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.

 redleger wrote:
I actually love that, because its so true.

Cheers.

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).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
This hyper-sensitivity is such crap

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'.

Hope that clears everything up for you.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

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!"

 CptJake wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

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.

But, sorry, off topic :

 CptJake wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

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?

 welshhoppo wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

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.

Mario wrote:

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

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.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

Mario wrote:

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

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.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 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.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 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.

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.

 Galas wrote:

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.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:


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?

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Galas wrote:

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.

 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.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Galas wrote:

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.

 welshhoppo wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Galas wrote:

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 they are the majority of the populace, no?

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.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 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.