Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 133

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Handman said:

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.

I said if anyone is offended over something reasonable. Being offended because I ate some burnt crust is not reasonable, nor is it reasonable to be offended because I drank a glass of wine.

Who decides what is reasonable and what is not?

It’s a fair question. But a nursery rhyme that has racist origins clearly seems more racist than a Pinot Noir.

Racist origins that were and are to some extant largely unknown. Until yesterday, I had no idea of any racial connection the the rhyme in question. It should also be considered that the racist origins probably had nothing to do with its use in the Walking Dead. The makers of the Walking Dead probably had no idea of the racist connection when they decided to use the phrase.

moviefreakedmind said:

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

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?

What if other people do? Can you not at least conceptualize why some people might find it racist, and shouldn’t that be enough to just not use it?

Why is it so hard to not use a different phrase? What’s wrong with playing Smear the Queer but calling it something else instead?

Why is it so important to you that you don’t care if you hurt someone?

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.

I’ll admit to being torn on this one.

Why? You admit to listening to the Beastie Boys. There’s people who think that this is racist because they “stole” black music. What about eating foreign food, or soul food? If someone thinks that you’re stealing their culture, then shouldn’t you stop? I won’t stop because I don’t care that they think that since I think it’s ridiculous.

If I was blasting Beastie Boys and a black guy told me he was offended, I’d probably turn it off, rather than telling him he’s an asshole for being offended.

Do people really say it’s racist to eat other race’s food? Never heard that one.

Do you use the n-word? Why not? Is it ridiculous to be offended by it? What about fag? Retard? Why do you think this nursery rhyme is different?

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Handman said:

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.

I said if anyone is offended over something reasonable. Being offended because I ate some burnt crust is not reasonable, nor is it reasonable to be offended because I drank a glass of wine.

Who decides what is reasonable and what is not?

It’s a fair question. But a nursery rhyme that has racist origins clearly seems more racist than a Pinot Noir.

Racist origins that were and are to some extant largely unknown. Until yesterday, I had no idea of any racial connection the the rhyme in question. It should also be considered that the racist origins probably had nothing to do with its use in the Walking Dead. The makers of the Walking Dead probably had no idea of the racist connection when they decided to use the phrase.

Ok but we learn and we change our behavior. Or we stamp our foot and say gosh darn it I have the right to be offensive and too bad if you don’t like it! Which one is more empathetic?

moviefreakedmind said:

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

TV’s Frink said:

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.

But I’m not proving that I can. Maybe I want to choose something randomly with a nursery rhyme.

You want the right to use offensive speech. You have that right. But you don’t want others to be able to criticize you for it.

I never said that, I just don’t think that people should stop doing things that they don’t find offensive because someone else demanded it.

Essentially the same thing.

No, it’s not the same thing at all. You said that I didn’t think people had the right to criticize me, when that isn’t the case at all.

Ok.

It was actually blatantly wrong. It’d be like if I said that your position was that people shouldn’t have the freedom to say offensive things, and then when you clarify, I say it’s essentially the same. It’s not essentially the same. It’s actually kind of libelous 😉

Ok.

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

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.

That is absolutely true. But it misses the point… nobody has said that the vendor shouldn’t have the right to sell the shirt. The vendor considered the evidence, and chose not to sell the shirt. You seem to be angry about that.

If I was angry, I don’t feel it now, it’s a lot of effort to carry anger over stupid things for a long period of time. If it was the vendor’s choice of his own free will, and not due to a fear of severe backlash on social media, then I see no reason not to be okay with it.

Handman said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

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.

That is absolutely true. But it misses the point… nobody has said that the vendor shouldn’t have the right to sell the shirt. The vendor considered the evidence, and chose not to sell the shirt. You seem to be angry about that.

If I was angry, I don’t feel it now, it’s a lot of effort to carry anger over stupid things for a long period of time. If it was the vendor’s choice of his own free will, and not due to a fear of severe backlash on social media, then I see no reason not to be okay with it.

I sympathize with the vendor in this situation because he (she? it?) faces backlash no matter the decision. There are people ripping the decision to remove the t-shirt.

Frankly I don’t get why there’s so much focus on words rather than intent. Mfm mentioned “oriental”, which seems to be in a transition to this “unspeakable words” phase, when I could watch any late night show from the late 80s and Asians would refer to themselves as Oriental. It’s a rapid change, and the offending words are always changing that it’s really confusing to keep up with. For another example, about 10-15 years ago I was consistently told referring to black people as black was offensive, which doesn’t seem to be the case anymore.

So I guess here I’m just confused, don’t crucify me.

I’m not so fired up that I don’t think there are grey areas, as I hope I’ve already expressed. “Black” vs. “African-American” is a perfect example (in the US, anyway) as some people insist on one and some the other, and I frankly have no idea which to use. But if someone in this thread was black and insisted I called them African American, I’d do so, because I don’t need to insult them. Of course, if a second person insisted I called them black, and I had to keep track of who to call what, that would get pretty ridiculous pretty fast.

TV’s Frink said:

Do you use the n-word? Why not? Is it ridiculous to be offended by it? What about fag? Retard? Why do you think this nursery rhyme is different?

Because the racial slur was taken out years and years ago to the point that barely anyone had heard of the connotation until yesterday?

You were talking about an old game of yours called smear the q****. Is it ok to play the game as long as it is called something else? If so, why is it no ok to use the term Eeny, Meeny, Miny, Moe if tiger is used in place of the offense term? When just the term Eeny, Meeny, Miny, Moe, should we just automatically act that n-word was intended instead of tiger?

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

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?

What if other people do? Can you not at least conceptualize why some people might find it racist, and shouldn’t that be enough to just not use it?

Why is it so hard to not use a different phrase? What’s wrong with playing Smear the Queer but calling it something else instead?

Why is it so important to you that you don’t care if you hurt someone?

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.

I’ll admit to being torn on this one.

Why? You admit to listening to the Beastie Boys. There’s people who think that this is racist because they “stole” black music. What about eating foreign food, or soul food? If someone thinks that you’re stealing their culture, then shouldn’t you stop? I won’t stop because I don’t care that they think that since I think it’s ridiculous.

If I was blasting Beastie Boys and a black guy told me he was offended, I’d probably turn it off, rather than telling him he’s an asshole for being offended.

If I am playing music performed by a white person, that was originally created by a black person and black person comes up to me and told me he was offended, I need to turn my music off?

Do people really say it’s racist to eat other race’s food? Never heard that one.

nor I, but if some people are offended . . .

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Handman said:

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.

I said if anyone is offended over something reasonable. Being offended because I ate some burnt crust is not reasonable, nor is it reasonable to be offended because I drank a glass of wine.

Who decides what is reasonable and what is not?

It’s a fair question. But a nursery rhyme that has racist origins clearly seems more racist than a Pinot Noir.

Racist origins that were and are to some extant largely unknown. Until yesterday, I had no idea of any racial connection the the rhyme in question. It should also be considered that the racist origins probably had nothing to do with its use in the Walking Dead. The makers of the Walking Dead probably had no idea of the racist connection when they decided to use the phrase.

Ok but we learn and we change our behavior. Or we stamp our foot and say gosh darn it I have the right to be offensive and too bad if you don’t like it! Which one is more empathetic?

But just how empathetic do I have to be? How far do I have do to go? What should reasonable be expected of me?

TV’s Frink said:

Handman said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

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.

That is absolutely true. But it misses the point… nobody has said that the vendor shouldn’t have the right to sell the shirt. The vendor considered the evidence, and chose not to sell the shirt. You seem to be angry about that.

If I was angry, I don’t feel it now, it’s a lot of effort to carry anger over stupid things for a long period of time. If it was the vendor’s choice of his own free will, and not due to a fear of severe backlash on social media, then I see no reason not to be okay with it.

I sympathize with the vendor in this situation because he (she? it?) faces backlash no matter the decision. There are people ripping the decision to remove the t-shirt.

Yeah, the vendor is the position where he/she is damned of they do and damned if they don’t.

SilverWook said:

Warbler said:

SilverWook said:

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. 😉

I remember a documentary where Roddenberry was talking about people being upset about the female first officer. Maybe he showed the Cage to test audiences and those were the ones complaining?

Where there’s a test audience, there’s usually a stack of these nearby. 😉

As usual, I don’t get the joke.

Handman said:

Frankly I don’t get why there’s so much focus on words rather than intent. Mfm mentioned “oriental”, which seems to be in a transition to this “unspeakable words” phase, when I could watch any late night show from the late 80s and Asians would refer to themselves as Oriental. It’s a rapid change, and the offending words are always changing that it’s really confusing to keep up with. For another example, about 10-15 years ago I was consistently told referring to black people as black was offensive, which doesn’t seem to be the case anymore.

So I guess here I’m just confused, don’t crucify me.

Yeah. Years before I was born, the word negro was the proper term. Heck there was a time when colored was acceptable. What do you think term NAACP stands for? National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. That is how acceptable the word colored used to be. Then black became the proper term. Then African American. Now it seems to me that the term “person of color” is picking up steam.

Don’t have time to respond to all of this (spent way too much time on it already) but I will say I’ve found the discussion stimulating. There are grey areas and good questions I can’t necessarily answer, I just can summarize my position as trying to do the least amount of harm possible.

Nevermind.

I believe we have moved on by now.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/02/23/politics/fbi-refused-white-house-request-to-knock-down-recent-trump-russia-stories/index.html?client=ms-opera-mobile&espv=1

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/christinerousselle/2017/02/23/sean-spicer-says-doj-will-take-action-against-states-with-legal-recreational-marijuana-n2289783

Neat. Actually not very neat at all, but it helps to stay positive.