logo Sign In

Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 131

This topic has been locked by a moderator.

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

Handman said:

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 said black people can do no wrong?

How about this - if some people are offended by something, don’t do it.

There was a poll a while back that said only something like 10% of Native Americans are offended by the Washington Redskins team name. Ok, so 90% aren’t offended, but 10% still are. We should keep the name just so you can protect your right to offend that 10%?

I cannot understand what’s wrong with saying “hey this t-shirt uses a phrase that originally came from something racist, maybe people shouldn’t sell it or buy it.”

Author
Time
Post link

Warbler said:

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.

I’m generally in agreement, but I think of it the way I think of the game Smear the Queer. When I was a kid I played it and had no idea it could be considered offensive. Now that I know better, if I were playing that game again, I’d call it something else.

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

moviefreakedmind said:

I do begrudge people expecting everyone else to fall in line with their choices

To be clear… “people” weren’t involved in making “everyone” do what they said. ONE person highlighted ONE t-shirt to the boss of ONE company. The boss agreed it was offensive.

VIZ TOP TIPS! - PARENTS. Impress your children by showing them a floppy disk and telling them it’s a 3D model of a save icon.

Author
Time
Post link

Wow, never even heard of that one.

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time
Post link

Ryan McAvoy said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I do begrudge people expecting everyone else to fall in line with their choices

To be clear… “people” weren’t involved in making “everyone” do what they said. ONE person highlighted ONE t-shirt to the boss of ONE company. The boss agreed it was offensive.

The little picture of text heavily implied that everyone should fall in line with the person who wrote it.

The Person in Question

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

TV’s Frink said:

Handman said:

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 said black people can do no wrong?

You have repeatedly said over the years that if a black person is offended about anything, I should change my behaviors and ideology to suit this stranger. It gives that impression.

How about this - if some people (not all) are offended by something, don’t do it.

What sort of life is that? That would mean I wouldn’t be able to do literally anything but breathe. This is impossible. The things I personally get offended over would spoil a lot of people’s fun, like alcohol etc. . Do I do anything about it? No, because I realize I can’t police people from doing things I don’t like. In fact, they did once, it was Prohibition and it was a disaster. So no, that does not appeal to me.

You also don’t really seem to be too kind to people getting upset over some jokes you’ve made. Are the people offended over them not legitimate? You ignored them or continued to make jokes, yes? How is this any different?

There was a poll a while back that said only something like 10% of Native Americans are offended by the Washington Redskins team name. Ok, so 90% aren’t offended, but 10% still are. We should keep the name just so you can protect your right to offend that 10%?

I am conflicted over this issue, as it is a racial slur. I’m also not a fan of sports in general, so I honestly don’t care. But again, everyone is offended by something, the NAACP now has a racial slur in its name (colored people), yet this does not seem to be an issue. Probably because it’s a nonissue.

Author
Time
Post link

moviefreakedmind said:

Ryan McAvoy said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I do begrudge people expecting everyone else to fall in line with their choices

To be clear… “people” weren’t involved in making “everyone” do what they said. ONE person highlighted ONE t-shirt to the boss of ONE company. The boss agreed it was offensive.

The little picture of text heavily implied that everyone should fall in line with the person who wrote it.

I just don’t get why your right to offend someone is more important to you than the fact that you might be offending someone.

Author
Time
Post link

TV’s Frink said:

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.

I guess that you could say that in this specific case I don’t have empathy. The thing is, if someone’s really offended by the non-racist Eeny Meeny, then that is their problem. Their offense isn’t everyone else’s responsibility. Like I said, I don’t think it’s offensive. I don’t find it offensive at all so I really don’t care if someone else is offended. I’m sure you, like me, don’t care that someone was offended by that Walmart woman president shirt.

The Person in Question

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Ryan McAvoy said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I do begrudge people expecting everyone else to fall in line with their choices

To be clear… “people” weren’t involved in making “everyone” do what they said. ONE person highlighted ONE t-shirt to the boss of ONE company. The boss agreed it was offensive.

The little picture of text heavily implied that everyone should fall in line with the person who wrote it.

I just don’t get why your right to offend someone is more important to you than the fact that you might be offending someone.

Speech that is offensive is much more important to protect than non-offensive speech, as offensive speech is the only speech that is questioned anyway. Again, bringing this to Star Trek, many of the ideas then were considered offensive at the time, women wrote in saying they didn’t like the female first officer in “The Cage”! Did they change to stop causing offense? They got rid of the female first officer, but it didn’t change their mindset.

Author
Time
Post link

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Ryan McAvoy said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I do begrudge people expecting everyone else to fall in line with their choices

To be clear… “people” weren’t involved in making “everyone” do what they said. ONE person highlighted ONE t-shirt to the boss of ONE company. The boss agreed it was offensive.

The little picture of text heavily implied that everyone should fall in line with the person who wrote it.

I just don’t get why your right to offend someone is more important to you than the fact that you might be offending someone.

Well nobody has a right in the United States to not get offended, but everyone has a right to offend somebody because we have freedom of speech.

The Person in Question

Author
Time
Post link

How are you offended by alcohol?

Author
Time
Post link

Handman said:

TV’s Frink said:

Handman said:

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 said black people can do no wrong?

You have repeatedly said over the years that if a black person is offended about anything, I should change my behaviors and ideology to suit this stranger. It gives that impression.

No. If a black person says you shouldn’t eat toast because there’s a burned part that symbolizes the black man and you’re eating the black man, that’s ridiculous and you should ignore it. If a black man says a phrase is racist, and you look it up and it turns out that yeah that was the origin, then yeah maybe you shouldn’t use it anymore. It’s really not that complicated.

How about this - if some people (not all) are offended by something, don’t do it.

What sort of life is that? That would mean I wouldn’t be able to do literally anything but breathe. This is impossible. The things I personally get offended over would spoil a lot of people’s fun, like alcohol etc. . Do I do anything about it? No, because I realize I can’t police people from doing things I don’t like.

If you really think being offended over alcohol and over race are equivalent…I don’t even know what to do with that.

You also don’t really seem to be too kind to people getting upset over some jokes you’ve made. Are the people offended over them not legitimate? You ignored them or continued to make jokes, yes? How is this any different?

I’ve apologized on occasion, for example when I mocked someone’s spelling and they turned out to be an ESL speaker. Feel free to show me some other examples where I should have apologized.

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

Handman said:

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Ryan McAvoy said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I do begrudge people expecting everyone else to fall in line with their choices

To be clear… “people” weren’t involved in making “everyone” do what they said. ONE person highlighted ONE t-shirt to the boss of ONE company. The boss agreed it was offensive.

The little picture of text heavily implied that everyone should fall in line with the person who wrote it.

I just don’t get why your right to offend someone is more important to you than the fact that you might be offending someone.

Speech that is offensive is much more important to protect than non-offensive speech, as offensive speech is the only speech that is questioned anyway. Again, bringing this to Star Trek, many of the ideas then were considered offensive at the time, women wrote in saying they didn’t like the female first officer! Did they change to stop causing offense? A bit, but not really. It didn’t change their mindset.

I presume they wrote these letters after The Menagerie aired, as The Cage never aired in it’s original form in the 60’s. I know the network suits allegedly put pressure on Gene Roddenberry to lose the character of Number One.
Viewers getting upset over a one shot character presented in the context of a flashback from 13 years in the past, that’s not even a current crew member, is a good definition of people who have too much time on their hands. 😉

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

DominicCobb said:

How are you offended by alcohol?

The consumption of alcohol is abhorrent to me. Read up on why the Prohibition movement took hold. I don’t tell anyone to stop drinking it, though. Why the hell would they listen to me?

Author
Time
Post link

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.

Ok, but you can’t imagine why that might not be a great approach in the sales/service industry?

Furthermore, where you and differ, is that if I were to inadvertently do something perceived as racist, I would hope someone would point it out to me so that I could consider not doing it in the future.

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

Author
Time
Post link

TV’s Frink said:

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.”

Pathetic.

Keep Circulating the Tapes.

END OF LINE

(It hasn’t happened yet)

Author
Time
Post link

TV’s Frink said:

Handman said:

What sort of life is that? That would mean I wouldn’t be able to do literally anything but breathe. This is impossible. The things I personally get offended over would spoil a lot of people’s fun, like alcohol etc. . Do I do anything about it? No, because I realize I can’t police people from doing things I don’t like.

If you really think being offended over alcohol and over race are equivalent…I don’t even know what to do with that.

You’re twisting my words, you said if anyone is offended over anything, then they should stop. You were the one making all offense equivalent, and I was pointing that out.

Author
Time
Post link

Handman said:

DominicCobb said:

How are you offended by alcohol?

The consumption of alcohol is abhorrent to me. Read up on why the Prohibition movement took hold.

Is the consumption of alcohol really affecting you in the way a racist remark might or do you just not like it?

Author
Time
Post link

Handman said:

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Ryan McAvoy said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I do begrudge people expecting everyone else to fall in line with their choices

To be clear… “people” weren’t involved in making “everyone” do what they said. ONE person highlighted ONE t-shirt to the boss of ONE company. The boss agreed it was offensive.

The little picture of text heavily implied that everyone should fall in line with the person who wrote it.

I just don’t get why your right to offend someone is more important to you than the fact that you might be offending someone.

Speech that is offensive is much more important to protect than non-offensive speech, as offensive speech is the only speech that is questioned anyway.

There’s a difference between the need to protect offensive speech and the need to use offensive speech just to prove that you can.

Author
Time
Post link

moviefreakedmind said:

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Ryan McAvoy said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I do begrudge people expecting everyone else to fall in line with their choices

To be clear… “people” weren’t involved in making “everyone” do what they said. ONE person highlighted ONE t-shirt to the boss of ONE company. The boss agreed it was offensive.

The little picture of text heavily implied that everyone should fall in line with the person who wrote it.

I just don’t get why your right to offend someone is more important to you than the fact that you might be offending someone.

Well nobody has a right in the United States to not get offended, but everyone has a right to offend somebody because we have freedom of speech.

TV’s Frink said:

There’s a difference between the need to protect offensive speech and the need to use offensive speech just to prove that you can.

Author
Time
Post link

TV’s Frink said:

Handman said:

TV’s Frink said:

Handman said:

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 said black people can do no wrong?

You have repeatedly said over the years that if a black person is offended about anything, I should change my behaviors and ideology to suit this stranger. It gives that impression.

No. If a black person says you shouldn’t eat toast because there’s a burned part that symbolizes the black man and you’re eating the black man, that’s ridiculous and you should ignore it. If a black man says a phrase is racist, and you look it up and it turns out that yeah that was the origin, then yeah maybe you shouldn’t use it anymore. It’s really not that complicated.

What if you don’t find it racist?

How about this - if some people (not all) are offended by something, don’t do it.

What sort of life is that? That would mean I wouldn’t be able to do literally anything but breathe. This is impossible. The things I personally get offended over would spoil a lot of people’s fun, like alcohol etc. . Do I do anything about it? No, because I realize I can’t police people from doing things I don’t like.

If you really think being offended over alcohol and over race are equivalent…I don’t even know what to do with that.

What about cultural appropriation? Some black people think that it’s racist for whites to do things that are typically “black”, like make rap music.

The Person in Question