Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I don't see why the guy making racist remarks takes away from his accomplishments of building a successful business from the ground up.

Then you're totally not PC enough...

I guess not!

Kanluwen wrote:I don't see why the guy making racist remarks takes away from his accomplishments of building a successful business from the ground up.

I don't think Fittz was saying that it detracts from the guys accomplishments, only that it detracts from his admiration of them.

Say nothing !
Take a small recording device to work with you, if he does this again tape him (covertly).
And give to people who challenge that sort of behavior.

dogma wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:I don't see why the guy making racist remarks takes away from his accomplishments of building a successful business from the ground up.

I don't think Fittz was saying that it detracts from the guys accomplishments, only that it detracts from his admiration of them.

Exactly,his business accomplishments are not in question here,his character,at least as far as I'm concerned is.


Also,a quick comment concerning "PC" comment.

I'm not the type of guy who comes unglued over "political correctness", I don't gasp and write letters to the network over South Park episodes or tsk tsk at comidiens for not being "PC" (George Carlin is sort of a hero to me,if that gives you any idea.)
However,in the context that this man used that word...it did anger me,and I belive rightfully so.

Mainly because he wasn't aghast at someone else overhearing someone say something never meant to be heard to someone else entirely.

The Horror!

One thing nobody has mentioned: People love to be specific in their insults. If somebody is mad, they want to get off a really pointed, biting flow of hate. Just cause the guy said some racial slurs, that doesn't mean he actually hates that race. He may just have wanted to use the most specific, negative word possible.

On the PC issue: While I agree that it's not "political correctness" to be offended by specific, directed racial slurs, the problem with the "PC movement" is that it makes people feel offended above and beyond what is helpful to them. "The N word" is a major example of something that people get ridiculously overagitated about. Bottom line, people say racial slurs all the time, and quite often, they mean nothing major by it. If you didn't have all this societal backup to be outraged, you might have been able to just blow this thing off... And honestly, isn't that the best thing for you? Isn't it best to just be able to do your job, collect money to support your kids, and not worry?

The PC movement is telling you that you SHOULD feel all upset, get up in arms, yell and scream, beat the guy up. Problem is, it's only going to hurt you in the end. There's no room for self-righteous prattling when kids need to get fed.

It really doesn't help you to be angry here. Consider the irony: If you lose your job, your kids, which are half-black, now have an enemployed dad. How is that furthering racial equality? Now it's just two more kids with black parantage in a worse situation.

Put it this way:

If this guy isn't really racist, then he just makes bad choices in language, and it doesn't really matter. You're fine.

If this guy IS a racist, and he's paying you, then you're using his money to support a black woman, and raise two half black kids. Laugh to yourself that you're working him, and keep an eye out for a better job.

At the end of the day, negative emotions are just an impediment. That's why I hate the PC movement. It teachs you that anger, frustration and resentment are positive feelings to have, and that you should be glad ot have them. BS. If it's at all possible, you should do nothing but spend your time happy with your girl and your kids. If you simply CAN'T control the anger, and have to address it (and despite the preaching, I rarely can control my own negative emotions), then at least handle it professionally and calmly (which seems to be your plan).

I will have to ask something, what did the customers look like?

I personally refrain from use of the N-word because it really isn't a nice word to say, although its origins were less offensive.

I went to a highschool where the majority of students were black and noticed a trend, a lot of the degenerate looking kids were calling each other said word. So whenever I think of that word I think of a degenerate, I call these people "ghetto". In other words I call them trash. Although my use of the word "ghetto" doesn't only apply to blacks it denotes someone who looks like they live in the ghetto.

If these people looked like this, then maybe that is why he chose that word.

Look at it this way, you work with a black guy so that means the black guy was hired right?

If the boss hasn't called him that word, then maybe he isn't a rascist. If the guy you work for is old, then he's kind of stuck in a rascist mind set. Here's a way you can gauge his rascism: Ask him what he's going to be for halloween and put a cross and a lighter in front of him.

If he says he's going to be a ghost and sets the cross on fire then he's a rascist.

Fitzz, dude, I'm sorry about your situation. Working for an donkey-cave sucks, so if I were you I'd begin looking for a job elsewhere. Your ability to do that that depends on your own situation, but there shouldn't be much that justifies working for an donkey-cave.

I wouldn't undertake legal action, though. I know a few people who've put in worker's comp claims, and one lady who put in a sexual harrassment claim. Around half the worker's comp claims seemed legitimate to me and the sexual harrassment claim certainly was, but legit or not that stuff haunted them. It became noticeably harder for each of them to find employment.

I don't think it'd be worth pursuing legal action, no matter how the guy deserves it. It'd be nice if this was a better world, where a person looking to create a better workplace environment is seen as a good guy, not a lazy guy trying to score a payout. But you've read this thread, this more or less represents a significant portion of opinions in the real world. People will bend over backwards to defend employers, or anyone deemed successful. He might not really be racist, he hired a black guy therefore he can't be! People assume the complainant is militant, or lying. All this means you will likely suffer for any formal action you take.

I see you've decided to confront him over it, to be perfectly honest I'd think long and hard about what kind of guy he is before going ahead with that. There are people who can take something like that well, improve their behaviour and move on. There are people who will see it as an attack on their authority, marking you as a threat to be removed. It's a judgement call.

puma713 wrote:A word has as much power as you give it, pure and simple.

This is a very easy thing to believe when no-one from your ethnic group has been sold into slavery or lynched because of their skin colour. Segregation is within living memory.

I'm not black. I haven't grown up as part of a minority, so it really isn't my place to tell black people how much certain words should offend people.

Kanluwen wrote:So what about blacks who say honky, cracker, etc at the workplace? Or how about anyone using Asian slurs?

None of which would be appropriate when an employer was referring to an employee, or using it to refer to customers negatively while within earshot of employees.

You can't punish people for saying words. Really. You can't.

You really can. There are many different fields of human life, and the same speach isn't allowed in all of them. The expectations in the workplace are very different to the expectations of political debate. A person's right to hold offensive racial views needs to be balanced against a person's right to work in a place without being called racial slurs.

Phryxis wrote:The PC movement is telling you that you SHOULD feel all upset, get up in arms, yell and scream, beat the guy up. Problem is, it's only going to hurt you in the end. There's no room for self-righteous prattling when kids need to get fed.

The PC movement is what? That two letter acronym really has come to mean whatever the hell the angry right-winger wants it to mean at that particular point in time, hasn’t it?

I think we’ve pretty much reached the point where ‘PC’ has taken on so many definitions that it’s use is almost guaranteed to make any point it’s part of completely useless.

I've said rascist things before, and I've been called a bigot before. Although it changes a persons mind when you show family photos. I myself have 3 black cousins, 1 black uncle, 1 black aunt, 1 mexican grandfather, a couple of mexican aunts, and of course white people. I'm related to most of them through marriage, but I still love most of them (I only have one mexican uncle I love, the others are just pricks) and it also helps when your mom babysits 2 black girls most of the day and has been babysitting them since they were born. They're like my little sisters, love them to death.

But yeah, I just don't care enough about a person's race to change my vocabulary and attitude. I will change depending on age/status though (no swearing in front of adults or kids for example).

Ooh, another example: I am a real-life troll and one day was yelling about the japanese being nazi druids along with my friend who likes to do the same(he's black), well along the line we ticked off a jewish kid who told us that he wasn't happy about our nazi jokes and asked us to stop; I promptly called him a nazi druid who was trying to keep us from telling the truth. I said that I had freedom of speech and he told me to express it elsewhere and I said "No, I'm taking a stand here! I'm like the Rosa Parks of Anti-Nazi Druidism." at which point my friend lost it.

In the end I had a black guy actually come up to us and he defended my right to say whatever I want.

I think that is what america is all about, maybe he's just so comfortable around your black friend that he doesn't watch what he says.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
PC= Political Correctness a.k.a watch what you say around people who are different.

Personally, I'm still trying to find this contiguous PC movement which is so often referenced.

This is a very easy thing to believe when no-one from your ethnic group has been sold into slavery or lynched because of their skin colour.

Yeah, well, I'm Jewish, and the Holocaust is a much, MUCH more recent memory than slavery in the US. And guess what? I hear people say "don't be a Jew" to one another from time to time, and it doesn't bother me. It's just something people say, it means nothing.

That two letter acronym really has come to mean whatever the hell the angry right-winger wants it to mean at that particular point in time, hasn’t it?

And what does "right-winger" mean? Made enough sense to you that you used it, right?

The fact is, you know what I mean, and I know what you mean.

But I'll give you more background what it means to me, just so you can't so easily pidgeon-hole me...

It's an excuse. It's a worthless bone that was thrown to black people so they wouldn't notice that the people who claim to help them aren't helping them. American Democrats have prattled for years how they're the friends of black folks... How's that going for you, black folks? How much are your Democrat pals hooking you up? Oh, every once in a while they railroad some chump like Don Imus, pat themselves on the back for helping you, and in a couple months he's back to making millions.

I'm not against protecting black people. I'm against using them as political pawns, giving them JUST enough of my money so that they can live in projects and show up on voting day, but never REALLY get a better life.

It's a tactic to create anger, to motivate people, to get them behind the political candidate that (falsely) claims he'll do something about it. It's the same "us vs. them" trick we used during the cold war, only turned inwards, and directed at a largely fictional and vanishing population of American racists.

It's race baiting mind control BS.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Personally, I'm still trying to find this contiguous PC movement which is so often referenced.

I think you're above rhetorical strawmen.

We all know that tactics exist, and can be used in a relatively uniform fashion, by a given group.

If you must have a concrete group, I'll point to the American Democratic Party. They are fully and cynically aware of the tactics they use in this arena.

Isn't that essentially the meat of all American political action? Set up a strawman, and rally people to vote against it.

Isn't that essentially the meat of all American political action? Set up a strawman, and rally people to vote against it.

Sometimes, to comfort myself, I assume it's the meat of all political action, rather than a failing specific to Americans.

But then your post made me wonder if you weren't just trying to create a strawman hall-of-mirrors, which would be a valid use of the interwebs.

Phryxis wrote:
I think you're above rhetorical strawmen.

We all know that tactics exist, and can be used in a relatively uniform fashion, by a given group.

Sure, but if the only thing defining the group is the tactic its hardly appropriate to call it a movement.

Phryxis wrote:
If you must have a concrete group, I'll point to the American Democratic Party. They are fully and cynically aware of the tactics they use in this arena.

So is the Republican Party, and the Libertarian Party, and the Green Party. I mean, if we're talking about political correctness in general, then there are far more things to consider than racial issues.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phryxis wrote:
Sometimes, to comfort myself, I assume it's the meat of all political action, rather than a failing specific to Americans.

I pretty well assume that to be the case at this point.

Phryxis wrote:
But then your post made me wonder if you weren't just trying to create a strawman hall-of-mirrors, which would be a valid use of the interwebs.

I don't really know where you got the idea that I constructed a strawman. The word contiguous maybe? That's a quality I almost always apply to any group characterized as a 'movement'. Outside of that one word, all I did was make an offhand remark about something I felt was out of place in a comment you made.

halonachos wrote:Ooh, another example: I am a real-life troll and one day was yelling about the japanese being nazi druids along with my friend who likes to do the same(he's black), well along the line we ticked off a jewish kid who told us that he wasn't happy about our nazi jokes and asked us to stop; I promptly called him a nazi druid who was trying to keep us from telling the truth. I said that I had freedom of speech and he told me to express it elsewhere and I said "No, I'm taking a stand here! I'm like the Rosa Parks of Anti-Nazi Druidism." at which point my friend lost it.

I remember being a teenager. I used to do stuff like to, nonsense that touched on vaguely offensive categories. It was good fun, but really very different to the relationship between a boss and his employees.

I think that is what america is all about, maybe he's just so comfortable around your black friend that he doesn't watch what he says.

Or maybe he isn't racist, but is completely blind to the idea of priviledge so that he simply doesn't get why a racist word might have more power than an equivalent word might to a member of his own majority.

PC= Political Correctness a.k.a watch what you say around people who are different.

Not really, no. The term was used in the 70s for a very period to mean a person who is in line with correct political thinking, meaning conventional left wing orthodoxy of the time. This lasted a few years at best, before the term was turned into a pejorative, criticising people attempting to maintain left wing orthodoxy. It remained an obscure term.

Use of the term by the right wing began in the late 80s and early 90s, as an effort to criticise the perception that too much consideration was being given to the sensibilities of minorities. On one level there was a serious, albeit generally fairly stupid, concern that genuine study was being ignored to meet political sensibilities, there was no allowance for the possibility that differences in IQ scores might have genetic causes, for instance. Mostly, though, the term existed in popular culture in comedy routines, making fun of the fad of re-naming things to remove gender references – (they want to change walkman to walkperson teeheehee).

People came to declare themselves ‘politically incorrect’, declaring themselves brave resistors of an obscure academic group that had petered out of existence two decades before. In time the term PC has come to mean anything and everything that might be opposed by the right wing. Here in this thread it’s being extended to the idea that an employer shouldn’t create a workplace that’s hostile to minorities.

Because it’s used by people to describe so many diverse situations, and used to frame one side as brave resistors against some nefarious movement that seeks to control their words, it actively harms people’s ability to understand the situation. It’s value as a political rallying call is undoubted, but it makes the people who use it stupider, and it needs to go away.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phryxis wrote:Yeah, well, I'm Jewish, and the Holocaust is a much, MUCH more recent memory than slavery in the US. And guess what? I hear people say "don't be a Jew" to one another from time to time, and it doesn't bother me. It's just something people say, it means nothing.

Mentioning my ethnicity as a slur doesn't bother me, therefore it shouldn't bother people of other ethnicities. That's pretty narcissistic, don't you think?

And what does "right-winger" mean? Made enough sense to you that you used it, right?

Are you equating voluntary affiliation with a political ideology with ethnicity? Really?

It's an excuse. It's a worthless bone that was thrown to black people so they wouldn't notice that the people who claim to help them aren't helping them. American Democrats have prattled for years how they're the friends of black folks... How's that going for you, black folks? How much are your Democrat pals hooking you up? Oh, every once in a while they railroad some chump like Don Imus, pat themselves on the back for helping you, and in a couple months he's back to making millions.

Yeah, the Democrats really haven't done that much, because the simple reality is that it doesn't hurt the Democrats to black people down, as the other party is the Republicans and it's better to vote for a party that says they'll help and generally fails to do so, than to vote for a party that doesn't even promise that much.

But I have no idea, absolutely none what-so-ever, what any of that has to do with the idea that it isn't cool that the boss abuses someone with a racial epithet.

It's a tactic to create anger, to motivate people, to get them behind the political candidate that (falsely) claims he'll do something about it. It's the same "us vs. them" trick we used during the cold war, only turned inwards, and directed at a largely fictional and vanishing population of American racists.

There is this idea that there are overt racists and regular folk, and that that is the entirely of race politics is an idea that needs to go away. Privilege and the connection between socio-economic status and ethnicity is really important.

think you're above rhetorical strawmen.

We all know that tactics exist, and can be used in a relatively uniform fashion, by a given group.

If you must have a concrete group, I'll point to the American Democratic Party. They are fully and cynically aware of the tactics they use in this arena.

So you just mean any and all race politics? That's the problem. Ask someone else and their version of the PC movement will be something entirely different. Because the term exists as nothing but a pejorative, it has to be used to attack whatever the user doesn't like. You don't like race politics, therefore race politics is PC.

sebster wrote:On one level there was a serious, albeit generally fairly stupid, concern that genuine study was being ignored to meet political sensibilities, there was no allowance for the possibility that differences in IQ scores might have genetic causes, for instance.

I don't think its really all that stupid. All you have to do is watch an exchange between 2nd and 3rd wave feminists to see the ramifications political correctness in academia, where it seems to have the most weight. It gets even worse if you mention the word 'choice' in the context of a debate about the nature of homosexuality.

dogma wrote:I don't think its really all that stupid. All you have to do is watch an exchange between 2nd and 3rd wave feminists to see the ramifications political correctness in academia, where it seems to have the most weight. It gets even worse if you mention the word 'choice' in the context of a debate about the nature of homosexuality.

Yeah, when I read through my post before submitting I added 'generally' for just that reason. There certainly is decent study shut down due to political orthodoxy, but for every such piece there are dozens of people who claimed their research was shut down over political correctness, when it was actually just poor work. Look at the number of wangrods complaining their research disproving global warming is dismissed because of the pc global warming mainstream, and not just because their research is bunk.

Sure, but if the only thing defining the group is the tactic its hardly appropriate to call it a movement.

You're right, "movement" is a bad word. I think "tactic" or "ploy" is more appropriate.

The reason I chose "movement" is because there's a cultlike adherence to the use of this tactic.

I mean, if we're talking about political correctness in general, then there are far more things to consider than racial issues.

There are, but they are all issues the Democrats feel they've got the "high ground" on.

To be clear, in no way do I think that the Republicans are more rhetorically honest than the Democrats. For example, they played the rhetorical game of demonizing the word "liberal." It's one of the "wins" the Republicans have had, and the language of "political correctness" is one that the Democrats have had.

Mentioning my ethnicity as a slur doesn't bother me, therefore it shouldn't bother people of other ethnicities. That's pretty narcissistic, don't you think?

No, it's meant to show consistency. You seem to feel that the distant history of slavery gives black people an experience that other people can't understand. I don't feel that's a legitimate argument. I have seen the concentration camp tattoos on my family members. It doesn't give me some special right to freak out. And I don't.

There's a real double standard on this that I object to. There's a constant appeal to the "you don't know what it's like to be black" argument. It's bogus. Nobody knows what it's like to be anybody except themselves. I get the impression that some black folks think whites can just show up and get a job, no problem. But at the end of the day, blacks don't know what it's like to be white any more than the reverse is true. Nobody gets to use this ploy.

Are you equating voluntary affiliation with a political ideology with ethnicity? Really?

Not even remotely. You said "political correctness" was a vague, poorly understood word. I said the same thing about "right wing." Both are vague shorthands that we're relying on one another to parse.

Please punch yourself in the eye for making me explain that, when you could have just read it the first time I said it.

But I have no idea, absolutely none what-so-ever, what any of that has to do with the idea that it isn't cool that the boss abuses someone with a racial epithet.

Because I think that without the constant drumbeat of race-baiting, without the constant training Americans get on how evil racism is, the OP wouldn't be as offended by what his boss said. If not for that, he might have just said "man, that's lame, but whatever." And, as I said earlier, wouldn't that make his life better? Instead, he's got this frustration to deal with.

The fact is, we take cues on what's right and wrong from society in general. We know racism is bad. We also know that sexism is bad. But we're trained to think one is worse than the other. Most of us here are male. How often do we hear negative comments about women, and generally absorb them without much thought? If the OP's boss was angry at a group of women, called them "whores" or "bitches" or whatever, would the OP have been so outraged? I'd speculate not... And why? His girlfriend is both black and female.

The OP will have to correct me if I'm wrong...

But I certainly know that in my experience, men are perfectly happy to talk badly about women, but TERRIFIED of being thought a racist. I know that at my job, I've seen people make jokes in meetings about how silly women (or men) are, and everyone laughs. I recall a guy saying that women have a certain quota for how many words they have to say per day, that's why they say so much useless crap. Everyone laughed, male and female. What would have happend if he made a fried chicken joke about blacks?

Where's the moral logic in any of that garbage?

Nowhere.

Because, ultimately, political correctness is about denying people access to truth.

Phryxis wrote:
There are, but they are all issues the Democrats feel they've got the "high ground" on.

Really? What about teaching evolution in schools, or the nominal requirement to profess faith during a political campaign?

Phryxis wrote:
To be clear, in no way do I think that the Republicans are more rhetorically honest than the Democrats. For example, they played the rhetorical game of demonizing the word "liberal." It's one of the "wins" the Republicans have had, and the language of "political correctness" is one that the Democrats have had.

I think you interpret PC more narrowly than I do. To me the demonization of the word 'liberal' is just another facit of political correctness; ie. establishing what is 'correct', with respect to valuation, in the political arena.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:
Yeah, when I read through my post before submitting I added 'generally' for just that reason. There certainly is decent study shut down due to political orthodoxy, but for every such piece there are dozens of people who claimed their research was shut down over political correctness, when it was actually just poor work. Look at the number of wangrods complaining their research disproving global warming is dismissed because of the pc global warming mainstream, and not just because their research is bunk.

Oh, its gets much worse than that...I can't finish that sentence without baiting Biblical literalists.

Really? What about teaching evolution in schools, or the nominal requirement to profess faith during a political campaign?

I think we're missing each other here.

What I was saying is that all the issues that people label "PC" are issues that the Democrats feel they have the high ground on.

No question, it's odd that you can't admit to being an atheist in American politics. I mean, REALLY is Nancy Pelosi a Catholic? A pro-choice Catholic? No such thing. There are rules to Catholicism, and if you don't agree with them, you're not a Catholic. It's why we have Anglicanism.

I think you interpret PC more narrowly than I do.

Yeah, it seems like we're not at all on the same page re: this.

And, honestly, I shouldn't say "PC" cause there's other parts of it, even in my definition, that don't apply. For example, in my definition, you have to call slowed people "differently abled" or something. Which, while ridiculous and mind-control-ish, is not at all related to race.

A better term for what I'm talking about is the "race industry."

Look at the number of wangrods complaining their research disproving global warming is dismissed because of the pc global warming mainstream, and not just because their research is bunk.

I think this is because they've defined "political correctness" to mean the generally omnipresent liberal mind control machine. There's a sustained assault on any view that doesn't coincide with the liberal dogma, that the right simply can't equal (though they would love to).

Score another point for your "PC no longer has any meaning" argument. I guess I'll have to concede that at this point.

ITT Thought Crime

Phryxis wrote:No, it's meant to show consistency. You seem to feel that the distant history of slavery gives black people an experience that other people can't understand. I don't feel that's a legitimate argument. I have seen the concentration camp tattoos on my family members. It doesn't give me some special right to freak out. And I don't.

Your own indifference to attacks on your ethnicity don’t automatically mean other people aren’t allowed to be offended by attacks on theirs.

There's a real double standard on this that I object to. There's a constant appeal to the "you don't know what it's like to be black" argument. It's bogus. Nobody knows what it's like to be anybody except themselves. I get the impression that some black folks think whites can just show up and get a job, no problem. But at the end of the day, blacks don't know what it's like to be white any more than the reverse is true. Nobody gets to use this ploy.

Sure, which is why it is good to give everyone a little leeway. Which includes not attacking their ethnicity.

Not even remotely. You said "political correctness" was a vague, poorly understood word. I said the same thing about "right wing." Both are vague shorthands that we're relying on one another to parse.

Oh, sorry, I thought you were equating ethnicity and politics, I didn’t see you were equating political correctness and the right wing. My mistake.

That’s a more apt analogy, though I’d say they’re still different as right wing is a term people accept for themselves, while PC is a term used by people to assign to others, almost always to discredit them. It is fair to say a movement exists as long as people are willing to call themselves part of it. It is much less likely to exist when the term is being assigned to third parties.

Please punch yourself in the eye for making me explain that, when you could have just read it the first time I said it.

Huh, that’s a bit aggressive, don’t you think?

The fact is, we take cues on what's right and wrong from society in general. We know racism is bad. We also know that sexism is bad. But we're trained to think one is worse than the other. Most of us here are male. How often do we hear negative comments about women, and generally absorb them without much thought? If the OP's boss was angry at a group of women, called them "whores" or "bitches" or whatever, would the OP have been so outraged? I'd speculate not... And why? His girlfriend is both black and female.

I would hope he would be exactly as offended. I find it bizarre you assume he wouldn’t. Really very bizarre.

Because, ultimately, political correctness is about denying people access to truth.

Political correctness is a term used to dismiss a range of movements, some valid, some not. It can be hard to figure out which are valid and which aren’t, requiring one to learn about each and build an informed opinion. Putting them all under the political correctness banner is much simpler, but very problematic.

I read recently on slacktivist that most people recognise the link between stupidity and bigotry, but few realise the cause of that link. It isn’t that being stupid makes one a bigot, it’s that being a bigot makes one stupid. The author went on to extend this to ideologues, arguing that committing to a political ideology involves turning away from the world as it is, instead looking at the world only in terms of how it supports one’s ideology.

Railing about political correctness is doing just that, it will stop people seeing ideas as they really are, it will make them stupid.

Also, ideological views tend to make one view other as ideologues. The ideological conservative will see any liberal, self-identified or otherwise, as an ideological liberal because that is all his frame of reference will allow. It is a terrible chamber of echos.

Your own indifference to attacks on your ethnicity don’t automatically mean other people aren’t allowed to be offended by attacks on theirs.

No, people are allowed to experience whatever they wish. Not only do I have no desire to tell people what they can think, I have no ability to do so.

And, in turn, I'm allowed to judge the legitimacy of their reaction, and state my conclusion.

You made the argument that we can't judge people's reaction, given the history of slavery/segregation. I don't agree, and I gave an example of a similar "victim cred" that my family has to show that I'm not simply making up rules.

Having been proven wrong, you resorted to twisting my meaning, and trying to reshuffle the victim card deck, so that I was being a thought policeman, when all I was doing was disagreeing with a thought. Honestly, I think you're being willfully obtuse here.

Huh, that’s a bit aggressive, don’t you think?

No. I'm leaving the punching entirely up to you. If you feel it's excessive, feel free not to punch yourself. If you'd like, you could go with an open handed slap. I want to be fair here, but I also want to give you the opportunity to redeem yourself.

I find it bizarre you assume he wouldn’t. Really very bizarre.

Well, technically I've never been to Australia, but I have known many Australians, and all of them struck me as being extremely culturally similar to all the Americans I know. So, either you're being willfully obtuse again, or the Australians in Australia are very different from the ones I've met.

Given your track record, I'm going with "willfully obtuse."

It isn’t that being stupid makes one a bigot, it’s that being a bigot makes one stupid.

This is cute, but I don't agree. I think stupid people tend to be bigots because stupidity is barrier to things like empathy, perspective taking, etc. It's also often the case that stupid people know they're stupid, so they like to find cateogrizations that put enough people "below" them, stupid or not, that they feel elevated. "I may be stupid, but at least I ain't black!"

Phryxis wrote:
Having been proven wrong...

You really need to stop this sort of thing. Unless you're going on 'internet proof' instead of actual proof, none of which is present in this thread.

Phryxis wrote:
Well, technically I've never been to Australia, but I have known many Australians, and all of them struck me as being extremely culturally similar to all the Americans I know. So, either you're being willfully obtuse again, or the Australians in Australia are very different from the ones I've met.

Given your track record, I'm going with "willfully obtuse."

Don't project assumptions and then defend them as fact.

Unless you're going on 'internet proof' instead of actual proof, none of which is present in this thread.

What I'm going for is "this guy is clearly just twisting words, and not reading what I write, so I'm going to stop showing his viewpoints any respect either."

Don't project assumptions and then defend them as fact.

I presented my perceptions on a subject, I supported them with my experiences, and the response was to dismiss with no counter argument, anecdote, anything.

I don't think my perceptions or experiences constitute factual proof of anything... However I do think that when somebody is reduced to twisting my words, ignoring my points without refutation, and generally failing to respond in a compelling way, my perceptions and experiences are being supported, rather than challenged.

And, to be clear, I'm talking about sebster's responses, not yours.

Phryxis wrote:No, people are allowed to experience whatever they wish. Not only do I have no desire to tell people what they can think, I have no ability to do so.

And, in turn, I'm allowed to judge the legitimacy of their reaction, and state my conclusion.

So you have no desire to tell people what they can think, but you will judge their reaction and tell people about it. That’s gibberish.

Judging their reaction and giving an opinion on it is the primary means of controlling people’s reactions.

You made the argument that we can't judge people's reaction, given the history of slavery/segregation. I don't agree, and I gave an example of a similar "victim cred" that my family has to show that I'm not simply making up rules.

No, you’re really failing to get it. Your personal experience and indifference to racial abuse doesn’t invalidate other people’s reactions. It is just that simple.

Having been proven wrong, you resorted to twisting my meaning, and trying to reshuffle the victim card deck, so that I was being a thought policeman, when all I was doing was disagreeing with a thought. Honestly, I think you're being willfully obtuse here.

You need to take a deep breath, and settle down before you post. You’re not a stupid guy, but you seem to be getting excited or something, causing you to make silly claims like the above. Mischaracterising the other person’s argument and declaring your rebuttal obvious proof it was wrong is really, really poor and makes you look a bit silly.

No. I'm leaving the punching entirely up to you. If you feel it's excessive, feel free not to punch yourself. If you'd like, you could go with an open handed slap. I want to be fair here, but I also want to give you the opportunity to redeem yourself.

Wit is a difficult thing. Keep practicing.

Well, technically I've never been to Australia, but I have known many Australians, and all of them struck me as being extremely culturally similar to all the Americans I know. So, either you're being willfully obtuse again, or the Australians in Australia are very different from the ones I've met.

Given your track record, I'm going with "willfully obtuse."

“I think you’re like us and we do this therefore you’re a hypocrite.”

Good job, Phryxis. Really, really good job.

I’ll tell you right now in any workplace I’ve ever been in, if the boss was overheard saying ‘we just had trouble from these two bitches at the front counter’ there’d be the exact same reaction as the one given by the OP. If anything, given the casual racism prevalent in Australia, the racial epithet would be less likely to cause trouble.

If the US different, and it is more acceptable to be misogynist than to be racist, then I’d think the best thing is to make misogyny less acceptable, not make racism more acceptable.

This is cute, but I don't agree. I think stupid people tend to be bigots because stupidity is barrier to things like empathy, perspective taking, etc. It's also often the case that stupid people know they're stupid, so they like to find cateogrizations that put enough people "below" them, stupid or not, that they feel elevated. "I may be stupid, but at least I ain't black!"

That’s the commonly held opinion that my argument was challenging. If you start to think about the development of empathy and perspective, you might start to see where the argument is coming from. We aren’t born with empathy and perspective, we develop these things with experience and time. When we build a worldview that doesn’t allow for those sources of knowledge, we shut them off and become stupider. Whe

If you’ve ever spent any time talking to racists, you’ll have quickly realised the stereotype of the idiot redneck doesn’t hold for all racists, or for even more than a small portion. Many are reasonably smart, and a fair portion are very bright. The problem isn’t that they can’t understand, it’s that they choose not to, because they choose ideology over reality. It’s an issue that goes way beyond racism, all manner of ideologies do much the same thing.

Phryxis wrote:
What I'm going for is "this guy is clearly just twisting words, and not reading what I write, so I'm going to stop showing his viewpoints any respect either."

You're going for a thing, and not on a thing?

Be certain that you aren't inserting concepts into your language that are not necessarily evident from base text.

Phryxis wrote:
I don't think my perceptions or experiences constitute factual proof of anything... However I do think that when somebody is reduced to twisting my words, ignoring my points without refutation, and generally failing to respond in a compelling way, my perceptions and experiences are being supported, rather than challenged.

That's a poor assumption. At best you should assume that your ideas are being attacked in an oblique manner.

Phryxis wrote:
And, to be clear, I'm talking about sebster's responses, not yours.

Yes, I'm aware of that.