textbook definition of sexism.
Personally I hold the door for everyone.
So you mean, as the archetype the society you lives in cater to the most? Oh woah that sure gives extra weight to your argument.
So that makes it ok for people to hurt my feelings by saying my beliefs are invalid? I thought you PC types were for equality? Anyway, you're getting my anxiety up. Kindly cease your microaggressions. I may have to just keep not giving a feth what you think.
You (I use it in plural) are turning this thread in something that it wasn't about. Please, we should go back to a rational debate as mentally mature humans.
You really think some of us haven't held back considerably as a courtesy to Christian feelings?
I don't think that at all. If you don't make anti-religious remarks then my sarcastic reply doesn't apply to you. If you want to make anti-religious remarks, go ahead. My genuine reply applies in that case and I will accept it as another person's opinion and get on with life like any adult should do without demanding society change to my whims.
My point is that any mature, sane person should be able to deal with people using words they dislike without having to demand people act in a certain way and modify their vocabulary in their presence.
From the religion that brought you book burnings, bannings, boycotts, blasphamy laws, and religious tests for political office, you know demanding people act in a certain and change to their whims. Just don't ask them to be tolerant of others and not use known racial slurs & offensive language, because they can't be bothered to try and be less offensive.
You really think some of us haven't held back considerably as a courtesy to Christian feelings?
I don't think that at all. If you don't make anti-religious remarks then my sarcastic reply doesn't apply to you. If you want to make anti-religious remarks, go ahead. My genuine reply applies in that case and I will accept it as another person's opinion and get on with life like any adult should do without demanding society change to my whims.
My point is that any mature, sane person should be able to deal with people using words they dislike without having to demand people act in a certain way and modify their vocabulary in their presence.
Just like any sane or mature person should be able to moderate his vocabulary for the people he is around. So far, I think the best analogy in this thread is to think of it as swearing in front of children. You have the right. Others have the right to ask you to stop. How do you proceed?
This is not about religion, let's please go back to the discussion on topic please. Nostradamus I actually read your entire comment and agree with what you were saying. It's exactly my thoughts to the point of people learning to control their own emotions
Nostromodamus wrote: Yup, better throw history's list of terrible things at my feet because I'm totally responsible for, and endorse, all of the above.
entire history? nope, that was just the events from the last couple of years. which parts did you participate in?
jasper76 wrote: A young lady at an office I was visiting told me in a non-aggressive way that I was being sexist for holding the door open for her. The way I was raised, you ALWAYS hold the door open for women, the elderly, and the disabled. And if you're ever dining with a woman, the elderly, or the disabled, you ALWAYS pick up the bill.
Is that sexist?
Yes. Textbook definition of sexism.
What an awesome culture we are creating for ourselves where courtesy is a form of discrimination
People totally need to control their emotions, because the world its a harsh place, and we can't control everything around us. Thats obvious.
Now, that its not opposite to, at the same time we encourage people to have ticker skin, we encourage people to be more respectful with others and have more empathy in general.
Going with a very board comparasion: In you go to a conflictive neighborhood you should totally be prepared and be ready to defend yourself. But that doesn't mean that the people in that neighborhood shouldn't be educated to be more mature and civilized.
The first its the apropiate response to a syntom in the harsh world we live in. The second its how you "heal" the cause of the problem.
EDIT: Jasper76, I have present you why courtesy can be discriminatory if you are just reflect that courtesy to some kind of people, and the reasons behind that discrimination (In this case, positive discrimination towards females, old people, etc...). The easy solution its just to have courtesy with everyone. No more discussions.
jasper76 wrote: A young lady at an office I was visiting told me in a non-aggressive way that I was being sexist for holding the door open for her. The way I was raised, you ALWAYS hold the door open for women, the elderly, and the disabled. And if you're ever dining with a woman, the elderly, or the disabled, you ALWAYS pick up the bill.
Is that sexist?
Yes. Textbook definition of sexism.
What an awesome culture we are creating for ourselves where courtesy is a form of discrimination
What word would you use to describe a situation where someone treats women differently from men because they are women? That is exactly what you said you do. Calling it courtesy doesn't change the fact of the matter.
Galas wrote: EDIT: Jasper76, I have present you why courtesy can be discrimination if you are just reflect that courtesy to some kind of people, and the reasons behind that discrimination (In this case, positive discrimination towards females, old people, etc...). The easy solution its just to have courtesy with everyone. No more discussions.
Just because I was raised to be courteous to women, the elderly, and the disabled doesn't mean I was raised to be discourteous to men. If you're a man and you don't hold the door open for women, the elderly, and the disabled, you're not much of a man in my book. New-fangled ways be damned. No more discussions.
And I don't know how you interpreted from what I said that I was talking about stoping opening doors to women, elderly and disabled. I was just talking about that you should have that courtesy with everyone, and if you give a different treatement to women, then its reasonable that some of those women say to you to treat them just as you treat men. Even if you are treating them better.
Galas wrote: EDIT: Jasper76, I have present you why courtesy can be discrimination if you are just reflect that courtesy to some kind of people, and the reasons behind that discrimination (In this case, positive discrimination towards females, old people, etc...). The easy solution its just to have courtesy with everyone. No more discussions.
Just because I was raised to be courteous to women, the elderly, and the disabled doesn't mean I was raised to be discourteous to men. If you're a man and you don't hold the door open for women, the elderly, and the disabled, you're not much of a man in my book. New-fangled ways be damned. No more discussions.
Positive discrimination is still discrimination. You've signed your own confession. Now own it. It's not a fatal character flaw.
Also interesting the emphasis on being a man rather than "an upright person" or some other term that doesn't exclude all the nice young women who hold open doors for others. Again, not the end of the world, but denying it will make you look dishonest, which is a much worse problem to have.
Galas wrote: Sorry, I don't know what New-flanged ways means.
And I don't know how you interpreted from what I said that I was talking about stoping opening doors to women, elderly and disabled. I was just talking about that you should have that courtesy with everyone, and if you give a different treatement to women, then its reasonable that some of those women say to you to treat them just as you treat men. Even if you are treating them better.
New-fangled pretty much just means "new", perhaps "new and unfamiliar".
If a woman asks me not to hold doors for them, I will of course comply in the future...as a matter of courtesy.
Galas wrote: EDIT: Jasper76, I have present you why courtesy can be discrimination if you are just reflect that courtesy to some kind of people, and the reasons behind that discrimination (In this case, positive discrimination towards females, old people, etc...). The easy solution its just to have courtesy with everyone. No more discussions.
Just because I was raised to be courteous to women, the elderly, and the disabled doesn't mean I was raised to be discourteous to men. If you're a man and you don't hold the door open for women, the elderly, and the disabled, you're not much of a man in my book. New-fangled ways be damned. No more discussions.
Positive discrimination is still discrimination. You've signed your own confession. Now own it. It's not a fatal character flaw.
If you're trying to get me to agree with you that acting in a courteous manner is a character flaw, just save your breath.
Galas wrote: People totally need to control their emotions, because the world its a harsh place, and we can't control everything around us. Thats obvious.
Now, that its not opposite to, at the same time we encourage people to have ticker skin, we encourage people to be more respectful with others and have more empathy in general.
Going with a very board comparasion: In you go to a conflictive neighborhood you should totally be prepared and be ready to defend yourself. But that doesn't mean that the people in that neighborhood shouldn't be educated to be more mature and civilized.
The first its the apropiate response to a syntom in the harsh world we live in. The second its how you "heal" the cause of the problem.
EDIT: Jasper76, I have present you why courtesy can be discriminatory if you are just reflect that courtesy to some kind of people, and the reasons behind that discrimination (In this case, positive discrimination towards females, old people, etc...). The easy solution its just to have courtesy with everyone. No more discussions.
I can not find fault in your thought process, but as for the original topic there is a point where people look for offense where none exists, or should exist. I think that is where the divide is. In that group, the very real attitude of the group owner was simply to prohibit the use of certain words regardless of context. I am no longer in the group so I do not have the link to the list anymore but two off top of my head were slow(obvious word with potential to be offensive) and lame. Lame is different in that its use has meaning that depends on the context. So my stance was simply that banning words because of the possibility of offense was not the correct way to protect the people's ability to speak openly. It's like banning cars because it's possible to run someone over.
People need to be free to make their own decisions and censoring words that are not of them selves "bad" should not be a normal practice.
Found the list. The website is done well, and I am not against the website. The initial list of words is what was banned completely.
Obviously using any of the words as an insult should be prohibited, but a few are not necessarily in need of an open ban, some are as they have only one meaning, and are usually slang for describing conditions.
Galas wrote: People totally need to control their emotions, because the world its a harsh place, and we can't control everything around us. Thats obvious.
Now, that its not opposite to, at the same time we encourage people to have ticker skin, we encourage people to be more respectful with others and have more empathy in general.
Going with a very board comparasion: In you go to a conflictive neighborhood you should totally be prepared and be ready to defend yourself. But that doesn't mean that the people in that neighborhood shouldn't be educated to be more mature and civilized.
The first its the apropiate response to a syntom in the harsh world we live in. The second its how you "heal" the cause of the problem.
EDIT: Jasper76, I have present you why courtesy can be discriminatory if you are just reflect that courtesy to some kind of people, and the reasons behind that discrimination (In this case, positive discrimination towards females, old people, etc...). The easy solution its just to have courtesy with everyone. No more discussions.
I can not find fault in your thought process, but as for the original topic there is a point where people look for offense where none exists, or should exist. I think that is where the divide is. In that group, the very real attitude of the group owner was simply to prohibit the use of certain words regardless of context. I am no longer in the group so I do not have the link to the list anymore but two off top of my head were slow(obvious word with potential to be offensive) and lame. Lame is different in that its use has meaning that depends on the context. So my stance was simply that banning words because of the possibility of offense was not the correct way to protect the people's ability to speak openly. It's like banning cars because it's possible to run someone over.
People need to be free to make their own decisions and censoring words that are not of them selves "bad" should not be a normal practice.
I totally agree with you in that. Banning words, outside those words that have only one meaning that its 100% offensive (Like the N use to peyorative describe black people), its absurd. The context its all what matters, and the intentionality. Just look at Snowflake. A totally innocent word with totally fair uses, that can be use in a offensive light.
EDIT: Reading your article, they began with the the basic conception that Lenguage its a opresive tool used by the system... I just can't agree with that. Its social marxism, a ideology that I just don't share, being a economical marxist still. But that its what happen when you aply the economical analysis of the capitalist world of Karl Marx to human society. A quimera full of absurd things.
jasper76 wrote: When it comes to holding doors and paying for meals, I would use the word "courtesy".
That's not courtesy, it's condescension. You wouldn't give the same "courtesy" to men, so you're implying that women are weaker and/or unable to take care of themselves and therefore need special help.
Well, I believe its unfair to call that condescension because I believe that jasper76 do that with the best of the intentions.
But even when we do things with our best intentions, we can offend other people because they don't want/ask for our help. I have encounter people on a whell chair denied my help for X , because even with more effort, they still can do it.
And I can totally understand that feeling, because I have my own medical problems. Nobody want to feel inferior, a charge to others, even when they are from a objetive and biological term inferior(Inferior in the meaning of less capable of doing X). Thats why I said early that pride and self respect are the basis of our own mental images. And when others asume that you always will need help, that can hurt our autoestime.
This its an exageration in the case of "opening doors", but its the same basis, just in a much lesser degree.
I think actually that this its more important in the case of paying the meal if you go to a dinner with a woman. When I was going to dates with my girlfriend in the past, now wife, we alternated in paying the dinner. 1- Because she earned, and still earn more money than me and 2-Its generated the image that she its dependant of you if you always pay the bill.
But this its offtopic. I just follow the rule of treating everyone with the same respect, and for now, it has worked for me.
jasper76 wrote: When it comes to holding doors and paying for meals, I would use the word "courtesy".
That's not courtesy, it's condescension. You wouldn't give the same "courtesy" to men, so you're implying that women are weaker and/or unable to take care of themselves and therefore need special help.
There is no need to imply that I am physically stronger than most women. It's a fact of biology. It's not a virtue, it's an accident of birth.
I was also unaware that holding a door carries the implication that a woman is unable to take care of herself, and would not be able to open the door if I was not there. Also, I do not agree with you that holding a door is a form of "special" help.
In any case, I have rattled on about holding doors for long enough. It's hard-coded, and I'm not going to change my default behavior on this, even if it means being a relic.
jasper76 wrote: Also, I do not agree with you that holding a door is a form of "special" help.
Then why don't you do it for men? It all comes down to this, you treat men and women differently and that's sexism. And it's even more obvious when you're talking about paying for their meals, which is entirely based in stereotypical ideas about men having jobs and women staying at home with the kids.
jasper76 wrote: Also, I do not agree with you that holding a door is a form of "special" help.
Then why don't you do it for men? It all comes down to this, you treat men and women differently and that's sexism. And it's even more obvious when you're talking about paying for their meals, which is entirely based in stereotypical ideas about men having jobs and women staying at home with the kids.
You are very good at reading things that were never written. Please tell me where I said that I do not hold doors for men.
Paying for a meal = women staying at home with the kids. Lol. Ok
I guess that means that women who appreciate getting their meals paid for them on a date (aka most American women) are weak daisies just waiting for a man to slap on a ring, knock them up, and stay at home with the kids.
jasper76 wrote: Please tell me where I said that I do not hold doors for men.
In your own words:
The way I was raised, you ALWAYS hold the door open for women, the elderly, and the disabled. And if you're ever dining with a woman, the elderly, or the disabled, you ALWAYS pick up the bill.
If you give the same "courtesy" to men then there's no reason to single out "women, the elderly, and the disabled". You could just say "you always open the door for everyone".
Paying for a meal = women staying at home with the kids. Lol. Ok
Where do you think it comes from, then, if it's not about stereotypical roles where women can't afford to pay for their own meals?
jasper76 wrote: Paying for a meal = women staying at home with the kids. Lol. Ok
Where do you think it comes from, then, if it's not about stereotypical roles where women can't afford to pay for their own meals?
I'd guess it stems form evolution and sexual selection. By providing food for a woman, you are displaying that you are capable of doing so (not that the woman is not), and therefore you may be a potential partner worth considering. If you ask to split the bill, you are by contrast displaying that you are either less capable of providing value, or that you are petty, and therefore less worthy of consideration as a potential partner. That'd be my guess.
If you ask the woman to pay the whole bill, best of luck to you on your quest for love!
Both of you are right. Our social stereotipes and social contracts don't come from air, they are all build upon biology and evolution.
Thats the reason we as social animals can work hard to change things against our own primal instincts, but if you negate the influence of biology, its a battle loss before beginning it.
You just have to look at the Poligamy vs Monogamy debate, bot from a social standpoint and from a biological standpoint.
jasper76 wrote: I'd guess it stems form evolution and sexual selection. By providing food for a woman, you are displaying that you are capable of doing so (not that the woman is not), and therefore you may be a potential partner worth considering. If you ask to split the bill, you are by contrast displaying that you are either less capable of providing value, or that you are petty, and therefore less worthy of consideration as a potential partner. That'd be my guess.
If you ask the woman to pay the whole bill, best of luck to you on your quest for love!
IOW, exactly what I said. It's "courtesy" because of sexist stereotypes that men provide food/money/whatever for women.
Also, even if we grant your ideas about evolution (a rather generous concession, given the fact that modern concepts like restaurants and dating are extremely new on the evolutionary time scale), that still falls well short of your generalization about paying for all women. Wanting to impress a date doesn't explain why a man should pay for, say, a female friend they have no romantic interest in.
jasper76 wrote: I'd guess it stems form evolution and sexual selection. By providing food for a woman, you are displaying that you are capable of doing so (not that the woman is not), and therefore you may be a potential partner worth considering. If you ask to split the bill, you are by contrast displaying that you are either less capable of providing value, or that you are petty, and therefore less worthy of consideration as a potential partner. That'd be my guess.
If you ask the woman to pay the whole bill, best of luck to you on your quest for love!
IOW, exactly what I said. It's "courtesy" because of sexist stereotypes that men provide food/money/whatever for women.
Also, even if we grant your ideas about evolution (a rather generous concession, given the fact that modern concepts like restaurants and dating are extremely new on the evolutionary time scale), that still falls well short of your generalization about paying for all women. Wanting to impress a date doesn't explain why a man should pay for, say, a female friend they have no romantic interest in.
When I said I was raised to pay for meals for all women I misspoke. I was raised to pay for meals on dates with women. So sorry about that. When I go to lunch with my female colleagues, its split bills all the way.
As far as dates and who pays, I wouldn't guess that most women's preference to have their meal paid for is fundamentally about food or money, nor does it involve sexist stereotypes. Rather, it's about the man displaying to the woman that he is willing and capable of providing value as a potential partner through the gesture.
Galas wrote: Maybe thats why I ended with my wife. She provided me with great value as a partner through the years!
I'm not sure if the chuckle emoji indicates sarcasm, but I certainly hope your wife has provided you with great value, including and especially the more wondrous things in relationships like love, friendship, and fidelity.
OK, I am resposible for a major off-topic tangent here.
Do what you're gonna do, and think what you're gonna think. I'm gonna keep on holding doors and paying on dates, and I'm done on this subject.
No, lucky me, it wasn't sarcasm. I just find funny that in my marriage I tend to be the "woman" in the stereotipic social role models.
But yes, better to end there the "Door debate" tangent. I just want to say that it was a very nice and respectfull debate! Thanks to you Jasper76 for having this nice exchange of ideas. It honours you (At least from my point of view) that you didn't just go to the offensive when I "dispute" something that seems so hard-code as you said!
jasper76 wrote: When I said I was raised to pay for meals for all women I misspoke. I was raised to pay for meals on dates with women. So sorry about that. When I go to lunch with my female colleagues, its split bills all the way.
Fair enough. Agree or disagree on dating habits, that's certainly different from (and much less objectionable than) buying your co-worker's lunch just because they're a woman.
As far as dates and who pays, I wouldn't guess that most women's preference to have their meal paid for is fundamentally about food or money, nor does it involve sexist stereotypes. Rather, it's about the man displaying to the woman that he is willing and capable of providing value as a potential partner through the gesture.
If it isn't about sexist stereotypes then why isn't the reverse expected? Why isn't a woman expected to demonstrate her ability to provide value by paying for their date's meal?
hotsauceman1 wrote: The Issue is this Frazz
Whiny people are upset because words hurt.
Whatever happened to
"Sticks and Stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me"
Because we need to be saying that ALOT more often.
One of the dumbest sayings around, psychological breakdown from mental abuse is a very real thing
To your other point quick synonym check shows I used a very bad example. I concede that was a poor choice.
No probs I think it serves as a reminder to all of us that there's a huge number of words out there with all kinds of subtle distinctions. Instead of fighting cultural wars over whether one word is acceptable, we can just spend a bit more time learning hundreds of thousands of other words
Automatically Appended Next Post:
redleger wrote: And this is being overly construed. Ghetto is very easily associated with race. But knowing ghetto upset her and moving on is the way it should work, because it's not a far streatch, so I wouldn't necessarily call that reaching.
Ghetto is absolutely associated with race. It is the literal origin of the term, a part of a city occupied by a single minority. There's always been other connotations, particularly in regards to crime and poverty, but those are secondary to race. In fact, the reason crime and poverty have become associated with ghetto is because that's how we've typically thought of minorities living in cities. It all begins with race.
If I say I bought a new jig for my new fishing pole, and you take offense to that, then I'm not entirely sure I would care. I would however limit interaction with that person from now on.
This seems pretty reasonable. I mean, potentially you could explain you meant the term only in the context of fishing, and ask if the person has had an experience in which the term was used negatively. If they give a reasonable explanation, or even hint at one, and are willing to accept you meant nothing by your use of the term, then it'd be easy to move past the misunderstanding. But absent all of that, especially if the person showed their offence was contrived, then yeah probably best to stop hanging with that person so much.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I'll own it. But don't knock what works; my son is one of the best behaved kids in his class because he'll do anything to avoid an insufferable lecture.
Still better than being one of those insufferable Golden Meanists.
That's not what I meant, but it's a reasonable interpretation from what I posted. I'll own it
What I'm saying is that people should look to phrase things to avoid offending others, even when offense is something that only bothers the other person. Also, people should look to assume no offense was intended when someone says uses a term that they find offensive.
The problem it that many people, not necessarily a lot of people in general, but certainly a large number of people who like to engage in discussion on this issue, ignore that idea. Instead they either look to either see offense wherever possible, or they take a ridiculous position that nothing can be offensive unless the speaker meant to be offensive (and many even claim that isn't an issue).
I'm sorry if this is a colourful world and things have gotten too real for you, but denying some people's issues won't take away those issues, or take away the negative experiences that have caused them to develop those issues.
and PC is only PC when it is based around politically left issues.
You never heard of the right effort to have 'suicide bomb' called homicide bombs? Never seen people deny homphobia, and instead aim for 'family values'. 'Anti-abortion' relabeling itself as 'pro-life'? What about right wingers in Florida trying have the term 'climate change' banned from government publications? French Fries becoming Freedom Fries? 'Welfare' isn't used, instead they use 'entitlements'.
The idea that only the left wing tries to change language for political purposes is completely wrong.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nostromodamus wrote: As a right-wing Christian gun owner I often get upset when the leftist anti-gun atheists belittle my religion and political views here on Dakka. It triggers my anxiety disorder and sometimes causes panic attacks. As a result I hope you will all accommodate my needs and never again be critical of Christianity, the second amendment or conservatism on the forum. Easy enough to censor yourself so you don't offend me, right?
Or I could continue to wear a thick skin and not expect everyone else to conform to me all the time, like any sane adult in the real world.
You've missed two important concepts. First up, realising that it is good to avoid unnecessary offense doesn't mean that you should avoid all offense. Sometimes the offense is necessary, and so it becomes part of what you call describe as adults in the real world to know the difference between one and the other. If you don't understand this concept, understand that it is okay for a coach to tell a player on the team their performance would improve if they lost some weight, but it isn't okay to tell a random person on the street they are fat.
Second up, you've missed the difference between political arguments and personal attributes. It is okay to debate political concepts in a way that it is not okay to target personal attributes. It is okay to describe how Christianity has impacted politics, good or bad, it is not okay to start saying Christians are good or bad. It is even less acceptable to start saying 'person A is bad because they are a Christian'.
What word would you use to describe a situation where someone treats women differently from men because they are women?
When it comes to holding doors and paying for meals, I would use the word "courtesy".
If I were to treat women in a negative manner because they are women, I would then be happy to call it "sexism".
Positive discrimination is still discrimination. If the word offends you, I guess I can avoid saying it in your presence.
Does that include affirmative action programs or other programs that favor a group of people based on race or sex? Are some types of positive discrimination going to be acceptable and even 'good'?
These kinds of discussions can be a constantly moving target due to how our languages evolve over time and how groups "appropriate" a term or phrase.
I am finding the "Urban Dictionary" as valid a reference as the Oxford and Merriam Webster ones.
If someone gets offended, I would explain myself and typically the "intent" was not there. If the person continues to be upset the next response is usually "oh well..." I cannot be responsible for how well people manage their hurt feelings if the intent was not there.
Talizvar wrote: These kinds of discussions can be a constantly moving target due to how our languages evolve over time and how groups "appropriate" a term or phrase.
I am finding the "Urban Dictionary" as valid a reference as the Oxford and Merriam Webster ones.
If someone gets offended, I would explain myself and typically the "intent" was not there. If the person continues to be upset the next response is usually "oh well..." I cannot be responsible for how well people manage their hurt feelings if the intent was not there.
Talizvar, I think that's a reasonable argument. I think the problem is a lot of people don't take that first step of "I did not intend to offend you" and jump right to "You can't tell me what words not to say!"
What word would you use to describe a situation where someone treats women differently from men because they are women?
When it comes to holding doors and paying for meals, I would use the word "courtesy".
If I were to treat women in a negative manner because they are women, I would then be happy to call it "sexism".
Positive discrimination is still discrimination. If the word offends you, I guess I can avoid saying it in your presence.
Does that include affirmative action programs or other programs that favor a group of people based on race or sex? Are some types of positive discrimination going to be acceptable and even 'good'?
Yes, they are.
Thats why test with less requisites to things like Firefighters to women are absurd. They will face the same problems, so they should have the same minimun requisites.
Now we can discuss, because I have heard, that female Firefighters are regularly more small and more adapt to enter small places, etc... so personally, I'll said to make 2 type of test, one to Firefigthers with the more "agyle" type, and other to Firefigthers with the more muscular type. Naturally, the first will have more women and the second more men, but at the end of the day they are all Firefigthers.
I'm not fan of charity, and thats how I see the kind of program thats offer benefies to people or groups with problems, without fixing the core problems. But at the same time, I'm not saying to stop helping people with problems. If you want to help people with X problem, then do it, but help all people with that problem.
We have in Spain a resurgence with neonazis (They are neonazis, I'm not puting etiquetes! They have swastikas tattued and all that!) that offer free meals to poor people, but only if they are Spanish (And then they indoctrinate them, but thats other thing to discuss). I find that wrong, as I find wrong the "helps" that the Goverment offer only if you are foreinger.
As I said, to me, the most fair form to do this, its help people with X problem, no matter how those people is.
What word would you use to describe a situation where someone treats women differently from men because they are women?
When it comes to holding doors and paying for meals, I would use the word "courtesy".
If I were to treat women in a negative manner because they are women, I would then be happy to call it "sexism".
Positive discrimination is still discrimination. If the word offends you, I guess I can avoid saying it in your presence.
Does that include affirmative action programs or other programs that favor a group of people based on race or sex? Are some types of positive discrimination going to be acceptable and even 'good'?
That's a good question. I once read that Apple was determined to "hire more ethnic minorities". Does that mean they are being racist towards ethnic majorities? And is that bad?
What word would you use to describe a situation where someone treats women differently from men because they are women?
When it comes to holding doors and paying for meals, I would use the word "courtesy".
If I were to treat women in a negative manner because they are women, I would then be happy to call it "sexism".
Positive discrimination is still discrimination. If the word offends you, I guess I can avoid saying it in your presence.
Does that include affirmative action programs or other programs that favor a group of people based on race or sex? Are some types of positive discrimination going to be acceptable and even 'good'?
That's a good question. I once read that Apple was determined to "hire more ethnic minorities". Does that mean they are being racist towards ethnic majorities? And is that bad?
I'd say it kind of depends on whether they are choosing between equally qualified candidates, or a situation where they are selecting less qualified members of ethnic minorities over more qualified members of the majority.
It is bad to be racist against any group of people. At least IMO. People do not choose their race, whether by accident of birth they were born into an ethnic minority or majority, and I don't think it's fair that anyone be judged by the color of their skin or any other arbitrary characteristic that is beyond their control. MLK had some pretty profound quotes on the subject.
This hyper-sensitivity is such crap and PC is only PC when it is based around politically left issues.
That's because the term political correctness is used by the right and aimed at the left in a derogatory way. The PC crowd can't be on the right by definition but you just try to say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" and you apparently start a War on Christmas. There's literary a whole TV network of thin-skinned snowflakes making money with that outrage during the winter months :/
My point is white males are one of the larger groups as are christian people. I thought democrats were all about the popular votes and the common man. Turns out in the USA that would be white people and christians. I'm not christian myself. In fact i don't like religion. I just think it's silly how much the left craps on them while trying to stand up for the little guy often citing poor white trash as a bad guy (even though democrats should fight for all the poor).
Also while i think religion is ridiculous i'm more worried about the political left because the political left (majority of people in the northern states and such) have eventually gotten their way on almost every issue eventually. It's not a matter of if they will win as in how long until they do. It's like chaos in Old Hammer warhammer fantasy. Chaos was always going to win eventually. Also to be clear i'm not saying they haven't been in the right or wrong so much that they get their way. This is a time when i feel they are in the wrong and that's why if the left wins this i'm all the more afraid because once it's here it's probably here to stay for a long, long time.
This hyper-sensitivity is such crap and PC is only PC when it is based around politically left issues.
That's because the term political correctness is used by the right and aimed at the left in a derogatory way. The PC crowd can't be on the right by definition but you just try to say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" and you apparently start a War on Christmas. There's literary a whole TV network of thin-skinned snowflakes making money with that outrage during the winter months :/
My point is white males are one of the larger groups as are christian people. I thought democrats were all about the popular votes and the common man. Turns out in the USA that would be white people and christians. I'm not christian myself. In fact i don't like religion. I just think it's silly how much the left craps on them while trying to stand up for the little guy often citing poor white trash as a bad guy (even though democrats should fight for all the poor).
The Democrats are almost entirely Christian themselves. They don't crap on Christians, just on people who claim to be Christian but use that as an excuse to crap on other people.
The Democrats are almost entirely Christian themselves. They don't crap on Christians, just on people who claim to be Christian but use that as an excuse to crap on other people.
Nostromodamus wrote: Yup, better throw history's list of terrible things at my feet because I'm totally responsible for, and endorse, all of the above.
Why do you endorse book burning and religious tests for political offices?
jasper76 wrote: What an awesome culture we are creating for ourselves where courtesy is a form of discrimination
I am quite happy with holding doors for everybody, I don't see the problem .
jasper76 wrote: If I were to treat women in a negative manner because they are women, I would then be happy to call it "sexism".
Are you… are you saying it's impossible to be sexist against men? Damn that's an interesting development .
welshhoppo wrote: That's a good question. I once read that Apple was determined to "hire more ethnic minorities". Does that mean they are being racist towards ethnic majorities? And is that bad?
It is indeed positive discrimination. Now I would say that the aim of those kind of “affirmative actions” are to counterbalance already existing bias. The final objective of people that argue for affirmative action, as far as I can tell, is get to a situation where affirmative action is irrelevant and not applied anymore, and affirmative action is just a mean to attain an end. Holding doors specifically for women, and all the gender-based “chivalry” rules, don't try to make themselves irrelevant, as far as I can tell. That is for me the big difference between the two.
CptJake wrote: Does that include affirmative action programs or other programs that favor a group of people based on race or sex? Are some types of positive discrimination going to be acceptable and even 'good'?
I think we need to separate "positive discrimination" which has sexist/condescending/racist/etc attitudes at its core and "positive discrimination" which recognizes that a discrimination problem exists and requires conscious action to mitigate it. Things like opening doors or assuming who pays for a date go in that first category. Yeah, it's "positive" in the sense that the object of it receives a benefit, but only by going along with the inappropriate attitudes and allowing them to continue to exist. Affirmative action programs are in the second category. They're the result of studying the problem and noticing that discrimination exists despite theoretical "no discrimination" laws, and the intent is only to counter the existing problem. If there wasn't that original discrimination problem then the people advocating affirmative action programs would no longer have any interest in them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skyth wrote: The Democrats are almost entirely Christian themselves. They don't crap on Christians, just on people who claim to be Christian but use that as an excuse to crap on other people.
Exactly. The democrats are only against Christians when Christians try to insist that everyone, non-Christians included, obey the rules of Christianity. Recognizing that the US is a secular nation and not a Christian theocracy is not the same as persecuting Christians.
Nostromodamus wrote: Yup, better throw history's list of terrible things at my feet because I'm totally responsible for, and endorse, all of the above.
Why do you endorse book burning and religious tests for political offices?
I thought any fething idiot could tell I was not being serious there, but apparently one of them couldn't...
flamingkillamajig wrote:My point is white males are one of the larger groups as are christian people. I thought democrats were all about the popular votes and the common man. Turns out in the USA that would be white people and christians. I'm not christian myself. In fact i don't like religion. I just think it's silly how much the left craps on them while trying to stand up for the little guy often citing poor white trash as a bad guy (even though democrats should fight for all the poor).
The common man in that instance is not white but the poor to middle class people of all ethnicities (those without lobbying power and so on). And in that regard the Democrats are just slightly better than the Republicans and from myperspective here in Germany their policies put both parties on the right side of the political spectrum. While the Democrats preach about the common man they are mainly funded by the same type of people who also fund the Republicans and their economic policies mainly benefit the rich. That's kinda accidentally built-in into the US political system as it works today and makes real alternatives hard to get. The main differences are that the Democrats are culturally more progressive than the Republicans but when it comes to economic policies the Democrats are rather conservative (and the Republicans fell of the cliff somewhere on the far right). If you want somebody who really fights for the common man then try looking further to the left of the Democrats: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Socialists_of_America
The US has a few decades of stagnant wages for the middle class and the poor, dismantling unions also didn't help (it's overall slightly better here in Europe but there are parallel developments). If I remember correctly that has been the same no matter which party was in power. That the Democrats are culturally more progressive doesn't change the fact that their economic policies are only slightly better (as in a bit more redistributive) than the Republicans. If you want a political party in the USA that actually does something to significantly help the poor then I have bad news for you :(
Also while i think religion is ridiculous i'm more worried about the political left because the political left (majority of people in the northern states and such) have eventually gotten their way on almost every issue eventually. It's not a matter of if they will win as in how long until they do. It's like chaos in Old Hammer warhammer fantasy. Chaos was always going to win eventually. Also to be clear i'm not saying they haven't been in the right or wrong so much that they get their way. This is a time when i feel they are in the wrong and that's why if the left wins this i'm all the more afraid because once it's here it's probably here to stay for a long, long time.
The cultural wins of the left kinda happen because culture moves forward (it progresses) while old conservatives die. Marginalised groups got more visibility as time goes on and they were less persecuted/feared/attacked and that led to them having more courage to speak up about issues that concern them. A lot of worries usually stem from the dominant culture not being used to hearing the voices of the marginalised and just being uncomfortable with actual criticism from these groups. The lack of pushback before was seen as acceptance or approval and not as silence due to fear of consequences.
If you worry about something then it should be the cultural extreme right because it's the white supremacists who are shooting/killing people quite regularly in the US these days (also the extreme right of other cultures like extremely religious right wing Muslims and the terrorist attacks they commit). These days violence from the extreme left is rather restricted to protests (and mostly aimed at the police/property) and a response to the rise of extreme right wing populism.
And it should also be the political right because their healthcare policies could lead to even more people dying and the same goes for the reduction of other social services and environmental protection. These short term financial gains usually lead to long term cost increase when you finally have to deal with the fallout of said savings.
Or how about the trans bathroom panic? Since that has become an issue for The Right more "concerned citizens" have attacked people in bathrooms than trans people ever have (they just wanted to pee in peace).
The political right wants to remove the ACA right now which would — if turned back to a pre ACA situation — lead to over 35000 more deaths per year (and they literary don't seem to understand how insurance works). Which policies from the left are so dangerous or worrisome that they are to be feared? The language debate we have in this thread (and other people have in other forums) is literary just talk about how and why people communicate in certain ways. The worst that happens if you don't agree with somebody's linguistic worries is that they could end up not liking you.
Mario, you are pretty right. I always find funny when I see USA citizens on internet talk about the right and the left because in general, in Europe, both Republicans and Democrats are seen as right, just one more right than the other. At least, from a economical point of view.
In Spain its ironic because both the conservatives and the progresist partys have all leftys economic politics (High intervention and regulation of the government with a high use... and abuse of subsidies). But, well... in Spain political parties aren't left or right, they just care about their pockets...
But even being a filthy leftys as I'm, USA has the only pure democratic state of the world, that has bot real representation and separation of powers, (If you don't count Switzerland) so don't interpret this as a european with the tipical"USA bad!" mentality, please!.
And all of this has 0 to do with the use of vocabulary. This its the last time I go offtopic, I promise!
Galas wrote: USA has the only pure democratic state of the world
Uh, what? The US is not a pure democracy, at all. It's only a "democracy" in the same general sense of "people get to vote", a standard that includes a whole lot of other countries.
Maybe its because you are from US and you see the bad part of it more than me, but most of the european "democracys" are not real democracys. They fail both in the separation of powers (To different degrees. Spain has no efective separation of powers, France and England have a greater separation of powers) and in the representation of the voters. A Democracy has to emanate from the power of the people. In most European democracys its at the inverse, the Powers emanates from the State, that then lets the people vote and "legitimite" the power.
In most European Countrys, Political parties are organism of the State (They are funded by the state, with no internal democracy) and they only represents the interest of the political party. On Spain, a member of the congress has prohibited the act of voting against what the Political Party tell him to vote, and if they do, they can be punished with fines of even expulsion.
You can't vote a individual to represent your "zone". You vote to a closed list, to the political party, and then they just do what they want. Because they only represent the Political Party.
This its a real complex topic, that people with more knowledge in it than me can explain much better, and this its not the topic to discuss this.
But in resume, I know that today, thigs in USA can look very radicalized and "bad", but you still have a true representative democracy (With all his shadows and lights, thats its obvious, I'm not saying that its perfect)
PD: I'm sorry of something isn't clear, its very difficult to me enter in this kind of technical debate with my level of english.
Galas wrote: Maybe its because you are from US and you see the bad part of it more than me, but most of the european "democracys" are not real democracys. They fail both in the separation of powers (To different degrees. Spain has no efective separation of powers, France and England have a greater separation of powers) and in the representation of the voters. A Democracy has to emanate from the power of the people. In most European democracys its at the inverse, the Powers emanates from the State, that then lets the people vote and "legitimite" the power.
In most European Countrys, Political parties are organism of the State (They are funded by the state, with no internal democracy) and they only represents the interest of the political party. On Spain, a member of the congress has prohibited the act of voting against what the Political Party tell him to vote, and if they do, they can be punished with fines of even expulsion.
You can't vote a individual to represent your "zone". You vote to a closed list, to the political party, and then they just do what they want. Because they only represent the Political Party.
This its a real complex topic, that people with more knowledge in it than me can explain much better, and this its not the topic to discuss this.
But in resume, I know that today, thigs in USA can look very radicalized and "bad", but you still have a true representative democracy (With all his shadows and lights, thats its obvious, I'm not saying that its perfect)
PD: I'm sorry of something isn't clear, its very difficult to me enter in this kind of technical debate with my level of english.
The United States was founded as a Constitutional Republic, based on the rule of law, a limited national government, a strict separation of powers, and a system of checks and balances. The American Founding Fathers had no trust for democracy as a form of government, because the "tyranny of the majority" is as much a danger to the principles of Liberty as the tyranny of the few or one.
Since the end of the Civil War, that has been tossed out the window in bits and pieces. So, yeah, we're more or less a "representative democracy". But it's only really been that way since the end of the so-called "Progressive Era" just prior to World War One. Federalism is bleeding out slowly, and I suspect that the American political landscape will be radically different at the end of this century.
To be honest there isn't a single member country of the general western bloc that doesn't have woes and worries about its democracy, yet all these countries -- our countries -- are vast improvements on what went on before, and what still goes on in much of the rest of the world.
Spain, Portugal, South Korea, Japan and Greece were military dictatorships within living memory, for instance. Even Russia, despite backsliding under Putin, is still an improvement in terms of freedom and democracy over the Soviet era.
The reason why we have woes and worries is because the post-WW2 resurgence stalled in the oil shock of the 70s. While globalisation from the 80s onwards increased prosperity, the rewards largely have gone to the power elite, or 3rd world countries (millions of Chinese lifted out of abject poverty...)
Naturally, we ordinary westerners are feeling the pinch. We're looking around for someone and something to blame. It is foolish to blame foreigners, unemployed, disabled, religious, or gay people, because they are not to blame.
But in resume, I know that today, thigs in USA can look very radicalized and "bad", but you still have a true representative democracy (With all his shadows and lights, thats its obvious, I'm not saying that its perfect)
The US is far from a representative democracy. Between partisanship, the two party dominance and the electoral college system the US is not representative. It has its advantages and disadvantages, but calling it "the only representative democracy" shows a lack of understanding of both the US system and other countries systems.
I'm not talking about censoring. You would, however, have the right, perhaps even the obligation to say, "I find the use of the word 'black' offensive in this context, and here's why..." Most people don't want to be dicks. Sometimes they get defensive when they think you're calling them a dick for something they didn't feel was dickish. Explaining to them that sometimes that behavior comes across as dickish is doing them a favor, and it is up to them to decide to moderate their behavior or not. Typically, people seem to go through a period of "but I always say that" and later become more conscious of how they use language. However, sometimes people are just unrepentant dicks.
At the very least you would start a conversation. Who knows--it might change how the word 'black' affects you, too, without the blame-the-victim internalization implied by 'growing a thicker skin'.
But is the person I say "I find X word offensive in this context, etc etc" obliged/required to change their vocabulary?
No one is required to change vocabulary. We are not the police. However, they would be obliged at least to be careful with that word around you for politeness, unless they just plain want to antagonize you. If they don't care about being a jerk to you, then that's that. It also tends to lead to all kinds of drama and hostile work environments and stress, so that might be something to consider.
But why should a word, in a context devoid of offence, and widely accepted to be innocuous in its own right as an adjective, require some obligation not to be used?
I completely agree that there are words which are certainly slurs, and any word can be one when directed at a person. However, a non-slur word not directed at a person? If that's the case, wouldn't most nouns or adjectives have the possibility to become offensive and thus require an "obligation" to be careful with that word? Is there not a single instance wherein the word should not be treated with that obligation?
Even when asking for a hypothetical coffee? How else are they meant to do so, or refer to that particular colour, if not?
"My apologies. I didn't realize the word would offend you. How would you like me to describe plain coffee in the future?" (I suggest "unbemilked sugarless".)
So you're advocating the replacement of a colour. If every colour was deemed offensive (black, white, yellow, brown, red etc etc - ones with racial or political connotations), what then? Do we refer to colours by their light frequency?
You can even mention that you were surprised such an anodyne word hurt them and ask for any other words or topics they would like you to avoid. If you communicate genuine interest, usually people will respond well. If you ask with your sarcasm voice, not so much. Even if you find their request preposterous, starting a dialogue can go a long way to patch over further misunderstandings before they get serious.
If they see you as someone willing to listen, they might give you some warning about saying "jig" before they start punching you.
Except in the jig situation, it was :
A) The first time the word was even used.
B) The word jig is expected to be used in that setting. It's like being surprised that someone would say "plastic" whilst working at Games Workshop, or "coffee" at a Starbucks.
You mention being willing to listen, and people will give you warning. Is that what we are expected to do now, when we first meet someone? "Hello, nice to meet you, now here's all the words I don't want you to say around me, and their replacements..." Is that practical?
I fully agree that if one has a problem with a word that they should voice that, but assaulting someone the first time they use a word which is expected to be used in that environment is not appropriate. It's just as fair as me beating the tar out of my co-worker for offering me a cup of tea.
Either they are required to cease use of a perfectly innocuous word, in this context of not even directed at me, or I am overreacting.
Perfectly innocuous to you. Obviously it isn't perfectly innocuous if it bothers someone. And again, nothing is "required" on your part except to think for a moment about how you want all of your future interactions with this person to go. Is sticking a point on vocabulary worth potentially years of antagonism, random HR complaints, and general stink-eye to you? Does your coworker merit so little consideration that you're not even willing to entertain his personal issue with a single word to help make his days a little more bearable?
So if I'm offended, I'm instantly in the right? If I find a word, a word that may be essential to the running of the business I am in, or simply a ubiquitous word, offensive, is everyone "obligated", as you put it, to change their vocabulary. I'm not saying required, but your whole syntax implies that to not do that is a negative thing. Is there no middle ground, or situation wherein a word can be used, regardless of offense?
Again, in my example, I used a complete stranger ordering a coffee. Unrelated to me, not involved in any way other than we were in earshot. They order a "black" coffee. I am offended by them using that word. Should they be "obligated" to correct their language?
But in resume, I know that today, thigs in USA can look very radicalized and "bad", but you still have a true representative democracy (With all his shadows and lights, thats its obvious, I'm not saying that its perfect)
The US is far from a representative democracy. Between partisanship, the two party dominance and the electoral college system the US is not representative. It has its advantages and disadvantages, but calling it "the only representative democracy" shows a lack of understanding of both the US system and other countries systems.
Also if we had a true representative democracy hillary would be president right now, not trump.
But in resume, I know that today, thigs in USA can look very radicalized and "bad", but you still have a true representative democracy (With all his shadows and lights, thats its obvious, I'm not saying that its perfect)
The US is far from a representative democracy. Between partisanship, the two party dominance and the electoral college system the US is not representative. It has its advantages and disadvantages, but calling it "the only representative democracy" shows a lack of understanding of both the US system and other countries systems.
Also if we had a true representative democracy hillary would be president right now, not trump.
And about 5 cities would decide the fate of the entire country because of the massive population difference between them and the rest of the country.
But in resume, I know that today, thigs in USA can look very radicalized and "bad", but you still have a true representative democracy (With all his shadows and lights, thats its obvious, I'm not saying that its perfect)
The US is far from a representative democracy. Between partisanship, the two party dominance and the electoral college system the US is not representative. It has its advantages and disadvantages, but calling it "the only representative democracy" shows a lack of understanding of both the US system and other countries systems.
Also if we had a true representative democracy hillary would be president right now, not trump.
And about 5 cities would decide the fate of the entire country because of the massive population difference between them and the rest of the country.
A Republic with a democratic representative system has nothing to do with how that democratic system works. Many different systems exist, like the D'hont system, things don't tend to work 1:1 votes.
The normal thing its to distribute the number of representatives in electoral districts to have a more fair sistem where 5-6 zones don't decide for the rest of the country.
feeder wrote: I'm not sure where the assumption that we can't use 'jig', 'black', and 'retardant' in the proper context from.
We're literally posting on a forum where the word re-tard or re-tarded can't be used regardless of context.
I doubt anyone has every used the term to discuss ignition timing or putting out fires on this forum. But I can bet as an insult it was used thousands of times, especially on YMDC. Equally I would get 99% of the use of jig and black relate to paint and hobby tools. Very very few people have a problem with words used in an appropriate context and non pejorative way.
I'm not going to say their aren't cases of extreme upset at appropriate use of of innocent word, but disputed being heavily involved in disability rights and politics the only time I hear calls to ban words like "lame and "blind" in every day use is when some one who over uses terms like "snowflake" and "political correctness gone mad" digs something up from a Wordpress site or "a friend of a friend was once told". The vast majority of the campaigning to stop the use of offensive terms relates to getting people to stop using terms like the R word as an insult, which should be seen along the lines of the N word.
Using words as an insult I don't think is the point. Not sure of anyone on here that advocates for the right to use the "problem" words as verbal abuse. However the right to speak freely and not be constantly second guessed over what you could possibly mean out of context is what this is about. The original example word of lame means in one context unsatisfactory. One could simply say unsatisfactory, but part of the beauty of the English language is the ability to use many words to describe the same thing. Imagine taking away your ability to express yourself by means of your choosing. Would that not be a form of control, a form of imposing ones will over another? Should someone choose to act inappropriate then they should be shown the error, but they should not be held to a standard based on something they have not done.
Which, as I said, very rarely happens. As I said, in my work in disability rights I have never come across someone genuinely advocating that level of restrictions first hand. The only time I come across it is by the right wing getting offended by it, and using it as an excuse to be offensive themselves. However I come across people use I get pejorative terms for disability as insults all the time. This tells me something about which issue we should be worrying about. A few student activists with Wordpress accounts vs an entrenched issue with disability discrimination, in language, employment and hate crimes.
Speaking as a moderator, I can say that the reason why words like cigarette and slow have been banned from the forum is precisely because people usually use them as insults.
I'm not in disagreement with moderation rules either as this is a private Enterprise, just as the group I started this thread about is. It's a philosophical ideal more than anything since control is an illusion. But just as many don't like to be insulted, many do not like to have attempted control placed over their speech. Personally, from my time in the Army not much offends me, except certain things that may be apparent from another thread here. So in my every day talks at work especially dealing with recruits harsh words, language and euphemisms were the norm. In Australia I know witch is the same as saying dude in the USA. I learned this from dealing with Aussies overseas.
So ultimately, from my POV having non discriminatory language banned is akin to the most extreme censorship, and I do not approve. It's like watching starship troopers on network television it sucks.
Edit: Apparently witch is the word for see you next Tuesday.
feeder wrote: I'm not sure where the assumption that we can't use 'jig', 'black', and 'retardant' in the proper context from.
We're literally posting on a forum where the word re-tard or re-tarded can't be used regardless of context.
I doubt anyone has every used the term to discuss ignition timing or putting out fires on this forum. But I can bet as an insult it was used thousands of times, especially on YMDC.
I wouldn't say never, but either way re-tard means more than ignition timing and flame prevention.... we have this stuff called paint retarder that re-tards the drying of a paint.
There have definitely been times I've used it and then read my post and realised "stupid language filter, now I have to go back and edit my post because it doesn't make any sense".
Very very few people have a problem with words used in an appropriate context and non pejorative way.
Sure, but feeder questioned the idea that we can't use certain words in their proper context when in fact one of those words is literally wholesale blocked on the very forum we are discussing the topic on
The vast majority of the campaigning to stop the use of offensive terms relates to getting people to stop using terms like the R word as an insult, which should be seen along the lines of the N word.
I don't necessarily agree it should be seen along the lines as the N word to begin with. Using the R word as a pejorative comes from the actual meaning of the word that something shows signs of being impeded (in the pejorative sense, typically mental faculties). That's not necessarily factually incorrect, it's just that it might be hurting some peoples' feelings. Even the dictionaries use words like stupid, imbecile, moron to describe other similar words and the word R word was just a relatively modern failed attempt to introduce another word since those other words were almost always used in the pejorative sense. Sure, we may try and dissuade people from using the R word because it might be offensive to some people, but I struggle to fault people for using it as a shortcut for saying "lacking intellectual acuity to the point of embarrassment". The N word, on the other hand, is used in the pejorative sense by assuming something about a whole race, which is both factually incorrect and *also* offensive.
Sure, but feeder questioned the idea that we can't use certain words in their proper context when in fact one of those words is literally wholesale blocked on the very forum we are discussing the topic on
Which was answered both by me (which you quoted) and a mod.
The use of the R term makes exactly the same assumptions about people with intellectual and learning disabilities, and the same baggage and misuse. You could equally argue that you couldn't find fault with the use of the N word as it comes from a term used as a term for people of central and southern Africa descent. Used with no pejorative intent it is word without any intrinsic negative connotation, and continues to be used in forensic anthropology. It is the years of baggage and history that make it unacceptable. The same with both terms.
As someone with like legit brain mental illnesses, I despise this coddling culture weak people try to impose on me, people who often aren't mentally ill.
Like autism jokes are mean... even if an autistic makes one about himself.
I don't know, I mean their coddling ends right away when they find out I loathe their politics or enjoy dark/offensive humour.
I made a joke about peanut allergies to a girl I... used to like, she got really offended, it was funny.
Nostromodamus wrote: Yup, better throw history's list of terrible things at my feet because I'm totally responsible for, and endorse, all of the above.
Why do you endorse book burning and religious tests for political offices?
I thought any fething idiot could tell I was not being serious there, but apparently one of them couldn't...
Why doesn't Rule #1 apply to you? Why do you think it is acceptable to call me a “fething idiot”?
jasper76 wrote: If I were to treat women in a negative manner because they are women, I would then be happy to call it "sexism".
Are you… are you saying it's impossible to be sexist against men? Damn that's an interesting development .
I hate to bore you, but no, I am not saying that, nor do I think it.
Well you said that treating women better than men (i.e. treating men worse than woman) was okay and not sexist because it was only sexist the other way around so …
Sure, but feeder questioned the idea that we can't use certain words in their proper context when in fact one of those words is literally wholesale blocked on the very forum we are discussing the topic on
Which was answered both by me (which you quoted) and a mod.
And I never made a comment on the validity of banning a word, simply that it is a banned word on this forum thus can't use it even in the proper context.
I didn't need an explanation of why it's banned, the fact it is banned was my whole point
The use of the R term makes exactly the same assumptions about people with intellectual and learning disabilities, and the same baggage and misuse.
It might have baggage and misuse, to a degree (and I'd probably argue what degree that is) but re-tard literally means something which has been impeded, making it factually correct to use a pejorative in certain situations.
You could equally argue that you couldn't find fault with the use of the N word as it comes from a term used as a term for people of central and southern Africa descent. Used with no pejorative intent...
Yeah sure you could argue that, but it wouldn't be an argument against my point because I was very specific in saying I was talking about the pejorative intent of the word. This is what I said... "The N word, on the other hand, is used in the pejorative sense by assuming something about a whole race"
To use the N word in a pejorative sense is assuming something negative/derogatory about the whole race, which is not correct (you could argue that the pejorative sense of the word is talking about cultural aspects attributed to people of that race, but it is still incorrect to do so). To use the R word in the pejorative sense is often correct because the word in and of itself when applied to mental faculties means something negative.
amanita wrote: I find it ironic that the same people hyper-sensitive to vocabulary correctness have no issue with the destruction of certain symbols no matter how inflammatory, such as a religious symbol or a flag. Words are nothing more than linguistic symbols representing the very same things, yet they are sacrosanct.
Wait, which N word are we discussing here? The one with i and e or the with e and o?
The former is actually intended as a pejorative, while the latter is merely descriptive (and hence should IMO not be censored).
Galas wrote: Again, you are mixing things. Attacking ideologies its not the same as offending someone attacking his biological and physical characteristics.
You can choose you religion, ideology, etc... you can't chose your sex, skin colour, disabilities, etc...
You get to choose your country of birth? I see what you are saying, but it's naive to think that symbols don't carry power of their own. Just because you have chosen something doesn't mean others are automatically allowed to treat that with disrespect. I think we all are for open discussion and testing ideas, but people often cross that line. And let's not forget 'offenders' want those symbols to have power or else the desecration of said symbols has no impact.
Well, I think that a ideology/religion/way of life its not a person, so it don't deserves respect. Respect its a right, and rights comes with duties, and those things have no duties. From things like Christianism, Islam, to things like Videoconsoles or Veganism. If someone attack an ideology and other person gets offended, then I put the blame of offension in the one that decides that something its so hard-coded in them that they take it as a personal attack.
Now, attacking people that follow a Ideology, etc... I don't agree with that, because that its a personal attack.
For example: "I think Christianity its bad because blablabla" or even "Christianity sucks! LoL long live Pastafarism!" its different that "All Christians are donkey caves", etc...
I have no problem with the first one, the last I see as an attack and a disrespect. Obviously, all of this is talking about a totally rational point of view. The reality its that people will take attacks to his ideology, religion, form of alimentation, etc... as personal attacks, etc...
But that its a different matter, between how things should be and how they are exist a giant gap. Normally I find the disecration of symbols pretty inmature, but when the fact that if you do a disrespectful hand gesture to a religious state can have you punished by the law (As in my country), then I think a line has crossed.
Galas wrote: Well, I think that a ideology/religion/way of life its not a person, so it don't deserves respect. Respect its a right, and rights comes with duties, and those things have no duties. From things like Christianism, Islam, to things like Videoconsoles or Veganism. If someone attack an ideology and other person gets offended, then I put the blame of offension in the one that decides that something its so hard-coded in them that they take it as a personal attack.
Now, attacking people that follow a Ideology, etc... I don't agree with that, because that its a personal attack.
For example: "I think Christianity its bad because blablabla" or even "Christianity sucks! LoL long live Pastafarism!" its different that "All Christians are donkey caves", etc...
I have no problem with the first one, the last I see as an attack and a disrespect. Obviously, all of this is talking about a totally rational point of view. The reality its that people will take attacks to his ideology, religion, form of alimentation, etc... as personal attacks, etc...
But that its a different matter, between how things should be and how they are exist a giant gap. Normally I find the disecration of symbols pretty inmature, but when the fact that if you do a disrespectful hand gesture to a religious state can have you punished by the law (As in my country), then I think a line has crossed.
As an Atheist I want to agree with you but I can't, and here is why. People make choices that can create unforeseen circumstances. Every Service member who joined pre September 11, 2001 probably joined to earn college money. Thats why I joined. Then next thing you know, you are on a plane to the desert, and 16 years later you are being called a war criminal bastard by Aholes. I use this as an example not because I am bothered by it, but because it is an example of things being out of your control once you start down a path. The American Flag holds power to motivate. When vets see it, it is the symbol of not only their country, but of loss and bravery. So then by your logic its still ok to burn, piss, poop, and otherwise desecrate the flag against US Code 4 chapter 8. OK, fine, the supreme court said its ok. We talked a lot about consequences of what you say. I have never said there shouldn't be any, simply that censoring something because it might be used incorrectly is against the whole freedom of speech thing. Obviously private enterprise should reserve that right to make its own rules such as this site, and the one that sparked this thread.
But by your logic, feel free to gak on any ideal simply because its not a person I can not agree with. I don't gak on religion, i simply think it has ceased to be relevant, and in many cases detrimental to humankind. doesn't mean I'm gonna walk in church and tell everyone they have a stupid ideal. I recognize there could be consequences to such action.
TLDR: So basically in short, censorship bad, being an donkey-cave bad.
I
I can totally understand your point. My point of view in this its not something I think its a posibility or how it should be, because I'm a rare case that don't take offense basically... never, about anything.
I was just explaining how I see all this.
But I totally agree with your last point. As I said, I think that just being offensive to people believes (Ideology, religion, veganism... oh I hate veganism ) its pretty inmature and being a total jerk. But many times I have encounter people that shield behind "Don't attack me!" when people do legitmage criticism about X. And even more times I have encounter people that are just total idiots being offensive because they lack empaty. So I can totally see both sides here.
My point its that it shouldn't be censored because ideals have no rights. I think that attacking people (Verbally, etc...) shouldn't be permited.
PD: The flag issue its a tricky one. For one, you are attacking the people that has born in "X", and that its a personal attack against that people. For the other, a flag represent a goverment and a political system (At least, that represent the Spanish flag, it has changed through the years). I think the USA one represent the states and the people, so it should end in the first group... but I'm not really sure.
Sure, but feeder questioned the idea that we can't use certain words in their proper context when in fact one of those words is literally wholesale blocked on the very forum we are discussing the topic on
Which was answered both by me (which you quoted) and a mod.
And I never made a comment on the validity of banning a word, simply that it is a banned word on this forum thus can't use it even in the proper context.
I didn't need an explanation of why it's banned, the fact it is banned was my whole point
Retarder, retardant. Not banned.
I've never used R-tard, /ds, /ded in any manner other than derogatory in my life, and I'm pretty old.
redleger wrote: I don't gak on religion, i simply think it has ceased to be relevant, and in many cases detrimental to humankind. doesn't mean I'm gonna walk in church and tell everyone they have a stupid ideal.
I'm going to react to this. See, back when I was in basically the equivalent of college, I had a friend who was religious. Actually, super-religious, but I didn't really know that much at the time because what was pretty obvious was that she was super-uncomfortable to talk about it. I'm not known for showing any respect for religions around here, as far as I know, but I would never push the issue around her. I am pretty happy I never did. She is still a friend, and a very good one, but she isn't religious any more. The reason that was uncomfortable about it back then was that she was already doubting, but she came from a pretty hardcore Christian family. Criticizing her directly, or pushing the subject, would have been a total jerk move, and would only have hurt her for no good reason. However criticism in religion in the public sphere, not in any way targeted at her or pushed at her, certainly help her get rid of the very quantifiable negative influence that religion had over her life. So I would say that criticism, even harsh one, of religion is okay. Being a jerk is not. Walking into a church and telling everyone that they are stupid is being a jerk and not okay. Posting this on Facebook, or posting a Quran burning video on youtube, is not.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
redleger wrote: The American Flag holds power to motivate. When vets see it, it is the symbol of not only their country, but of loss and bravery.I
And what about the people who had incredible harm inflicted upon them by the US government/agencies/armies? What about what it represents for them?
redleger wrote: I don't gak on religion, i simply think it has ceased to be relevant, and in many cases detrimental to humankind. doesn't mean I'm gonna walk in church and tell everyone they have a stupid ideal.
I'm going to react to this. See, back when I was in basically the equivalent of college, I had a friend who was religious. Actually, super-religious, but I didn't really know that much at the time because what was pretty obvious was that she was super-uncomfortable to talk about it. I'm not known for showing any respect for religions around here, as far as I know, but I would never push the issue around her. I am pretty happy I never did. She is still a friend, and a very good one, but she isn't religious any more. The reason that was uncomfortable about it back then was that she was already doubting, but she came from a pretty hardcore Christian family. Criticizing her directly, or pushing the subject, would have been a total jerk move, and would only have hurt her for no good reason. However criticism in religion in the public sphere, not in any way targeted at her or pushed at her, certainly help her get rid of the very quantifiable negative influence that religion had over her life. So I would say that criticism, even harsh one, of religion is okay. Being a jerk is not. Walking into a church and telling everyone that they are stupid is being a jerk and not okay. Posting this on Facebook, or posting a Quran burning video on youtube, is not.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
redleger wrote: The American Flag holds power to motivate. When vets see it, it is the symbol of not only their country, but of loss and bravery.I
And what about the people who had incredible harm inflicted upon them by the US government/agencies/armies? What about what it represents for them?
It represents what it represents. I am speaking from the POV I know from within the US, not outside. Within the US it is against US code to desecrate, even though it was said to be legal by the supreme court. I have no idea what it represents to them. I know when I see an American burning one it is hurtful because I know what many of us did/suffered/ died for when called upon by America. As service members politics has no place in whether we go where and do what we are told, with the exception of illegal or immoral actions. (no killing the enemy does not fall under those two, killing unarmed civilians does). That is why I say as an ideal burning the American flag holds a palpable real place within our being. (most of us anyway) I can not speak for the feelings of others not within that sphere.
edit, corrected sentence.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galas wrote: I can totally understand your point. My point of view in this its not something I think its a posibility or how it should be, because I'm a rare case that don't take offense basically... never, about anything.
I was just explaining how I see all this.
But I totally agree with your last point. As I said, I think that just being offensive to people believes (Ideology, religion, veganism... oh I hate veganism ) its pretty inmature and being a total jerk. But many times I have encounter people that shield behind "Don't attack me!" when people do legitmage criticism about X. And even more times I have encounter people that are just total idiots being offensive because they lack empaty. So I can totally see both sides here.
My point its that it shouldn't be censored because ideals have no rights. I think that attacking people (Verbally, etc...) shouldn't be permited.
PD: The flag issue its a tricky one. For one, you are attacking the people that has born in "X", and that its a personal attack against that people. For the other, a flag represent a goverment and a political system (At least, that represent the Spanish flag, it has changed through the years). I think the USA one represent the states and the people, so it should end in the first group... but I'm not really sure.
I agree that ideals as a whole hold no protection, and for that reason I agree with you. But burning a church flag and burning an American flag hold the same weight as far as I am concerned. Neither seems like a legitimate complaint or even discussion, more of a physical act against said group. I absolutely believe in questioning religion, even trying to educate those that hide behind text that is utterly interpretive. But burning a bible in front of one is the same as burning a flag in front of a vet.
Burning things and all that of very very offensive acts enter in the grey realm of... "Criticism... or threat against the people that the symbol represent"
I wasn't talking about things so radical before, but I supose thats the tricky thing of legislate. The point between censure and letting people make things like that.
redleger wrote: It represents what it represents. I am speaking from the POV I know from within the US, not outside.
I didn't say anything about people inside and outside of the US. You inferred that, for some reason.
redleger wrote: I know when I see an American burning one it is hurtful because I know what many of us did/suffered/ died for when called upon by America. As service members politics has no place in whether we go where and do what we are told, with the exception of illegal or immoral actions. (no killing the enemy does not fall under those two, killing unarmed civilians does). That is why I say as an ideal burning the American flag holds a palpable real place within our being. (most of us anyway) I can not speak for the feelings of others not within that sphere.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. The US flag isn't specifically about the US army, is it?
redleger wrote: It represents what it represents. I am speaking from the POV I know from within the US, not outside.
I didn't say anything about people inside and outside of the US. You inferred that, for some reason.
redleger wrote: I know when I see an American burning one it is hurtful because I know what many of us did/suffered/ died for when called upon by America. As service members politics has no place in whether we go where and do what we are told, with the exception of illegal or immoral actions. (no killing the enemy does not fall under those two, killing unarmed civilians does). That is why I say as an ideal burning the American flag holds a palpable real place within our being. (most of us anyway) I can not speak for the feelings of others not within that sphere.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. The US flag isn't specifically about the US army, is it?
And maybe this is where the civilian military divide begins. A vast majority of vets are patriotic. There are many reasons for this but the main attachment to the flag is that it drapes the coffin of fallen Soldiers. Many of us know friends and brothers that flew home with a flag over them. We tell ourselves we suffered for a country that cares about us. That's a lie I now know but the dead friends are not. So, as a veteran when you burn a flag in protest you are against those who wore it home and care not for the sacrifice. May not be true. So as an ideal burning the flag is not a stretch as being an insult.
As to your first point then I don't think I understand what you are talking about then. I have no idea why people burn it, I only know and hope to explain why it may cross the line from attack on an ideal vs attack on a person/group
The proper way to dispose of a flag that has been despoiled is to burn it. The actions of the US despoil the flag and what it stands for some times (Typically when conservatives are in power).
skyth wrote: The proper way to dispose of a flag that has been despoiled is to burn it. The actions of the US despoil the flag and what it stands for some times (Typically when conservatives are in power).
So the proper response is to burn the flag.
That is your PoV, and although you are not alone this is not the only POV.
A physically despoiled flag is not just to be burned there are definitely guidelines on how to do it and burning is only one.
redleger wrote: I have no idea why people burn it, I only know and hope to explain why it may cross the line from attack on an ideal vs attack on a person/group
Have you tried asking them why and listening to their grievances?
redleger wrote: I have no idea why people burn it, I only know and hope to explain why it may cross the line from attack on an ideal vs attack on a person/group
Have you tried asking them why and listening to their grievances?
Nope, never seen it in person. I have been chained to military communities till 2 days ago. However this kind of goes back to the OP. I have read the excuses on why people burn it, and honestly I have yet to hear a valid excuse. If I had a grievance, I would not find a symbol and desecrate it, I would work actively. I have issues with being passive then whining about how doing literally nothing resulted in nothing.
1984! The progression of the dictionary: Pretty soon there will be no words in it, because some clown with some chip will be whining about how offended he by it.
In childhood centres in Australia, words such a blackboard, white board, fairy cakes, poufs, and fags are banned. The dictate from high is that you need to replace with the following: chalkboard, removable marker board, cup cakes, footstool, and cigarette. My mother was a carer. When this was announced in a meeting, the man next to her proclaimed: Well look at me, i am a 'redacted', sitting on a 'redacted', eating a 'redacted', and will shorty go outside for a 'redacted'. And yes he was, was, was, and did. He wasn't offended by the words. The the way they are used.
Take a concrete pill!
Dry your eyes princess!
Have a coke and a smile and just STFU.
Theres a huge difference between being courteous, polite, respectful; and lower yourself to cater for every whinging, whining, slack-jawed, 12 sandwich-eating recalcitrant you crosses your path.
With the death of Common Sense several decades ago, Freedom of speak, will follow. I sure humanity will then linger on for a time, but will eventually die of loneliness.
feeder wrote: I've never used R-tard, /ds, /ded in any manner other than derogatory in my life, and I'm pretty old.
Because you've just consciously avoided it, or is it not in your vocabulary to use in anything other than a derogatory sense? Being old doesn't have much to do with it, it's actually a pretty modern adaption for it to be used to refer to mentally disabled and even more modern for it to be considered a naughty word. Are you old enough to have driven a carburetted vehicle? Because r-tard is the correct term to use for delaying the ignition timing, and if you have owned a carburetted car it probably predates the use of r-tard as a descriptor of the mentally disabled. It's also the technically correct word for impeding a chemical reaction, the chemical you use to do that is called a retarder but the reason it's called a retarder is because... it r-tards It may have r-tarded, or be r-tarding, or act to r-tard.
Maybe you don't but it's a word that's in my basic vocabulary in a non derogatory sense, and I'm not even all that old
What about the words stupid, imbecile, moron, dumb, simple, slow, special, defective? I've heard all those terms used as pejoratives in the context of the mentally disabled as well.
This is why I find banning the word r-tard as absurd. We have all these other words that are commonly used to describe mental disability, in fact r-tard wasn't even one of them, it was introduced purely because other words were seen as derogatory... and then people started using it as a pejorative and now we have to ban it? Doesn't that just seem a little arse backwards to you? Maybe the problem isn't the words, and maybe the solution isn't trying fruitlessly to control the words
EDIT: Lots of edits because apparently I'm stupid and can't type a message properly the first time.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Well you said that treating women better than men (i.e. treating men worse than woman) was okay and not sexist because it was only sexist the other way around so …
Well, that's a very....ummm.....creative interpretation of what I said, and even though I can appreciate a creative mind, I call BS just the same.
It's basically now a generic term that can mean a bunch of things depending on the context, many of which are good. Being labelled a " sick c*** " is a great compliment and sign of respect.
themselves. "
. It doesn't have the other meanings though.
Some people look for offense where none is intended. 
.
.
