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.

So if something has multiple meanings and someone is using it in the context of one of those meanings, then its perfectly acceptable.

Again this term must be a Yankee thing. I'll remember that when I am in Yankee land.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 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.

nou wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 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.

My friends, please keep in mind that Rule Number One is Be Polite - apllies even to the OT board ! Thanks !

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.


Also, this seems appropriate. Beware language.

 Frazzled wrote:

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.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

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!"

 Frazzled wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

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.

Well if they give you grief there is a less polite response but we won't discuss that here.

Never had that happen to me.

Edit late to party.

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?

 redleger wrote:
Edit late to party.

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.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

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.

 jasper76 wrote:

 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.

 Galas wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 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.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 redleger wrote:
Edit late to party.

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.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 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.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:

 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.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Galas wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 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.

Edite many times because I suck at english.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 redleger wrote:
Edit late to party.

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.

 Galas wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Galas wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 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.

Oh yeah. All of this its build upon biology.

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

 Frazzled wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 redleger wrote:
Edit late to party.

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 redleger wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 redleger wrote:
Edit late to party.

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".

In my country we have a said about that.

"Iron fists, but glass jaw"

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.

 jasper76 wrote:

 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.

 jasper76 wrote:

 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!)

 jasper76 wrote:

 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.