logo Sign In

Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 130

This topic has been locked by a moderator.

Author
Time

Handman said:

TV’s Frink said:

Handman said:

And if you aren’t personally offended why act offended? Saying something is offensive to a particular group without being involved or a part of that particular group isn’t really much of a favor to them. In fact, it’s a tad bit condescending, isn’t it? Figuring they can’t complain themselves, that you have to do it on their behalf – not even factoring in the group in question is made up of a bunch of individuals who don’t even agree completely!

So, a business is selling a potentially offensive t-shirt, I should just ignore it because it’s not my problem?

I prefer to show some empathy.

It’s not empathy, it’s coddling. Taking the moral high ground here is wrong, honestly I find people going out of their way to protect minorities from things that might hurt their feelings as if they’re children who can’t do it themselves patronizing, and I’m not alone there. When everything is potentially offensive, as offense is subjective by nature, where’s the line drawn? How far are we going to go to hide people from simple harsh realities?

Who asked for your empathy?

Jeez, I guess I’m sorry for being a dick.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

If someone here was calling me a kike and someone else took offense, I certainly wouldn’t be mad at the person who took offense instead of the person who called me an ethnic slur…I just simply cannot conceive of a world where the person who pointed out the offense is the bad guy. This is extraordinarily backwards.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

DominicCobb said:

Handman said:

TV’s Frink said:

Handman said:

And if you aren’t personally offended why act offended? Saying something is offensive to a particular group without being involved or a part of that particular group isn’t really much of a favor to them. In fact, it’s a tad bit condescending, isn’t it? Figuring they can’t complain themselves, that you have to do it on their behalf – not even factoring in the group in question is made up of a bunch of individuals who don’t even agree completely!

So, a business is selling a potentially offensive t-shirt, I should just ignore it because it’s not my problem?

I prefer to show some empathy.

It’s not empathy, it’s coddling. Taking the moral high ground here is wrong, honestly I find people going out of their way to protect minorities from things that might hurt their feelings as if they’re children who can’t do it themselves patronizing, and I’m not alone there. When everything is potentially offensive, as offense is subjective by nature, where’s the line drawn? How far are we going to go to hide people from simple harsh realities?

Who asked for your empathy?

Well, it’s not as if these minorities don’t have a history of significant offenses against them. I mean that’s just a fact that you can’t get around. Instead of pretending that history never existed or pretending that there’s nothing wrong anymore, we should be working to make things right. We can’t just throw our hands up in the air and say “that’s life!” We should be better than that.

Where am I denying this? We’re looking at the wrong things.

I give up. Clearly I suck at explaining my mindset, and am not gaining any friends in the process.

Author
Time

Handman said:

DominicCobb said:

Handman said:

TV’s Frink said:

Handman said:

And if you aren’t personally offended why act offended? Saying something is offensive to a particular group without being involved or a part of that particular group isn’t really much of a favor to them. In fact, it’s a tad bit condescending, isn’t it? Figuring they can’t complain themselves, that you have to do it on their behalf – not even factoring in the group in question is made up of a bunch of individuals who don’t even agree completely!

So, a business is selling a potentially offensive t-shirt, I should just ignore it because it’s not my problem?

I prefer to show some empathy.

It’s not empathy, it’s coddling. Taking the moral high ground here is wrong, honestly I find people going out of their way to protect minorities from things that might hurt their feelings as if they’re children who can’t do it themselves patronizing, and I’m not alone there. When everything is potentially offensive, as offense is subjective by nature, where’s the line drawn? How far are we going to go to hide people from simple harsh realities?

Who asked for your empathy?

Well, it’s not as if these minorities don’t have a history of significant offenses against them. I mean that’s just a fact that you can’t get around. Instead of pretending that history never existed or pretending that there’s nothing wrong anymore, we should be working to make things right. We can’t just throw our hands up in the air and say “that’s life!” We should be better than that.

Where am I denying this? We’re looking at the wrong things.

Sorry, I don’t mean to suggest this is exactly what you’re saying in this context. But it is very much an argument I stand by in regards to the “can’t hide people from harsh realities” mindset in general.

I give up. Clearly I suck at explaining my mindset, and am not gaining any friends in the process.

I hope you don’t actually think this debate has any correlation at all to how I feel about you as a person.

Author
Time

Guys, please chill out. A stupid t shirt isn’t worth it.

Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

JEDIT: Rather not keep it going, haha.

Keep Circulating the Tapes.

END OF LINE

(It hasn’t happened yet)

Author
Time

Tyrphanax said:

TV’s Frink said:

DominicCobb said:

TV’s Frink said:

Tyrphanax said:

TV’s Frink said:

Tyrphanax said:

Jesus Christ this is stupid.

Which part?

Every part!

Why?

Well we are talking about a fucking Walking Dead season 7 T-shirt.

We’re talking about being offended by something. It’s a proxy.

But since I’m the insensitive asshole unless it’s clear obvious racism, you guys win!

I just feel like the thing is being blown out of proportion on all sides and there’s a lot of hyperbole and bad examples and analogies being used.

Let’s say it actually was a black person that complained. Would it be blown out of proportion then?

Author
Time

Wasn’t there a saying that went something like: first they came for the xxx’s and I didn’t speak up, then they came for the yyy’s and I didn’t speak up, then they came for me and there wasn’t anyone left to speak up for me? If someone is mistreating someone in another “group” (regardless of the degree), it’s part of being a member of a civilized society (not mention common decency) to defend them, and to find the mistreatment offensive.

Furthermore, whether or not YOU see the N word in the shirt, there is a significant group of people who DO see the N word in it (me being one of them - and I’m not even black).

I can’t imagine why the vendor should be castigated for erring on the side of being nice.

"Close the blast doors!"
Puggo’s website | Rescuing Star Wars

Author
Time

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Wasn’t there a saying that went something like: first they came for the xxx’s and I didn’t speak up, then they came for the yyy’s and I didn’t speak up, then they came for me and there wasn’t anyone left to speak up for me?

https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007392

Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) was a prominent Protestant pastor who emerged as an outspoken public foe of Adolf Hitler and spent the last seven years of Nazi rule in concentration camps.

Niemöller is perhaps best remembered for the quotation:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

I can’t imagine why the vendor should be castigated for erring on the side of being nice.

Okay I’m being a hypocrite, but just so it’s clear where I stand: Exactly. That’s all it comes down to.

Do I hate that they changed the Fire Temple music in Ocarina of Time? I do. But I also understand why and that’s perfectly fine.

In my mind, the thought process should go: “Oh, they removed X because they didn’t want to take the chance of offending anybody. Okay. Now what’s for dinner?” It requires no more discussion than that.

Keep Circulating the Tapes.

END OF LINE

(It hasn’t happened yet)

Author
Time

I mean, acting like the nursery rhyme is inherently racist because of its history is a little silly, but if some people can’t help but see its unfortunate past and that makes them uncomfortable, I won’t begrudge them that.

Author
Time

I forgot Trump said this just last month.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/31/president-donald-j-trump-will-continue-enforce-executive-order

President Donald J. Trump Will Continue to Enforce Executive Order Protecting the Rights of the LGBTQ Community in the Workplace

President Donald J. Trump is determined to protect the rights of all Americans, including the LGBTQ community. President Trump continues to be respectful and supportive of LGBTQ rights, just as he was throughout the election. The President is proud to have been the first ever GOP nominee to mention the LGBTQ community in his nomination acceptance speech, pledging then to protect the community from violence and oppression. The executive order signed in 2014, which protects employees from anti-LGBTQ workplace discrimination while working for federal contractors, will remain intact at the direction of President Donald J. Trump.

What a dick.

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

I mean, acting like the nursery rhyme is inherently racist because of its history is a little silly, but if some people can’t help but see its unfortunate past and that makes them uncomfortable, I won’t begrudge them that.

I don’t begrudge people for that, but I do begrudge people expecting everyone else to fall in line with their choices. Eeny Meeny Miney Mo isn’t a common part of my lexicon believe it or not, but if I feel the need to say it, I’m going to say it. If someone is offended, then they’re just going to have to live with the fact that they don’t control me and what I say.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

DominicCobb said:

I mean, acting like the nursery rhyme is inherently racist because of its history is a little silly, but if some people can’t help but see its unfortunate past and that makes them uncomfortable, I won’t begrudge them that.

I don’t begrudge people for that, but I do begrudge people expecting everyone else to fall in line with their choices. Eeny Meeny Miney Mo isn’t a common part of my lexicon believe it or not, but if I feel the need to say it, I’m going to say it. If someone is offended, then they’re just going to have to live with the fact that they don’t control me and what I say.

Nice.

Prime example of what I mean about having empathy vs. not having empathy.

Author
Time

Hoo-boy.

http://theslot.jezebel.com/missouri-rep-wants-the-state-museum-to-house-a-permanen-1792682819

Mike Moon, a Republican state representative in Missouri, recently introduced House Bill 1014 which, according to the bill’s description, “requires the Missouri State Museum to include a display on the history of abortion.” In addition to requiring the state museum to display a surely one-sided history of abortion, the bill, which he calls the “Never Again Act,” also requires that curators at the museum install the imaginary exhibition “near the existing exhibit on the history of slavery.”

In a press release sent to constituents, Moon said that the exhibition, as he envisions it, “would display tools used and the effects those same tools have on the aborted victims.” Items for Moon’s (again imaginary) exhibition would be drawn from the Grantham Collection’s Abortion Instruments and Photographic Archive. While that might sound very official and legitimate—save its web domain abortioninstruments.com—the Grantham Collection is unsurprisingly an anti-abortion site that collects and dubiously labels medical instruments supposedly used in abortion procedures as well as videos showing abortions.

Though Grantham claims on its site to be a non-partisan view into “what the abortion industry does not want you and the world to see,” it is very clearly partisan. The group was referenced by Carly Fiorina during a 2015 Republican primary debate, during which she claimed to have watched “a fully formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking.” Fiorina attributed that video to David Daleiden’s Center for Medical Progress. Though the video was produced by CMP, it used video taken from the Grantham Collection’s partner, the Center for Bioethical Reform. On their website, the Grantham Collection describes the Center for Bioethical Reform as a “lifetime partner in graphically awakening the consciousness of all people,” adding that, “their tireless work on the behalf of the pre-born is truly inspiring.” Truly.

Missing from the Grantham Collection, and surely from Moon’s imaginary museum exhibition, are actual women, either women who have been saved by the procedure or whose health was preserved through its legalization. But hey, this isn’t actually about women. It’s about civil rights or, maybe, according to Moon, slavery and the Holocaust. “The number of lives lost by abortion is more than we lost during slavery and during the Holocaust,” he said in the press release sent from his office. “We need to start looking at abortion in the same light as we do both of those tragic events.”

Author
Time
 (Edited)

If you’re just going to go ahead and think it’s empathy v. not having empathy because you found one black person who was offended, I don’t know what to say. If you’re trying to tell me I have to fall in line with what black people tell me to do, which one do I follow? Ben Carson or Obama? Who? All of them? That’s a lot of conflicting opinions and perspectives there. What do I do? Once again I’m going to refer to the fact that a group is comprised of individuals, you simplifying it to just black people can do no wrong is patronizing. I don’t see the empathy.

Author
Time

SilverWook said:

Warbler said:

SilverWook said:

Warbler said:

So the old saying “Eeny, Meeny, Miny, Moe . . .” originally included the line "catch a (n-word) . . " in it? I didn’t know this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_Then_There_Were_None

I never knew “And Then There Were None” had such an offensive original title. But what does that have to do with the old saying “Eeny, Meeny, Miny, Moe”?

Both have been modified to remove that which was offensive?

ah, yes.

Author
Time

TV’s Frink said:

Is the problem that they removed the t-shirt, or that they removed what you consider a non-racist t-shirt?

If the t-shirt included the n-word, would it be ok to remove it, or would it still be “sickening?”

If it contained the n-word, it should most definitely have been removed. As it was, I don’t know. Until yesterday I had no idea of any racial connotation behind the words “Eeny, Meeny, Miny, Moe”, so I don’t know.