Language, PC bull never takes into account CONTEXT!
Offline I am so sick of the politically correct left always throwing the false accusation that when a word is used it is degrading to someone else.
The latest bee in my bonnet is that of Rahm Emanual's usage of the word "retarded" and whimphishly backed down when politically correct people from the Special Olympics called on him to appologize.
THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN CORRECT if he had said, "Physically and mentally hanicap people are worthess peices of shit" THAT would deserve rightful condemnation.
All he meant by that statement was that some in his party were being stupid.
CONTEXT is important.
I see nothing wrong with using words like faggot, nigger, or retard when used in certain contexts. I think it is absurd to always assume because a word is used that the person using it hates someone else.
How many times we as atheists have joked about how we are "heathens". Does that mean we hate ourselves?
If we are going to take this attitude all the time then South Park which is far from a bigoted show, should be banned.
It is getting insane to me that people care more about words than actual intent in actions. If Rohm were advocating the oppression of mentally handicap people, then I would agree.
"Retarded" does not mean the same thing in his context as when a doctor discribes a mental condition.
How far should we take this?
Should we not say things like "fire retardant"?
COME ON PEOPLE!
I love my left theists and atheist friends in that they are not stuck in a bigoted past. But damn do I feel like there is a kneejerk reaction they can't seem to step away from.
This reaction is absurd and is treating him like he is Hitler in support of a master race where the enfirmed and ill should be done away with.
GET A GRIP!
Not every time my theist co-workers tell me I am going to burn in hell litterally means they hate me or wish me ill. Not every time I tell them their god is fiction means I hate all Christians and want to become Stalin.
CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT.
He was merely saying his fellow dems were acting stupid.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Offline Again, you're doing a change here from stating an offensive idea versus very specific words with a nasty connotation like the N-Word.
An offensive idea - Jesus does not exist != N-Word
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
- Login to post comments
Offline That is so gay.
/rage at this usage
- Login to post comments
Offline That is so gay.
/rage at this usage
Never use the word "gay" because it is obvious to me you meant that gay people are stupid and bad. It couldn't be that you are employing irony in different context. Naw, we shouldn't use the word "gay" because at one time it was used as a slur.
HUMN, much like when people want to avoid the "a" word and use "humanist" or "brights". Lets ban the "a" word too, after all it is just a word and it might offend someone.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Offline Once again, I'm not advocating anything even remotely like that. I'm advocating for education and responsibility.
And I am not? I constantly say on this site that ignorance is good and it is ok to be a bigot?
All I am trying to point out that "never" is a bad tactic.
So if you are not setting up taboos, then there are curcumstances where using an offensive word can be useful? If not, then I don't see how you can claim you are not setting up a taboo.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Offline No gay person is a faggot except by self declaration.
So you and I have the right to tell them not to use it? I think you might say it is better that they don't describe themselves as such. But even you admitted I wasn't being a bigot in my usage in the other thread.
SO right there it is not always good to ban a word in every context, otherwise, I couldn't use it to stick a mirror to the faces of REAL homophobes.
My issue is not about advocating word anarchy. My issue is that "never" as a policy is a bad tactic.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Offline Quote:Once again, I'm not advocating anything even remotely like that. I'm advocating for education and responsibility.And I am not? I constantly say on this site that ignorance is good and it is ok to be a bigot?
All I am trying to point out that "never" is a bad tactic.
So if you are not setting up taboos, then there are curcumstances where using an offensive word can be useful? If not, then I don't see how you can claim you are not setting up a taboo.
I didn't say never use any word.
I just want to know what context you consider good for the N-Word, etc and whether you feel people might be justified in response to your using it.
Gay and retarded while being uncouth are nowhere near the N-Word so sorry while amusing it still isn't the same.
Tell me that when you call someone a retard or gay as in that shirt is so gay or that tv show was gay that you're likely to provoke the same
reaction to it?
"Lisa, if the Bible has taught us nothing else, and it hasn't, it's that girls should stick to girls sports, such as hot oil wrestling and foxy boxing and such."
Homer Simpson
- Login to post comments
Offline Quote:No gay person is a faggot except by self declaration.So you and I have the right to tell them not to use it? I think you might say it is better that they don't describe themselves as such. But even you admitted I wasn't being a bigot in my usage in the other thread.
SO right there it is not always good to ban a word in every context, otherwise, I couldn't use it to stick a mirror to the faces of REAL homophobes.
My issue is not about advocating word anarchy. My issue is that "never" as a policy is a bad tactic.
I agree with Thomathy. I don't know anyone that would feel okay being called a fag unless it was in a safe place where homophobes are extremely unlikely, by someone obviously not one.
The context is, 99% of the time it is bad. In a gay nightclub, it can be used jokingly, assuming you aren't trying to bring heterofest biblebashing time there.
Even in the place it might be okay to be used it is only because it is offensive still, and is more of a bond of being targetted by hatred and injecting humor into it to cope.
The same as when someone self-declares it, they are injecting humor to hatred so they can deal with being a walking target.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
- Login to post comments
Offline That is so gay.
/rage at this usage
im guessing that guy is such a faggot, would be a better paralal. gay doesnt really have that many negative conotations. by using the word faggot implying there is something wrong with gay people. some get offended some dont. just a thought. 
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
- Login to post comments
Offline ClockCat wrote:That is so gay.
/rage at this usage
im guessing that guy is such a faggot, would be a better paralal. gay doesnt really have that many negative conotations. by using the word faggot implying there is something wrong with gay people. some get offended some dont. just a thought.
No, people use gay as derogatory here. Often. Simply another word for "bad". That isn't very cool.
Like, "This game is so gay."
How would you feel if people disliked you for something you are and then used it as an insult? It doesn't feel that great honestly. I cringe inside every time I hear it used that way.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
- Login to post comments
Offline I am so sick of the politically correct left always throwing the false accusation that when a word is used it is degrading to someone else.
The latest bee in my bonnet is that of Rahm Emanual's usage of the word "retarded" and whimphishly backed down when politically correct people from the Special Olympics called on him to appologize.
"worthless peices of shit"
"Hey, I resemble that remark" 
Political correctness, you say? Simple thing to fix, really... the next time someone says they're offended by what you say.... simply use every ethnic/religious/political/sexist/misogynist/misandrous/misanthropic slur in existence. Then watch them back away VERY slowly, like you're some kinda village weirdo....
Works for me, anyhow...
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
- Login to post comments
Offline Tapey wrote:ClockCat wrote:That is so gay.
/rage at this usage
im guessing that guy is such a faggot, would be a better paralal. gay doesnt really have that many negative conotations. by using the word faggot implying there is something wrong with gay people. some get offended some dont. just a thought.
No, people use gay as derogatory here. Often. Simply another word for "bad". That isn't very cool.
Like, "This game is so gay."
How would you feel if people disliked you for something you are and then used it as an insult? It doesn't feel that great honestly. I cringe inside every time I hear it used that way.
i supose a little here but not much, gay is a pretty netral word atleast here. but my point is this, say i called someone a faggot because of the way he acted or whatever but he wasnt gay. would that be a nono because it implies there is something wrong with gay people? which it would or it wouldnt be used as an insult dispite just being a dirogitery term or say i even used gay instead. if so then context is irrelavant atleast some of the time. not so much wondering what u think but more people who disagree
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
- Login to post comments
Offline ClockCat wrote:That is so gay.
/rage at this usage
im guessing that guy is such a faggot, would be a better paralal. gay doesnt really have that many negative conotations. by using the word faggot implying there is something wrong with gay people. some get offended some dont. just a thought.
Well, the most "offensive" thing I can think of is Elton John riding in on a unicorn, carrying a rainbow flag, wearing an Athens toga studded with pink triangles, playing a few Liberace CDs in a walkman, and doing this with Fred Phelps & co shouting "God hates you" in the background. It doesn't get more PIC (or bitterly ironic) than that.
edit: btw, this post is so gay.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
- Login to post comments
Offline Brian37 wrote:Tell us something new.I am so sick of the politically correct left always throwing the false accusation that when a word is used it is degrading to someone else.
Quote:In what way did he use the word? The word means something specific. If he didn't mean slowed or delayed, then he wasn't using the word correctly. We may assume that he meant the word to be derisive, which means he was using the word in a disparaging manner, a manner in which it has been used to refer to people with mental disabilities. He meant to insult people and he made a poor word choice.The latest bee in my bonnet is that of Rahm Emanual's usage of the word "retarded" and whimphishly backed down when politically correct people from the Special Olympics called on him to appologize.Quote:No, I condemn him for his bad choice and his ignorance of what a word actually means. He does deserve condemnation, if only for his stupidity.THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN CORRECT if he had said, "Physically and mentally hanicap people are worthess peices of shit" THAT would deserve rightful condemnation.Quote:Yeah, that there, Brian, is the problem. He used the word in a disparaging manner as it has been used to refer, disparagingly, to people with mental disabilities. He should have stayed away from inflamitory slang. If he wanted to call people stupid, he should have said stupid, or otherwise described their behaviour without the use of slang.All he meant by that statement was that some in his party were being stupid.Quote:Yeah, it sure is. You wouldn't know about that* and you wouldn't know about the meaning of certain words either** ...moron. [-Proves a point.]CONTEXT is important.Quote:You're an idiot. I can't think of an instance, except in describing the use of the word, defining it, talking about it or in joke where it would be appropriate to use either faggot or nigger. Certainly no person could be described as either a nigger or a faggot and have it meant in a good way, except by very specific individuals involved in particular social contracts. As for the word retard, I can think of valid uses for it that have nothing to do with people with mental disabilities or obtusely calling people stupid.I see nothing wrong with using words like faggot, nigger, or retard when used in certain contexts. I think it is absurd to always assume because a word is used that the person using it hates someone else.Quote:No, it doesn't mean we hate ourselves, it means we're heathens. I'm dead serious about that and I'm not joking. I am a heathen. Do you know what the word means? Hint: it has nothing to do with hate. It's a simple statement of fact. You too, Brian, are a heathen. It's not even an insult, though it may carry unfortunate connotations among believers (but so do so many words ...like atheist). Don't be silly, Brian. You're often silly.How many times we as atheists have joked about how we are "heathens". Does that mean we hate ourselves?Quote:South Park is a blatantly bigoted show some of the time. No, please, don't tell me how nuanced the humour is and how spot on they often are with regards to political and social issues and that the manner in which they illustrate these things is intended to be irony of the highest order. The show is all that. The show also has been in complete error and neither funny, intelligent nor ironic in its treatment of certain issues.If we are going to take this attitude all the time then South Park which is far from a bigoted show, should be banned.Quote:You have a point. He's just an insensitive idiot.It is getting insane to me that people care more about words than actual intent in actions. If Rohm were advocating the oppression of mentally handicap people, then I would agree.Quote:*Doctors don't describe mental disabilities as retarded using that word, unless they're talking about the aquisition of certain skills being retarded. They don't refer to people like that. See, you seem to be missing something here, Brian. You've equivocated and confused several different uses of the word retarded. The person you're talking about used the word in a disparaging way, as it has been used to refer to people with mental disabilities. That was the fucking context, Brian. He was calling people stupid using a word that refers, as he used it and as he must have meant in order to use the word to call people stupid, disparagingly to people with mental disabilities."Retarded" does not mean the same thing in his context as when a doctor discribes a mental condition.Quote:(*,**)Brian, you idiot, 'fire retardant' means something. It means a substance that slows down the spread of a fire. Why on Earth should that not be said? It has nothing to do with the word retarded as the idiot you mentioned used it except that it shares a common derivation and is spelled similarly. Fuck, but you annoy me when you get agitated.How far should we take this?Should we not say things like "fire retardant"?
Quote:Projection. The knee-jerk reaction is yours too.COME ON PEOPLE!I love my left theists and atheist friends in that they are not stuck in a bigoted past. But damn do I feel like there is a kneejerk reaction they can't seem to step away from.
Quote:Really? Or are they just pointing out, even if over-reacting, to the use of an inflamatory word that means something and which he shouldn't believe of people in order to use it to insult people?This reaction is absurd and is treating him like he is Hitler in support of a master race where the enfirmed and ill should be done away with.Quote:Back at ya'.GET A GRIP!Quote:Obviously not. These are not analogous to the situation you describe.Not every time my theist co-workers tell me I am going to burn in hell litterally means they hate me or wish me ill. Not every time I tell them their god is fiction means I hate all Christians and want to become Stalin.Quote:Rich!CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT.Quote:He should have used the word stupid. Now, don't accuse me of being politically correct or I will get really upset. There's a difference between being aware of the meaning of words and using them appropriately or not using them at all and advocating such and willy nilly reacting to words that merely offend people and having them censored. I'm the former. That guy is an idiot. Please, don't be an idiot as well.He was merely saying his fellow dems were acting stupid.
Don't call me an idiot, you are offending me. BAN THE WORD IDIOT! IT OFFENDS ME! IN FACT, SINCE IT OFFENDS ME, NEVER CALL ANYONE AN IDIOT!
Since it offends me and I am a lawmaker(for the sake of this argument) I GET TO DECIDE WHAT YOU CAN OR CANNOT SAY.
Fine, your argument is that you are NOT advocating censorship. OK, then there has to be cases where it is ok to use certain words, otherwise why shouldn't we ban them?
Maybe you are admitting, without knowing it, that it is impossible for us, as a species, to agree all the time about when and where and how and in what context words should or should not be used.
Again you still miss my point. You claim I am missing your point. SO? Even more evidence that "never" is a bad tactic and that everything is situtational.
"never" even without lawmaking CAN lead to lawmaking which is why "never" is a bad tactic. At best you could appeal to someone doing something, and debate and appeal to them, but that is it.
You think he was being insensitive and I don't think he was. WHICH makes it all the more important not to use "never" as a tactic. That can put someone in the position, EVEN IF THEY ARE WRONG, which you claim I am, of having power over you.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Offline ClockCat wrote:Tapey wrote:ClockCat wrote:That is so gay.
/rage at this usage
im guessing that guy is such a faggot, would be a better paralal. gay doesnt really have that many negative conotations. by using the word faggot implying there is something wrong with gay people. some get offended some dont. just a thought.
No, people use gay as derogatory here. Often. Simply another word for "bad". That isn't very cool.
Like, "This game is so gay."
How would you feel if people disliked you for something you are and then used it as an insult? It doesn't feel that great honestly. I cringe inside every time I hear it used that way.
i supose a little here but not much, gay is a pretty netral word atleast here. but my point is this, say i called someone a faggot because of the way he acted or whatever but he wasnt gay. would that be a nono because it implies there is something wrong with gay people? which it would or it wouldnt be used as an insult dispite just being a dirogitery term or say i even used gay instead. if so then context is irrelavant atleast some of the time. not so much wondering what u think but more people who disagree
It is associating one person or object with something that you show you are perceiving as bad by association.
Therefore by use of the word as a pejorative you are making it clear it is an insult, and gays are bad to be associated with.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
- Login to post comments
Offline Don't call me an idiot, you are offending me. BAN THE WORD IDIOT! IT OFFENDS ME! IN FACT, SINCE IT OFFENDS ME, NEVER CALL ANYONE AN IDIOT!
Since it offends me and I am a lawmaker(for the sake of this argument) I GET TO DECIDE WHAT YOU CAN OR CANNOT SAY.
Fine, your argument is that you are NOT advocating censorship. OK, then there has to be cases where it is ok to use certain words, otherwise why shouldn't we ban them?
Maybe you are admitting, without knowing it, that it is impossible for us, as a species, to agree all the time about when and where and how and in what context words should or should not be used.
Again you still miss my point. You claim I am missing your point. SO? Even more evidence that "never" is a bad tactic and that everything is situtational.
"never" even without lawmaking CAN lead to lawmaking which is why "never" is a bad tactic. At best you could appeal to someone doing something, and debate and appeal to them, but that is it.
You think he was being insensitive and I don't think he was. WHICH makes it all the more important not to use "never" as a tactic. That can put someone in the position, EVEN IF THEY ARE WRONG, which you claim I am, of having power over you.
(I agree with you, actually)
Ban all speech... from this moment on, only sign language shall be used. Yay.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
- Login to post comments
Offline Don't call me an idiot, you are offending me. BAN THE WORD IDIOT! IT OFFENDS ME! IN FACT, SINCE IT OFFENDS ME, NEVER CALL ANYONE AN IDIOT!
Since it offends me and I am a lawmaker(for the sake of this argument) I GET TO DECIDE WHAT YOU CAN OR CANNOT SAY.
Fine, your argument is that you are NOT advocating censorship. OK, then there has to be cases where it is ok to use certain words, otherwise why shouldn't we ban them?
Maybe you are admitting, without knowing it, that it is impossible for us, as a species, to agree all the time about when and where and how and in what context words should or should not be used.
Again you still miss my point. You claim I am missing your point. SO? Even more evidence that "never" is a bad tactic and that everything is situtational.
"never" even without lawmaking CAN lead to lawmaking which is why "never" is a bad tactic. At best you could appeal to someone doing something, and debate and appeal to them, but that is it.
You think he was being insensitive and I don't think he was. WHICH makes it all the more important not to use "never" as a tactic. That can put someone in the position, EVEN IF THEY ARE WRONG, which you claim I am, of having power over you.
Bleach is mostly water. We are mostly water. Therefore, we are bleach.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
- Login to post comments
Offline It is associating one person or object with something that you show you are perceiving as bad by association.
Therefore by use of the word as a pejorative you are making it clear it is an insult, and gays are bad to be associated with.
I don't get it... most people are bad to be associated with... 
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
- Login to post comments
Offline Brian37 wrote:Don't call me an idiot, you are offending me. BAN THE WORD IDIOT! IT OFFENDS ME! IN FACT, SINCE IT OFFENDS ME, NEVER CALL ANYONE AN IDIOT!
Since it offends me and I am a lawmaker(for the sake of this argument) I GET TO DECIDE WHAT YOU CAN OR CANNOT SAY.
Fine, your argument is that you are NOT advocating censorship. OK, then there has to be cases where it is ok to use certain words, otherwise why shouldn't we ban them?
Maybe you are admitting, without knowing it, that it is impossible for us, as a species, to agree all the time about when and where and how and in what context words should or should not be used.
Again you still miss my point. You claim I am missing your point. SO? Even more evidence that "never" is a bad tactic and that everything is situtational.
"never" even without lawmaking CAN lead to lawmaking which is why "never" is a bad tactic. At best you could appeal to someone doing something, and debate and appeal to them, but that is it.
You think he was being insensitive and I don't think he was. WHICH makes it all the more important not to use "never" as a tactic. That can put someone in the position, EVEN IF THEY ARE WRONG, which you claim I am, of having power over you.
Bleach is mostly water. We are mostly water. Therefore, we are bleach.
I don't follow...
Sodium hydrochlorite is NOT water. Thank you, that is all.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
- Login to post comments
Offline Brian its about a little tact, would you say you are such a retard infront of an actual retard but not saying it to the retard? i mean that is really insensitive, he cannot help that. this is what is boils down to. there is your context. yes if you know the "retard" well and he doesnt mind thats one thing lets say you dont know him. you have to admit it would be rather insensitive.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
- Login to post comments
Offline Tapey wrote:ClockCat wrote:That is so gay.
/rage at this usage
im guessing that guy is such a faggot, would be a better paralal. gay doesnt really have that many negative conotations. by using the word faggot implying there is something wrong with gay people. some get offended some dont. just a thought.
No, people use gay as derogatory here. Often. Simply another word for "bad". That isn't very cool.
Like, "This game is so gay."
How would you feel if people disliked you for something you are and then used it as an insult? It doesn't feel that great honestly. I cringe inside every time I hear it used that way.
BUT you still used it to illistrate a point, which proves my point. It is not always wrong to use a word. I think your illistration justifies the use of the word. Just like my use of the word faggot was not used to promote homophobia, but to put a mirror to the homophobes themselves and show them how silly they are being.
WHICH PROVES MY POINT, you cant say "never".
My rant was about the "never" tactic and I used Rahm as ONE example in my argument AGAINST that attitude. People seem to be stuck on that particular word when it could be ANY word that has been used in slight.
If we take a "never" "taboo" approach to any word that has a "history" then it becomes easy to set up fascism.
I don't think as an atheist minority we really want to hand that kind of weapon into the hands of a theistic majority.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Offline Brian37 wrote:Don't call me an idiot, you are offending me. BAN THE WORD IDIOT! IT OFFENDS ME! IN FACT, SINCE IT OFFENDS ME, NEVER CALL ANYONE AN IDIOT!
Since it offends me and I am a lawmaker(for the sake of this argument) I GET TO DECIDE WHAT YOU CAN OR CANNOT SAY.
Fine, your argument is that you are NOT advocating censorship. OK, then there has to be cases where it is ok to use certain words, otherwise why shouldn't we ban them?
Maybe you are admitting, without knowing it, that it is impossible for us, as a species, to agree all the time about when and where and how and in what context words should or should not be used.
Again you still miss my point. You claim I am missing your point. SO? Even more evidence that "never" is a bad tactic and that everything is situtational.
"never" even without lawmaking CAN lead to lawmaking which is why "never" is a bad tactic. At best you could appeal to someone doing something, and debate and appeal to them, but that is it.
You think he was being insensitive and I don't think he was. WHICH makes it all the more important not to use "never" as a tactic. That can put someone in the position, EVEN IF THEY ARE WRONG, which you claim I am, of having power over you.
Bleach is mostly water. We are mostly water. Therefore, we are bleach.
Mix 1 part Bleach with 1 part slippery slope. Add hasty generalization and appeal to consequences to taste.
Bake at 350 degrees for 35 minutes.
Bon Appetit!
"Lisa, if the Bible has taught us nothing else, and it hasn't, it's that girls should stick to girls sports, such as hot oil wrestling and foxy boxing and such."
Homer Simpson
- Login to post comments
Offline It is associating one person or object with something that you show you are perceiving as bad by association.
Therefore by use of the word as a pejorative you are making it clear it is an insult, and gays are bad to be associated with.
i agree, but retard is rather tame always better to up the stakes for those that disagree, coz lets face it we have all used retard in that way... atleast i have not meaning anything bad but rather as habit from hearing it. but yes i agree not the best choice of words.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
- Login to post comments
Offline Brian its about a little tact, would you say you are such a retard infront of an actual retard but not saying it to the retard? i mean that is really insensitive, he cannot help that. this is what is boils down to. there is your context. yes if you know the "retard" well and he doesnt mind thats one thing lets say you dont know him. you have to admit it would be rather insensitive.
"insensitive" to who? It didn't offend me. AND Since you admit that there would be cases where it IS ok, then you can't take a "never" approach. Which means every situation is different and not every time a word is used means the person using it is a bigot.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Offline ClockCat wrote:Tapey wrote:ClockCat wrote:That is so gay.
/rage at this usage
im guessing that guy is such a faggot, would be a better paralal. gay doesnt really have that many negative conotations. by using the word faggot implying there is something wrong with gay people. some get offended some dont. just a thought.
No, people use gay as derogatory here. Often. Simply another word for "bad". That isn't very cool.
Like, "This game is so gay."
How would you feel if people disliked you for something you are and then used it as an insult? It doesn't feel that great honestly. I cringe inside every time I hear it used that way.
BUT you still used it to illistrate a point, which proves my point. It is not always wrong to use a word. I think your illistration justifies the use of the word. Just like my use of the word faggot was not used to promote homophobia, but to put a mirror to the homophobes themselves and show them how silly they are being.
WHICH PROVES MY POINT, you cant say "never".
My rant was about the "never" tactic and I used Rahm as ONE example in my argument AGAINST that attitude. People seem to be stuck on that particular word when it could be ANY word that has been used in slight.
If we take a "never" "taboo" approach to any word that has a "history" then it becomes easy to set up fascism.
I don't think as an atheist minority we really want to hand that kind of weapon into the hands of a theistic majority.
education and representation of the past are two i agree its fine to use the nono words. its still not good but nessicary or else they are nono words and you dont even no why. i think this falls under education as we are trying to explain why you shouldnt and you the opisite... sorta. and in this case no one is being called anything. so yes i think you are right banning a word shouldnt be done but tossing it out as an insult thats just wrong. even if you are not calling a retard a retard
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
- Login to post comments
Offline Tapey wrote:Brian its about a little tact, would you say you are such a retard infront of an actual retard but not saying it to the retard? i mean that is really insensitive, he cannot help that. this is what is boils down to. there is your context. yes if you know the "retard" well and he doesnt mind thats one thing lets say you dont know him. you have to admit it would be rather insensitive.
"insensitive" to who? It didn't offend me. AND Since you admit that there would be cases where it IS ok, then you can't take a "never" approach. Which means every situation is different and not every time a word is used means the person using it is a bigot.
to my knowledge i never have taken the never approach in fact iv used many of them in this thread. its insenseitive to the retard obviously. as i said previously some take offense some dont. i suspect you are the type that wouldnt but not everyone in the world is like that.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
- Login to post comments
Offline Brian37 wrote:ClockCat wrote:Tapey wrote:ClockCat wrote:That is so gay.
/rage at this usage
im guessing that guy is such a faggot, would be a better paralal. gay doesnt really have that many negative conotations. by using the word faggot implying there is something wrong with gay people. some get offended some dont. just a thought.
No, people use gay as derogatory here. Often. Simply another word for "bad". That isn't very cool.
Like, "This game is so gay."
How would you feel if people disliked you for something you are and then used it as an insult? It doesn't feel that great honestly. I cringe inside every time I hear it used that way.
BUT you still used it to illistrate a point, which proves my point. It is not always wrong to use a word. I think your illistration justifies the use of the word. Just like my use of the word faggot was not used to promote homophobia, but to put a mirror to the homophobes themselves and show them how silly they are being.
WHICH PROVES MY POINT, you cant say "never".
My rant was about the "never" tactic and I used Rahm as ONE example in my argument AGAINST that attitude. People seem to be stuck on that particular word when it could be ANY word that has been used in slight.
If we take a "never" "taboo" approach to any word that has a "history" then it becomes easy to set up fascism.
I don't think as an atheist minority we really want to hand that kind of weapon into the hands of a theistic majority.
education and representation of the past are two i agree its fine to use the nono words. its still not good but nessicary or else they are nono words and you dont even no why. i think this falls under education as we are trying to explain why you shouldnt and you the opisite... sorta. and in this case no one is being called anything. so yes i think you are right banning a word shouldnt be done but tossing it out as an insult thats just wrong. even if you are not calling a retard a retard
I am glad you agree with me 99%.
BUT here is where it gets dangerous for society.
"INSULT"
Just because you and I are capable of understanding that saying "Jesus is fiction" doesn't mean that a Christian doesn't have the capability of misunderstanding that. The fact in reality is that the DO, no matter how we explain it to them. To many Christians that quote is an "INSULT" no matter how much we say it isn't. What we would like them to see isn't always what they will see.
"One man's hero is another man's villain" "One man's insult is another man's blasphemy" I am quite sure it "insulted" Muslims to have Muhammad depicted in a cartoon with a bomb in his turban. The cartoonist could explain it until he is blue in the face, some might get it, but others will, despite his intent, falsely call it an "INSULT" .
Now again, I am in full agreement with the attitude that one shouldn't always say something just because they can. But the opposite is just as absurd, to never say anything because someone might be "insulted".
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Offline Don't call me an idiot, you are offending me. BAN THE WORD IDIOT! IT OFFENDS ME! IN FACT, SINCE IT OFFENDS ME, NEVER CALL ANYONE AN IDIOT!Since it offends me and I am a lawmaker(for the sake of this argument) I GET TO DECIDE WHAT YOU CAN OR CANNOT SAY.
Fine, your argument is that you are NOT advocating censorship. OK, then there has to be cases where it is ok to use certain words, otherwise why shouldn't we ban them?
Maybe you are admitting, without knowing it, that it is impossible for us, as a species, to agree all the time about when and where and how and in what context words should or should not be used.
Again you still miss my point. You claim I am missing your point. SO? Even more evidence that "never" is a bad tactic and that everything is situtational."never" even without lawmaking CAN lead to lawmaking which is why "never" is a bad tactic. At best you could appeal to someone doing something, and debate and appeal to them, but that is it.
You think he was being insensitive and I don't think he was.
WHICH makes it all the more important not to use "never" as a tactic. That can put someone in the position, EVEN IF THEY ARE WRONG, which you claim I am, of having power over you.
Oh, but ClockCat beat me to the best part! Damnit! And Sterculius did one better!
BUT you still used it to illistrate a point, which proves my point. It is not always wrong to use a word. I think your illistration justifies the use of the word. Just like my use of the word faggot was not used to promote homophobia, but to put a mirror to the homophobes themselves and show them how silly they are being.
WHICH PROVES MY POINT, you cant say "never".
My rant was about the "never" tactic and I used Rahm as ONE example in my argument AGAINST that attitude. People seem to be stuck on that particular word when it could be ANY word that has been used in slight.
If we take a "never" "taboo" approach to any word that has a "history" then it becomes easy to set up fascism.
I don't think as an atheist minority we really want to hand that kind of weapon into the hands of a theistic majority.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
- Login to post comments
Offline Tapey wrote:Brian37 wrote:ClockCat wrote:Tapey wrote:ClockCat wrote:That is so gay.
/rage at this usage
im guessing that guy is such a faggot, would be a better paralal. gay doesnt really have that many negative conotations. by using the word faggot implying there is something wrong with gay people. some get offended some dont. just a thought.
No, people use gay as derogatory here. Often. Simply another word for "bad". That isn't very cool.
Like, "This game is so gay."
How would you feel if people disliked you for something you are and then used it as an insult? It doesn't feel that great honestly. I cringe inside every time I hear it used that way.
BUT you still used it to illistrate a point, which proves my point. It is not always wrong to use a word. I think your illistration justifies the use of the word. Just like my use of the word faggot was not used to promote homophobia, but to put a mirror to the homophobes themselves and show them how silly they are being.
WHICH PROVES MY POINT, you cant say "never".
My rant was about the "never" tactic and I used Rahm as ONE example in my argument AGAINST that attitude. People seem to be stuck on that particular word when it could be ANY word that has been used in slight.
If we take a "never" "taboo" approach to any word that has a "history" then it becomes easy to set up fascism.
I don't think as an atheist minority we really want to hand that kind of weapon into the hands of a theistic majority.
education and representation of the past are two i agree its fine to use the nono words. its still not good but nessicary or else they are nono words and you dont even no why. i think this falls under education as we are trying to explain why you shouldnt and you the opisite... sorta. and in this case no one is being called anything. so yes i think you are right banning a word shouldnt be done but tossing it out as an insult thats just wrong. even if you are not calling a retard a retard
I am glad you agree with me 99%.
BUT here is where it gets dangerous for society.
"INSULT"
Just because you and I are capable of understanding that saying "Jesus is fiction" doesn't mean that a Christian doesn't have the capability of misunderstanding that. The fact in reality is that the DO, no matter how we explain it to them. To many Christians that quote is an "INSULT" no matter how much we say it isn't. What we would like them to see isn't always what they will see.
"One man's hero is another man's villain" "One man's insult is another man's blasphemy" I am quite sure it "insulted" Muslims to have Muhammad depicted in a cartoon with a bomb in his turban. The cartoonist could explain it until he is blue in the face, some might get it, but others will, despite his intent, falsely call it an "INSULT" .
Now again, I am in full agreement with the attitude that one shouldn't always say something just because they can. But the opposite is just as absurd, to never say anything because someone might be "insulted".
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
- Login to post comments
Offline Brian37 wrote:Brian, you realize you're entire post is an engagement with a logical fallacy and the most ironic thing I think I've ever read. I'll let ClockCat take this one, he's got more wit than me. You really are an ignorant ass.Tapey wrote:Brian37 wrote:ClockCat wrote:Tapey wrote:ClockCat wrote:That is so gay.
/rage at this usage
im guessing that guy is such a faggot, would be a better paralal. gay doesnt really have that many negative conotations. by using the word faggot implying there is something wrong with gay people. some get offended some dont. just a thought.
No, people use gay as derogatory here. Often. Simply another word for "bad". That isn't very cool.
Like, "This game is so gay."
How would you feel if people disliked you for something you are and then used it as an insult? It doesn't feel that great honestly. I cringe inside every time I hear it used that way.
BUT you still used it to illistrate a point, which proves my point. It is not always wrong to use a word. I think your illistration justifies the use of the word. Just like my use of the word faggot was not used to promote homophobia, but to put a mirror to the homophobes themselves and show them how silly they are being.
WHICH PROVES MY POINT, you cant say "never".
My rant was about the "never" tactic and I used Rahm as ONE example in my argument AGAINST that attitude. People seem to be stuck on that particular word when it could be ANY word that has been used in slight.
If we take a "never" "taboo" approach to any word that has a "history" then it becomes easy to set up fascism.
I don't think as an atheist minority we really want to hand that kind of weapon into the hands of a theistic majority.
education and representation of the past are two i agree its fine to use the nono words. its still not good but nessicary or else they are nono words and you dont even no why. i think this falls under education as we are trying to explain why you shouldnt and you the opisite... sorta. and in this case no one is being called anything. so yes i think you are right banning a word shouldnt be done but tossing it out as an insult thats just wrong. even if you are not calling a retard a retard
I am glad you agree with me 99%.
BUT here is where it gets dangerous for society.
"INSULT"
Just because you and I are capable of understanding that saying "Jesus is fiction" doesn't mean that a Christian doesn't have the capability of misunderstanding that. The fact in reality is that the DO, no matter how we explain it to them. To many Christians that quote is an "INSULT" no matter how much we say it isn't. What we would like them to see isn't always what they will see.
"One man's hero is another man's villain" "One man's insult is another man's blasphemy" I am quite sure it "insulted" Muslims to have Muhammad depicted in a cartoon with a bomb in his turban. The cartoonist could explain it until he is blue in the face, some might get it, but others will, despite his intent, falsely call it an "INSULT" .
Now again, I am in full agreement with the attitude that one shouldn't always say something just because they can. But the opposite is just as absurd, to never say anything because someone might be "insulted".
YOU INSULTED ME, STOP THAT.........OR OR OR .............
Irony? Humn.......I do see some, but not on my end.
You JUST insulted me. Now, your argument might be, and correct me if I am wrong. It wasn't blind and it had the intent of correcting my argument, and getting me to see your side? RIGHT? The proverbial "smack in the face"?
I think that is what you were trying to do.
NOW here is the IRONY I see.
What if I take "ignorant ass" as being an insult, even if it is not meant to be. . I am not FYI, just playing out the argument.
WE HAVE AGREED
1. It is not always good to say things just because you can and it is good to know why you shouldn't.
The only thing I added to that was the opposite side of the coin is to always assume that everything is an "insult". So it makes it hard for us to decide who, what, where, when and why something is said. THAT is why I hate the politically correct left. They seem want to over correct everything when not everything that is said is hateful, because some things are merely "stupid". And some things are meant to be offensive WITH intent and are not blindly hateful.
Such as you calling me a "ignorant ass". Should I assume you hate me?
Do you hate me or want to kill me because you called me an "ignorant ass"? Or are you merely "insulting" me, which I could take it that way if you want me to. Or is that you called me an "ignorant ass" because you were trying to "wake me up".
This is what makes this whole issue of words hard. I am frustrated with the "never" attitude. I simply am warning people that there are shades of gray and I get frustrated at the seeming lack of recognition of those shades.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Offline Mix 1 part Bleach with 1 part slippery slope. Add hasty generalization and appeal to consequences to taste.
Bake at 350 degrees for 35 minutes.
Bon Appetit!
(I agree with the general premise of this post)
Mix chlorine bleach and liquid plumbr together in equal amounts. Enjoy the third degree chlorine gas burns to lungs.
Uhhhhhhhh...... whatever happened to laconic speech. 
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
- Login to post comments
Offline Brian37 wrote:Brian, you realize you're entire post is an engagement with a logical fallacy and the most ironic thing I think I've ever read. I'll let ClockCat take this one, he's got more wit than me. You really are an ignorant ass.Tapey wrote:Brian37 wrote:ClockCat wrote:Tapey wrote:ClockCat wrote:That is so gay.
/rage at this usage
im guessing that guy is such a faggot, would be a better paralal. gay doesnt really have that many negative conotations. by using the word faggot implying there is something wrong with gay people. some get offended some dont. just a thought.
No, people use gay as derogatory here. Often. Simply another word for "bad". That isn't very cool.
Like, "This game is so gay."
How would you feel if people disliked you for something you are and then used it as an insult? It doesn't feel that great honestly. I cringe inside every time I hear it used that way.
BUT you still used it to illistrate a point, which proves my point. It is not always wrong to use a word. I think your illistration justifies the use of the word. Just like my use of the word faggot was not used to promote homophobia, but to put a mirror to the homophobes themselves and show them how silly they are being.
WHICH PROVES MY POINT, you cant say "never".
My rant was about the "never" tactic and I used Rahm as ONE example in my argument AGAINST that attitude. People seem to be stuck on that particular word when it could be ANY word that has been used in slight.
If we take a "never" "taboo" approach to any word that has a "history" then it becomes easy to set up fascism.
I don't think as an atheist minority we really want to hand that kind of weapon into the hands of a theistic majority.
education and representation of the past are two i agree its fine to use the nono words. its still not good but nessicary or else they are nono words and you dont even no why. i think this falls under education as we are trying to explain why you shouldnt and you the opisite... sorta. and in this case no one is being called anything. so yes i think you are right banning a word shouldnt be done but tossing it out as an insult thats just wrong. even if you are not calling a retard a retard
I am glad you agree with me 99%.
BUT here is where it gets dangerous for society.
"INSULT"
Just because you and I are capable of understanding that saying "Jesus is fiction" doesn't mean that a Christian doesn't have the capability of misunderstanding that. The fact in reality is that the DO, no matter how we explain it to them. To many Christians that quote is an "INSULT" no matter how much we say it isn't. What we would like them to see isn't always what they will see.
"One man's hero is another man's villain" "One man's insult is another man's blasphemy" I am quite sure it "insulted" Muslims to have Muhammad depicted in a cartoon with a bomb in his turban. The cartoonist could explain it until he is blue in the face, some might get it, but others will, despite his intent, falsely call it an "INSULT" .
Now again, I am in full agreement with the attitude that one shouldn't always say something just because they can. But the opposite is just as absurd, to never say anything because someone might be "insulted".
Don't look at me, I have nothing more to add to this.
Really, do I need to repeat it again?
Bleach is mostly water. We are mostly water. Therefore, we are bleach.
This is what you do when you call someone a fag. I hope you don't confuse it again with cartoons or misunderstandings.
Now drink the bleach.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
- Login to post comments
Offline YOU INSULTED ME, STOP THAT.........OR OR OR .............Irony? Humn.......I do see some, but not on my end.
You JUST insulted me. Now, your argument might be, and correct me if I am wrong. It wasn't blind and it had the intent of correcting my argument, and getting me to see your side? RIGHT? The proverbial "smack in the face"?
I think that is what you were trying to do.
NOW here is the IRONY I see.
What if I take "ignorant ass" as being an insult, even if it is not meant to be. . I am not FYI, just playing out the argument.
WE HAVE AGREED
1. It is not always good to say things just because you can and it is good to know why you shouldn't.
The only thing I added to that was the opposite side of the coin is to always assume that everything is an "insult". So it makes it hard for us to decide who, what, where, when and why something is said. THAT is why I hate the politically correct left. They seem want to over correct everything when not everything that is said is hateful, because some things are merely "stupid". And some things are meant to be offensive WITH intent and are not blindly hateful.
Such as you calling me a "ignorant ass". Should I assume you hate me?
Do you hate me or want to kill me because you called me an "ignorant ass"? Or are you merely "insulting" me, which I could take it that way if you want me to. Or is that you called me an "ignorant ass" because you were trying to "wake me up".
This is what makes this whole issue of words hard. I am frustrated with the "never" attitude. I simply am warning people that there are shades of gray and I get frustrated at the seeming lack of recognition of those shades.
Here's the score:
1) You don't appreciate that there's a difference between me calling you an ignorant ass and calling someone a faggot or a nigger. There is a difference, mind you, and it's been explained.
2) You erroneously think that these differences, if you acknowledge them, are meaningless because there are people who don't see the differences, such as Christians.
3) I have never argued that words should never be used under any and all circumstances.
4) I think we agree that words shouldn't be used just because they can be and that people should know why.
5) You think the person in your OP was justified in his use of the word. I don't and I can show how he wasn't. His statements being public put him at the mercy of this sort of scrutiny. Perhaps there was overreaction of his usage, which, granted, had been private. I'll acknowledge that. That, however, does not (or should not) detract from the fact that he could have used a different word, one that doesn't automatically invoke an insult toward people with mental disabilities.
Please, let this settle this. I don't actually think you disagree with me ...wholly. I think you're just caught up on absolutism (both your own and that of the people you have set yourself against) and prescriptivism. I fall in the middle, with a healthy helping of awareness. I think you'd find yourself amenable to my position, if you took the time to understand it.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
- Login to post comments
Offline WE HAVE AGREED
1. It is not always good to say things just because you can and it is good to know why you shouldn't.
The only thing I added to that was the opposite side of the coin is to always assume that everything is an "insult". So it makes it hard for us to decide who, what, where, when and why something is said. THAT is why I hate the politically correct left. They seem want to over correct everything when not everything that is said is hateful, because some things are merely "stupid". And some things are meant to be offensive WITH intent and are not blindly hateful.
Right here, you forget who was complaining the loudest about this insult - Sarah Palin. Never, ever, call her the politically correct left. Not ever again. Now I am insulted.
Sarah Palin was the loudest and most prominent complainer, insulted on behalf of her son who has Down's Syndrome. And I am guessing she would holler much louder if she heard you call her one of the PCL.
Such as you calling me a "ignorant ass". Should I assume you hate me?
Do you hate me or want to kill me because you called me an "ignorant ass"? Or are you merely "insulting" me, which I could take it that way if you want me to. Or is that you called me an "ignorant ass" because you were trying to "wake me up".
This is what makes this whole issue of words hard. I am frustrated with the "never" attitude. I simply am warning people that there are shades of gray and I get frustrated at the seeming lack of recognition of those shades.
Shades of gray, I agree. Never say never, I agree. But I don't agree if you are associated with the White House or Congress or any other highly visible venue. If I were a member of congress, it would be expected that I would show up for work in something other than my favorite jeans. And, if I were a member of congress - or some other visible public position - I would be held to a different standard of expression. Just like I don't swear at my place of employment. It doesn't matter if you swear, or half of my co-workers swear, or even that I swear a lot at home. What matters is that I wish to present a professional appearance and swearing (or jeans) is not a part of that image. So, this guy is a very public figure, he said something that was perceived as being generally denigrating to people who have no choice over their condition. You were not offended - so what. Other people were, and they have a right to express their feelings of offense. At which point, he has choices about his response to those who were upset. Over. Done with.
And the PCL had nothing to do with it.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
- Login to post comments
Offline Brian37 wrote:Brian, this whole post, again, illustrates that you have not understood me. I have repeated myself three times now. I'm not even going to dignify your questions with answers -I must conclude that they're rhetorical or consider you virtually illiterate. I know you aren't virtually illiterate.YOU INSULTED ME, STOP THAT.........OR OR OR .............Irony? Humn.......I do see some, but not on my end.
You JUST insulted me. Now, your argument might be, and correct me if I am wrong. It wasn't blind and it had the intent of correcting my argument, and getting me to see your side? RIGHT? The proverbial "smack in the face"?
I think that is what you were trying to do.
NOW here is the IRONY I see.
What if I take "ignorant ass" as being an insult, even if it is not meant to be. . I am not FYI, just playing out the argument.
WE HAVE AGREED
1. It is not always good to say things just because you can and it is good to know why you shouldn't.
The only thing I added to that was the opposite side of the coin is to always assume that everything is an "insult". So it makes it hard for us to decide who, what, where, when and why something is said. THAT is why I hate the politically correct left. They seem want to over correct everything when not everything that is said is hateful, because some things are merely "stupid". And some things are meant to be offensive WITH intent and are not blindly hateful.
Such as you calling me a "ignorant ass". Should I assume you hate me?
Do you hate me or want to kill me because you called me an "ignorant ass"? Or are you merely "insulting" me, which I could take it that way if you want me to. Or is that you called me an "ignorant ass" because you were trying to "wake me up".
This is what makes this whole issue of words hard. I am frustrated with the "never" attitude. I simply am warning people that there are shades of gray and I get frustrated at the seeming lack of recognition of those shades.
Here's the score:
1) You don't appreciate that there's a difference between me calling you an ignorant ass and calling someone a faggot or a nigger. There is a difference, mind you, and it's been explained.
2) You erroneously think that these differences, if you acknowledge them, are meaningless because there are people who don't see the differences, such as Christians.
3) I have never argued that words should never be used under any and all circumstances.
4) I think we agree that words shouldn't be used just because they can be and that people should know why.
5) You think the person in your OP was justified in his use of the word. I don't and I can show how he wasn't. His statements being public put him at the mercy of this sort of scrutiny. Perhaps there was overreaction of his usage, which, granted, had been private. I'll acknowledge that. That, however, does not (or should not) detract from the fact that he could have used a different word, one that doesn't automatically invoke an insult toward people with mental disabilities.
Please, let this settle this. I don't actually think you disagree with me ...wholly. I think you're just caught up on absolutism (both your own and that of the people you have set yourself against) and prescriptivism. I fall in the middle, with a healthy helping of awareness. I think you'd find yourself amenable to my position, if you took the time to understand it.
No absolutism here on my part and I do understand more than you think.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Tell an african american person that the n-word isn't hurtful.
I know you like your speech rough and tough but seriously. There are words which by their very nature enflame and cast derision. It's only not a big deal if they're not talking about you or someone you care about.
Words do have meaning. Judging words should be taken in context of how they are used. However, there are some words that are basically inherently bad words. And no I'm not talking about profanity.
"Lisa, if the Bible has taught us nothing else, and it hasn't, it's that girls should stick to girls sports, such as hot oil wrestling and foxy boxing and such."
Homer Simpson
i hear what you are saying but i must agree with sterculius. Its like here in south africa the word "nigger" was never used instead the word "kafer" is, it means non believer (as in god), but it has been used as a racial slur for a looong time here. context is irrelevant in that case you just dont use it unless you want a beating. try explaining to a black person here you were refering to belief in god you will fail badly! It is just a offensive word even outside context. I can see how retarded may be offensive to some but see what you are saying, i do believe there has to be a limit to the pc police, they do go to far sometimes.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
Well Brian, when I saw the first bit of that on the news the other day, at first I dismissed it as just another bit of political crap that would fade from public awareness fast enough.
However, since it seems to be picking up, I did some checking on google news. The first question that I have is why this is even coming up now. I have not found an article just yet that details why the press has been seeded with a clip from a six month old private conversation. Honestly, whomever let this out had a motive. I don't know what that motive is but I am sure that it was done with a specific intent in mind.
That much being said, who has he apologized to anyway? In my mind, if you call an idea retarded, that is expressing an opinion which is directed at whomever came up with that idea in the first place. Had the word he used been “stupid”, would that not carry an implication that he had just called the source of the stupid idea stupid for coming up with it in the first place? Apparently, he has not apologized to those people. What does that say about how he really feels about them?
Instead, he is apologizing to, well, certainly not retarded people. I guess that he doesn't think to highly of them either. No, he is apologizing to overly sensitive people who get their panties in a bunch over things that really ought not to be out in public in the first place.
So no apology the whomever he actually insulted. No apology to the group of people whom he likened them to. Lots of political damage control though. Yah, he is an astonishingly moral dude for realizing that he only need apologize to the people who can hurt him.
=
Ok Tomathy, we, you and I both are entitled to always assume what is inside someone else's head instead of taking context into account and deciding for them what they meant?
I cant ascribe to that mentality.
Am I a bigot because I am a "Redskins" fan. I know how that word started. But if you asked me to stop being a fan because of that, I wouldn't. Because it is not the same context.
Do you think every southerner who sports Stars and bars wants slavery back?
I am full well with you that people should NOT be bigots. But I am not going to throw words out completely in every context because of what someone else might get offended by.
In the other thread about gays in the military I used the word "faggot"(I should at least have spelled it properly. Do you think I hate gays because I used the word "faggot" to poke fun at homophobes?
To me setting up "taboos" is a dangerous road. It doesn't work when theists do it, nor does it work when a political party or race or even atheists do it. I think you can REGULATE things, which is ok. But when you put a ban on something, you set up something that can potentially harm other aspects of speech which are not intended as harmful.
So again, I see good intent. I just don't agree with sledgehammer tactics.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
AGAIN CONTEXT,
Do you think blacks and whites BOTH taking part in a comedy skit, like Shapel, where they use that word to make fun of bigots, they shouldn't? Do you think the makers of Blazing Saddles are bigots? That was full of jewish, black and redneck jokes.
You cant ban a word in all contexts.
EVEN THIS THREAD IS AN EXAMPLE:
Here we are discussing HOW words or used. That would be like trying to explain math with no numbers to plug into the problem. IN THE CONTEXT of using something of an example, no it is not wrong to say "nigger". And in the context of comedy that pokes fun of bigotry NO.
We can accept that people say mean things. But we must not demand taboos and walk around like we have sticks up our asses. I think the Imams who demand we never speak ill of Allah have sticks up their asses.
But if I joke with a Muslim friend, WHICH I HAVE, "How is my favorite Al Quida member" in the context that WE were BOTH laughing at the bigots in Islam who DO demand taboos, is that wrong?
CONTEXT. Rahm did nothing wrong and owes no one an apology because his context in using "retarded" had nothing to do with demeaning mentally handicap people. If he did I would jump on hiss ass too.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
So, the end of the entire discussion is just your opinion then.
The opinions of those people that are offended can just eat a dick. Ok, I understand but don't agree with your perspective.
Additionally, no matter what you think about it - other people can and will hold you to their standards.
Go down to Detroit and call black people the N-Word or do your favorite Blazing Saddles bit. Like it or not you'll be lucky just to get your ass kicked.
"Lisa, if the Bible has taught us nothing else, and it hasn't, it's that girls should stick to girls sports, such as hot oil wrestling and foxy boxing and such."
Homer Simpson
Wrong, you took it that way. It is not his fault knowing that you know he did not use it in the context you want to force into his head. Otherwise any time anyone offends us we can shut them up. Be careful what you wish for. I am quite sure you are capable of loving Christians, but because you say "Jesus is fiction" you fail to see that THEY can falsely take that out of context. Does that mean you should never say that in any context ever because it might offend someone?
So when you offend someone it is ok, but when they offend you it is not? What filters out bigotry from merely being offended is CONTEXT. Otherwise anytime you blasphemed Jesus that would mean you want to kill Christians because some Christian got offended.
Again, you would be right if Rahm truely hated the mentally handicap.That was not the case in this case.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
WHAT IS WITH THE HUMAN FACINATION WITH "EITHER OR" "US VS THEM" I didn't say that. If I was putting a gun to your head forcing you to physically say "retard" or "nigger" then you'd have a case.
What is your solution then? To always walk on eggshells? To always assume someone has ill intent? I think that is a horrible attitude considering we are outnumbered by theists who find our mere existence "offensive".
I think it is impossible for our species to never offend each other, which is why CONTEXT is important. It allows us to be ourselves and at the same time weed out bigots. Otherwise the mere mention of a god not existing would give a believer the right to say, "don't offend me". You must be a bigot because you find deity belief absurd, right? Must never under any curcumstances ever say anything that "might" offend anyone. If you are going to level that standard on others, they are going to demand it of you as well. I think if they do, you will see how quickly you will be silenced yourself.
The problem you fail to see is the attitude of "don't offend anyone ever" might sound good, but doesn't take into account that what one might find offensive another may not. Do you as an atheist really want to put WORDS into the control of people who don't like you? How could you fight back?
Dont make this about a particular word. I am talking about attitude, "don't offend me" cant work because our species, all six billion, are going to do it and the problem is the powers over us might think something you don't find offensive, or something you think deserves ridicule, they could put a ban on. What tools would you have if someone who doesn't like you has the power to tell you what you can or cannot say?
So the only thing we can relistically do as a species, is not to ban a word, but take context into account. We all get offended at some point in our lives and we all offend others in some point in our lives. I think fighting taboos with taboos is absurd.
I never said we should always use a word, just because we can. I said we shouldn't always assume that because it is used EVER, that the person using it means it the way you are taking it. It isn't always their fault you took it the wrong way.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
There is clearly a difference between ideas which are offensive that people disagree over and specific words which are known to cause offense and have a long history of racism.
I think it's a stretch between saying. Ok, there's a few loaded words which happen to be fighting words too and predicting the theists squelching our free speech rights. You're stumbling very close to the precipice of starting a "Slippery Slope" argument if you haven't gone there already.
Let's be clear that we're talking about a public context. What you say in private amongst your friends in an agreed upon social contract with them is also irrelevant since your arabic friend that you have established a comfort level with is ok with you calling him Alqueda. You have not reached that same agreement with society at large and thereby shouldn't accept such behavior to not be treated as anti-social in public. Would you walk up to him in a mosque with other arabic people around you don't know and loudly state the same or call him a camel jockey or towell head? If not, why not? What would you say to those who got offended? Do they have a right to their offense? Again, why wouldn't you go down to Detroit and call black people the n-word since there's nothing wrong with it... why are you going to walk on eggshells with them?
"Lisa, if the Bible has taught us nothing else, and it hasn't, it's that girls should stick to girls sports, such as hot oil wrestling and foxy boxing and such."
Homer Simpson
http://www.proudblacksoutherner.com/ Is the title of a book "Proud Black Southerner by a local columnist and since you cant see the subtitle I will type it here.
"But I still wont eat watermelon in front of a white person"
If we are, as a species, to take the "NEVER SAY THIS OR USE THAT WORD EVER" then this guy is a bigot too.
It is fallacious to accuse me or imply that I am saying "ALLWAYS USE A WORD(INCERT WORD HERE) ANY TIME ANYWHERE"
It is not, as some have implied that I am suggesting that. Which is why I brought up the issue of CONTEXT.
Is this example also improper context? Or should the word watermelon never be used EVER?
I brought up Rahm, not to focus on the word "retard" alone. But to bring up the point that it is impossible to institute "never ever ever" because that can take with it lagit usages of ANY given word in our language.
This is about words and context and it is bad policy to make a ban. If one wants to point out context, I am fine with that.
You cant fight taboos by setting up taboos. You can only argue about context. Because we will never agree as a species as to what is or is not offensive.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I wasn't saying you said anything I was asking questions so that you would have to admit that at least in some if not MANY contexts those words are flat out wrong.
Now, let's go a step further.
What would be the proper context for Retard?
Contextually when is it ok to use the N-Word?
Is comedy a blanket immunity to its use?
If so, does the context of the use of the word include the race of the person saying it?
Who decides what contexts are ok and what aren't?
When you're in doubt of the context what do you do?
In lack of consensus who decides who gets to use it and when?
Does a public figure have a different level of responsibility regarding language and non-offense?
Would your feelings and behaviors change if you knew a friend of yours would be upset by that?
"Lisa, if the Bible has taught us nothing else, and it hasn't, it's that girls should stick to girls sports, such as hot oil wrestling and foxy boxing and such."
Homer Simpson
You can take these same arguements and flip them the other way.
"We should never use the word retard at all. Even in the context of debating the usage"
"We should never say Jesus is fiction because it might offend someone"
When you are in doubt of the context, set up a taboo. Heck, it works for the Shiite majority in Iran and I am sure it is peachy for the Sunnis and Jews in that country.
"In the lack of consensus who decides who gets to use it and when?" EXACTLY AND THAT IS THE RUB! You cant employ the "never" attitude because that "never" attitude can be used by a majority that might not like you.
"Would your feelings and behaviors change if you knew a friend would be upset by that?"
Would you like it if your Christian friends told you you could never speak ill of Jesus? Even if you meant the blasphemy in the context of debate?
Just like life being sheds of grey, it would be a case by case basis. Which context addresses and doesn't set up an "either or" "us vs them" attitude.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Again, you're doing a change here from stating an offensive idea versus very specific words with a nasty connotation like the N-Word.
An offensive idea - Jesus does not exist != N-Word
"Lisa, if the Bible has taught us nothing else, and it hasn't, it's that girls should stick to girls sports, such as hot oil wrestling and foxy boxing and such."
Homer Simpson
TO YOU, which makes YOU blind to the FACT that a Christian WOULD falsely equate the two. Since that ability to take that out of CONTEXT, which YOU rightfully point out, the policy of "NEVER" can be put into the power of people who don't like you.
You are accusing me of saying that the TWO are the same. AGAIN, I never said that they were. I am talking about since not every human has our best interest, as individuals at heart, it is a bad idea to employ the attitude of "NEVER"
You are focused on WORDS themselves. I AM FOCUSED on human attitude and what humans can and have done to each other when they have power over others. Your policy is ridged and that is the same rigidity that Stalin set up taboos to keep people from saying things agianst the state. In Iran they set up taboos to keep non-Shiites in line.
I don't think atheists need to employ the same "NEVER" policy we accuse nationalists and theocrats with. We are atheists, but we are still capable of the same human behavior as any other human being.
If we can accept that life is situational and morality is situational, words should be treated no differently. Otherwise our species, can set up situations where they can gain absolute power over others.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
You're doing it again, Brian. Goddamnit!
Now, before you write something really stupid, you absolutely must understand that a word like faggot, and referring to people as faggots, is categorically different from saying something like, 'Jesus doesn't exist'. If you cannot understand that, let me know and I'll explain the difference to you.
Edit: Oh, Brian, just because a Christian might confuse being offended by a declaration that Jesus is fictional with a greivous personal insult does not mean that they are the same thing, nor would I make conessions based on that. The Christian, then, needs the same education that you do and that your 'politically correct left' do. I won't sway here. You may not make this issue simplistic because Christians give it that treatment.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."