|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 20 2015 12:22 YumYumGranola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2015 12:16 Kickstart wrote:On November 20 2015 12:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 20 2015 12:02 Kickstart wrote:On November 20 2015 11:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 20 2015 11:48 Kickstart wrote:On November 20 2015 11:41 GreenHorizons wrote:Yeah I could imagine going as a US pilot covered in dead babies (dolls) would get the same people arguing "people are just whining that it hurts their feelings and it doesn't matter, they should just get over it" Surely you wouldn't see outrage on every right leaning site around talking about how the disrespect is unacceptable... It really astonishes me how oblivious some folks can be. Anyway on today's "Why bigots are making everything worse" NEW YORK -- The US is racked with fear and paranoia. Following last week's attacks in Paris, a raft of ugly sentiment has surfaced from across the political right demonising not only Syrian refugees but anyone who professes to follow the Islamic faith.
The fear was stoked on Tuesday when Republican governors from Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Mexico, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas signed a pledge promising to ban refugees from being resettled in their states. Constitutional experts suggest such a ban would be illegal, but the move is symbolic of the type of rightwing rhetoric infecting the country following the massacre in France.
Also on Tuesday, Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush suggested there should be a religious test for entry into the United States -- if you're Christian you're in, if you're Muslim you're out. How this test would be administred, the younger Bush failed to answer.
This type of overt bigotry was quickly reflected in the populace when on Wednesday a man interrupted a presentation for the building of a new mosque in Virginia, lambasting the speaker with racist abuse. “All Muslims are terrorists,” he shouted at Samer Shalaby, who was presenting the plans.
“I’ll do everything in my power to make sure that does not happen," he continued. "We don’t want it because you are terrorists. Every one of you are terrorists. I don’t care what you say. You can smile at me. You can say whatever you want, but every Muslim is a terrorist.” (audience applauds) Source Indeed some people are oblivious. You don't think people dressed as suicide bombers after 9/11? They did. People even host parties for 'most offensive costumes'. I bet that blows your mind. People can wear things that they know are offensive and have a laugh about it. This "I bet if the thing in question offended right wing sensibilities" is amusing and pretty vapid. Yeah they still are. Doesn't blow my mind in the slightest. Point is when it does offend right wing sensibilities almost all of the people calling out these folks as "whiners" change their tune or stay silent. You'll have week after week of the "war on Christmas" this year but how many religious freedom folk are going to stand up for the Muslims of that community? You can't find any group expressing concerns about the way they are being mistreated without white (usually men) coming in and pointing out how hard it is for them to deal with acknowledging that mistreatment if not outright dismissing it. One day in the not too distant future it will be a lot more clear when the counter arguments aren't just whining about losing the dominance over culture but actually having to deal with structural remnants of oppression turned on them as they become a minority. Guess I am a strange individual then. I find the 'war on christmas' thing about as ridiculous as the 'don't wear certain costumes' thing. I would also posit that my line of thought isn't that there isn't racism or offensive costumes etc, but that there is a tendency for the affected parties to whine instead of offer up anything of substance. Letting people know that there is something wrong or that something offends you is fine to an extent, but at some point you have to move on to something constructive, instead of stating that over and over again. The simple part is that it's almost universally offensive to black folks (rationally or not) it's reasonable to sacrifice your ability to dress as black entertainment figures (there's a shit ton of white ones to choose from) and be happy you don't have to deal with all the crap that comes with not being able to choose when you're black. The most basic part of why it is offensive is that being black isn't something people get to do for fun, while not addressing the systemic and institutional racism that is the American system. But if it is irrational, which you said in some cases it may be, why should people give up doing something that others are irrationally offended by? That line of thinking is stretching it. The problem in such a case is with the people who are irrationally offended, not with the people doing something perfectly reasonable that just so happens to upset some people who aren't thinking clearly. Speaking in hypotheticals doesn't give much clarity but if we can agree that there could be a case where the problem is the people who are irrationally offended than that illustrates the point that the answer isn't to just stop doing whatever it is that someone is offended by. I still can't quite grasp how you expect people to tell somebody that they're have a hurtful costume but at the same time saying that they shouldn't let it personally affect them. Now, do you live this way in all aspects of your life? Does literally nothing which isn't illegal bother you?
Nope. Things do bother me. But I try to set it up so that they don't effect me, especially if it is something that I can not change or that being upset about doesn't help. I don't really want to be more specific unless you insist.
I agree such a thing isn't easy, doesn't mean one shouldn't try though. But again, everyone talking in hypotheticals isn't doing much for this conversation. We all pretty much agree as far as I can tell.
|
On November 20 2015 12:16 Kickstart wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2015 12:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 20 2015 12:02 Kickstart wrote:On November 20 2015 11:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 20 2015 11:48 Kickstart wrote:On November 20 2015 11:41 GreenHorizons wrote:Yeah I could imagine going as a US pilot covered in dead babies (dolls) would get the same people arguing "people are just whining that it hurts their feelings and it doesn't matter, they should just get over it" Surely you wouldn't see outrage on every right leaning site around talking about how the disrespect is unacceptable... It really astonishes me how oblivious some folks can be. Anyway on today's "Why bigots are making everything worse" NEW YORK -- The US is racked with fear and paranoia. Following last week's attacks in Paris, a raft of ugly sentiment has surfaced from across the political right demonising not only Syrian refugees but anyone who professes to follow the Islamic faith.
The fear was stoked on Tuesday when Republican governors from Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Mexico, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas signed a pledge promising to ban refugees from being resettled in their states. Constitutional experts suggest such a ban would be illegal, but the move is symbolic of the type of rightwing rhetoric infecting the country following the massacre in France.
Also on Tuesday, Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush suggested there should be a religious test for entry into the United States -- if you're Christian you're in, if you're Muslim you're out. How this test would be administred, the younger Bush failed to answer.
This type of overt bigotry was quickly reflected in the populace when on Wednesday a man interrupted a presentation for the building of a new mosque in Virginia, lambasting the speaker with racist abuse. “All Muslims are terrorists,” he shouted at Samer Shalaby, who was presenting the plans.
“I’ll do everything in my power to make sure that does not happen," he continued. "We don’t want it because you are terrorists. Every one of you are terrorists. I don’t care what you say. You can smile at me. You can say whatever you want, but every Muslim is a terrorist.” (audience applauds) Source Indeed some people are oblivious. You don't think people dressed as suicide bombers after 9/11? They did. People even host parties for 'most offensive costumes'. I bet that blows your mind. People can wear things that they know are offensive and have a laugh about it. This "I bet if the thing in question offended right wing sensibilities" is amusing and pretty vapid. Yeah they still are. Doesn't blow my mind in the slightest. Point is when it does offend right wing sensibilities almost all of the people calling out these folks as "whiners" change their tune or stay silent. You'll have week after week of the "war on Christmas" this year but how many religious freedom folk are going to stand up for the Muslims of that community? You can't find any group expressing concerns about the way they are being mistreated without white (usually men) coming in and pointing out how hard it is for them to deal with acknowledging that mistreatment if not outright dismissing it. One day in the not too distant future it will be a lot more clear when the counter arguments aren't just whining about losing the dominance over culture but actually having to deal with structural remnants of oppression turned on them as they become a minority. Guess I am a strange individual then. I find the 'war on christmas' thing about as ridiculous as the 'don't wear certain costumes' thing. I would also posit that my line of thought isn't that there isn't racism or offensive costumes etc, but that there is a tendency for the affected parties to whine instead of offer up anything of substance. Letting people know that there is something wrong or that something offends you is fine to an extent, but at some point you have to move on to something constructive, instead of stating that over and over again. The simple part is that it's almost universally offensive to black folks (rationally or not) it's reasonable to sacrifice your ability to dress as black entertainment figures (there's a shit ton of white ones to choose from) and be happy you don't have to deal with all the crap that comes with not being able to choose when you're black. The most basic part of why it is offensive is that being black isn't something people get to do for fun, while not addressing the systemic and institutional racism that is the American system. But if it is irrational, which you said in some cases it may be, why should people give up doing something that others are irrationally offended by? That line of thinking is stretching it. The problem in such a case is with the people who are irrationally offended, not with the people doing something perfectly reasonable that just so happens to upset some people who aren't thinking clearly. Speaking in hypotheticals doesn't give much clarity but if we can agree that there could be a case where the problem is the people who are irrationally offended than that illustrates the point that the answer isn' to just "stop doing whatever it is that someone is offended by".
I think you misunderstand, we all have a rational reason to be offended, what I mean is that a specific individual doesn't have to be able to articulate/understand it in order to be righteously upset.
As far as the hypothetical goes, it's a case by case thing. Like I said the opposing viewpoints should be weighed. There's a phrase "The Golden mean" you may be familiar with? Essentially most people are on the racist/sexist/etc... side of that mean, so if there's a strong opposition (particularly from the group in question) it's more than likely best to error in favor of the opposite of how you feel about it.
If we didn't have a long history of sexist/racist oppression around the world it may be a different story.
|
On November 20 2015 12:20 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2015 12:16 Plansix wrote:Professor from another school comments on protests that he has not seen first hand and is not involved with. Also a out spoke supporter if Israel in every way(left out of the article for reasons) and is often protested when he speaks. I'll take this one with a big grain of salt. This entire forum is people commenting on things they aren't involved with and don't see first hand. Which, admittedly, puts everyone into a position where they're talking shit about shit they know nothing about. But I think everyone here, yourself included, would believe that they have an opinion that's worth considering.
Yes, I am choosing to value the opinions of the students and facility members of the schools that I have read over Alan Dershowitz, law professor from Harvard that was willing to give his opinion to business insider. And growing up in MA, I know that Alan Dershowitz is very happy to give his "hot take" on anything if someone is willing to ask.
|
On November 20 2015 12:16 Plansix wrote:Professor from another school comments on protests that he has not seen first hand and is not involved with. Also a out spoke supporter if Israel in every way(left out of the article for reasons) and is often protested when he speaks. I'll take this one with a big grain of salt.
The only way you could say something like this would be if you were hilariously ignorant of who Dershowitz is and what he actually believes.
|
On November 20 2015 08:56 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +At my firm no one would give a shit... Sorry, i meant in my country... We just don't understand the rage about black face... That is what is commonly known as "white privilege" "Me and my buddies/compatriots don't get what the big deal is, so rather than figure it out, we'll use our ignorance as justification for our racism/bigotry".
It's white privilege to not be black? You realize nearly every other race would be equally unoffended by blackface, right? Many other places in the world don't view it as offensive.
Not everything is as "black and white" as you make it out to be. Other races do exist.
|
On November 20 2015 12:32 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2015 12:16 Plansix wrote:Professor from another school comments on protests that he has not seen first hand and is not involved with. Also a out spoke supporter if Israel in every way(left out of the article for reasons) and is often protested when he speaks. I'll take this one with a big grain of salt. The only way you could say something like this would be if you were hilariously ignorant of who Dershowitz is and what he actually believes.
I can assure you black folks don't look to him for his opinion on the issues they deal with, salt or no salt (Save for OJ I guess). He did write a book called "The Abuse Excuse" and conflated a lot of bullshit. He also suggesting bulldozing an entire Palestinian Village on 24 hour notice if Israel pulled back and still got attacked.
|
On November 20 2015 12:33 killa_robot wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2015 08:56 GreenHorizons wrote:At my firm no one would give a shit... Sorry, i meant in my country... We just don't understand the rage about black face... That is what is commonly known as "white privilege" "Me and my buddies/compatriots don't get what the big deal is, so rather than figure it out, we'll use our ignorance as justification for our racism/bigotry". It's white privilege to not be black? You realize nearly every other race would be equally unoffended by blackface, right? Many other places in the world don't view it as offensive. Not everything is as "black and white" as you make it out to be. Other races do exist.
I think it's pretty clear that this conversation is regarding people doing/wearing/saying things in locations where there is a historical basis for the offense. Just because somebody from Iceland doesn't understand why blackface isn't offensive doesn't mean that people in USA shouldn't be offended.
|
On November 20 2015 12:27 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2015 12:20 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 20 2015 12:16 Plansix wrote:Professor from another school comments on protests that he has not seen first hand and is not involved with. Also a out spoke supporter if Israel in every way(left out of the article for reasons) and is often protested when he speaks. I'll take this one with a big grain of salt. This entire forum is people commenting on things they aren't involved with and don't see first hand. Which, admittedly, puts everyone into a position where they're talking shit about shit they know nothing about. But I think everyone here, yourself included, would believe that they have an opinion that's worth considering. Yes, I am choosing to value the opinions of the students and facility members of the schools that I have read over Alan Dershowitz, law professor from Harvard that was willing to give his opinion to business insider. And growing up in MA, I know that Alan Dershowitz is very happy to give his "hot take" on anything if someone is willing to ask.
I'll admit, this whole university thing is not something I've paid attention to, or really care to pay attention to.
But I don't see anything contradictory about students and professors saying there is a racism problem, and an outsider saying that they are an unruly mob.
|
Man, so much PCness, if I got annoyed everytime some hick called me an "A rab" I'd have probably shanked a few people by now.
I have my fair share of colonialist baggage and all that crap, sure its not as bad slavery and the racism that the US has had and yes coloring yourself black to look like Blade if poorly done is stupid.
A) you will look like an idiot and ruin your costume because big surprise even if you cover your face black its not really going to make you look like blade, and B) you know you will piss people off dont give me that "I dont get it crap" you know and is pissing people off really going to improve your image of the costume you are wearing.
That having been said if some guy decides that they take offense if I wear dreads, hold a joint and wear Jamaican colors like a Rasta because I think they are cool then they can fuck off.
Being empathetic is fine an all and but you cant try to tiptoe lines if people get offended by what I do without context, that I have to now change the way I do things. Thats stupid regardless of circumstance.
You can be mindful of generally unacceptable things but the fact that you do anything because a specific person or some people might not like it is ..pfft I dont know.
What if a greek person is offended with Toga parties. I mean comon. The lines in the sand vary for everyone and it doesnt make you disrespectful if someone gets offended by it.
What makes you disrespectful is doing something with the intent of being disrespectful or demeaning, even if you dont succeed. To be held responsible for someone else taking offense for every other thing.. no sorry.
|
On November 20 2015 12:32 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2015 12:16 Plansix wrote:Professor from another school comments on protests that he has not seen first hand and is not involved with. Also a out spoke supporter if Israel in every way(left out of the article for reasons) and is often protested when he speaks. I'll take this one with a big grain of salt. The only way you could say something like this would be if you were hilariously ignorant of who Dershowitz is and what he actually believes.
Bro, I'm from MA, near Boston, I know exactly who he is.
|
I think there's a clear line between an offending costume, and a not-offending costume. Even in regards to blackface costumes.
Blade is black. That's just what it is. If i dress up as Blade, i'm gonna have either a black mask, or whatever. I'm not dressing up as a black person, but as Blade - who happens to be black. That's tough shit if you want to be offended by that. You don't see naked people running around with red shorts either, they color themselves blue - because smurfs are blue. Not because you want to offend or make a statement or whatever, but because smurfs are blue. As blade is black.
Having said that: dressing up as a stereotype (which apparently isn't even rare) is something else entirely.
Btw.. It's kinda interesting to see, as an outsider, that the term "PCness" is so overused since a bigoted clown used it on television to justify being an ass. Especially in the starcraft community, where "not saying GG" is considered drama-worthy. Or (as seen in HSC) even worse, if the winner goes over to the loser to shake hands.
That's hypocrisy if i've ever seen it.
|
Pretty sure you can dress up as Blade without making yourself look black and people will know who you are.
|
On November 20 2015 12:11 xDaunt wrote:He's entirely correct about the underlying hypocrisy of the movement. The intellectual bankruptcy is simply astounding.
It's an enduring truth that the new revolutionaries bury the old. The old, maybe even doing cutting-edge agitation only 30 years ago, wonder what their movement has become. The new wonder why the old stopped with ending some antiquated traditions and clinging to others.
On November 20 2015 11:52 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2015 11:49 Kickstart wrote:On November 20 2015 11:47 Plansix wrote:On November 20 2015 11:42 Kickstart wrote:On November 20 2015 11:38 Plansix wrote:On November 20 2015 11:31 Kickstart wrote:On November 20 2015 11:27 Plansix wrote:On November 20 2015 11:25 Kickstart wrote:On November 20 2015 11:21 Plansix wrote:On November 20 2015 11:18 Kickstart wrote:
[quote]
How do you square this with the idea of free speech? People are allowed to say or write any number of inflammatory things and this is protected speech. How is a costume any different? I agree costumes can be offensive to some and in poor taste, but that says nothing about the fact that people should still have the right to wear whatever costume they want.
And the "You first"response makes no sense. I am aware of how free speech works. This isn't about the government stopping you from doing anything, so its not relevant to the matter at hand. We are not discussing that. We are discussion interactions between people. I know you are aware, that's why I am asking you why in your mind they should work differently. Why should people be able to say whatever they want, but not be allowed to wear whatever they want? Are they not both forms of expressing oneself? Again, my point is that you being offended about it does literally nothing. Social norms already dictate that certain costumes or certain speech is offensive and in poor taste and you can be sure that someone who says certain things or wears certain costumes will face consequences for doing so. I mean it just goes back to my original point. You lot are whining about some costumes being offensive, so my question is "so what", as in, what do you think should be done about it. We were not whining, we were discussing. You don't get to decided was offends others. I can see this is going nowhere. It is the same line you give for any such issue. I am aware that I don't get to decide what others find offensive. My question, for the nth time, is what do you think should be done. I already granted you that some costumes are offensive, we don't disagree there. I just don't understand how this 'discussion' you claim to be having is more than a whine when all you are saying is "this and that are offensive". What isn't being done now that should be happening in your mind. I would posit that there is nothing that should be done that doesn't already happen, so there is little point in getting all bent out of shape over it. I disagree, people should talk and have an understanding on what is and isn't offensive. You can't stop people from offending others, but the dialog that results can be less defensive and not laced with denial of the offense. But again we get into sticky territory here. Some people won't agree on what is offensive. I've seen some people say that men who dress as woman for Halloween is offensive, and I think that anyone who finds that offensive is a moron. If I dressed as a woman for whatever reason ( I wouldn't), and someone told me it offended them, I would think they are a moron no matter the reason for their offense, and I would not think I should change my costume. If someone dresses as a black character and paints their face black, I don't see that as being offensive. If someone dressed up in what we call 'blackface', then yes, that is offensive. And the response to that is "don't be an asshole". If someone is offended by what you do, you have two options: 1: Let them know you feel they shouldn't' be offended. 2: Say that you are sorry you offended them and that you wouldn't have done it if you knew it would have. I know which why I respond, but that is me. Again it seems we don't disagree that much. My response would be a mixture of both. "I am sorry that you are offended as that was not my intent, but I think you may be a bit too sensitive" or something to that effect. But you're not really sorry. You don't value their feels or perspective, because if you did you would leave that last part off. I cringed a little. It's not even 10 posts after saying (with moral superiority) that one doesn't get to decide what offends others, before you decide that Kickstart's empathy isn't genuine. Good luck persuading others to your viewpoint!
See + Show Spoiler +On November 20 2015 11:57 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2015 11:52 Plansix wrote:On November 20 2015 11:49 Kickstart wrote:On November 20 2015 11:47 Plansix wrote:On November 20 2015 11:42 Kickstart wrote:On November 20 2015 11:38 Plansix wrote:On November 20 2015 11:31 Kickstart wrote:On November 20 2015 11:27 Plansix wrote:On November 20 2015 11:25 Kickstart wrote:On November 20 2015 11:21 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
I am aware of how free speech works. This isn't about the government stopping you from doing anything, so its not relevant to the matter at hand. We are not discussing that. We are discussion interactions between people. I know you are aware, that's why I am asking you why in your mind they should work differently. Why should people be able to say whatever they want, but not be allowed to wear whatever they want? Are they not both forms of expressing oneself? Again, my point is that you being offended about it does literally nothing. Social norms already dictate that certain costumes or certain speech is offensive and in poor taste and you can be sure that someone who says certain things or wears certain costumes will face consequences for doing so. I mean it just goes back to my original point. You lot are whining about some costumes being offensive, so my question is "so what", as in, what do you think should be done about it. We were not whining, we were discussing. You don't get to decided was offends others. I can see this is going nowhere. It is the same line you give for any such issue. I am aware that I don't get to decide what others find offensive. My question, for the nth time, is what do you think should be done. I already granted you that some costumes are offensive, we don't disagree there. I just don't understand how this 'discussion' you claim to be having is more than a whine when all you are saying is "this and that are offensive". What isn't being done now that should be happening in your mind. I would posit that there is nothing that should be done that doesn't already happen, so there is little point in getting all bent out of shape over it. I disagree, people should talk and have an understanding on what is and isn't offensive. You can't stop people from offending others, but the dialog that results can be less defensive and not laced with denial of the offense. But again we get into sticky territory here. Some people won't agree on what is offensive. I've seen some people say that men who dress as woman for Halloween is offensive, and I think that anyone who finds that offensive is a moron. If I dressed as a woman for whatever reason ( I wouldn't), and someone told me it offended them, I would think they are a moron no matter the reason for their offense, and I would not think I should change my costume. If someone dresses as a black character and paints their face black, I don't see that as being offensive. If someone dressed up in what we call 'blackface', then yes, that is offensive. And the response to that is "don't be an asshole". If someone is offended by what you do, you have two options: 1: Let them know you feel they shouldn't' be offended. 2: Say that you are sorry you offended them and that you wouldn't have done it if you knew it would have. I know which why I respond, but that is me. Again it seems we don't disagree that much. My response would be a mixture of both. "I am sorry that you are offended as that was not my intent, but I think you may be a bit too sensitive" or something to that effect. But you're not really sorry. You don't value their feels or perspective, because if you did you would leave that last part off. Erh you're taking it a little too far now. For someone who says someone can't say what offends others, I think it's a little hypocritical of you to tell him he's not actually sorry.
|
Speaking of circle of life, seems the post-Paris climate may acclimate further to reports of an active chemical weapons procurement program for IS. Byline is Baghdad, Associated Press reporters, but rewind the tape a decade and we'd be talking a very different chemical weapons situation.
BAGHDAD (AP) -- The Islamic State group is aggressively pursuing development of chemical weapons, setting up a branch dedicated to research and experiments with the help of scientists from Iraq, Syria and elsewhere in the region, according to Iraqi and U.S. intelligence officials.
Their quest raises an alarming scenario for the West, given the determination to strike major cities that the group showed with its bloody attack last week in Paris. U.S. intelligence officials don't believe IS has the capability to develop sophisticated weapons like nerve gas that are most suited for a terrorist attack on a civilian target. So far the group has used mustard gas on the battlefield in Iraq and Syria.
Still, French Prime Minister Manuel Valls on Thursday warned that Islamic extremists might at some point use chemical or biological weapons.
"Terrorism hit France not because of what it is doing in Iraq and Syria ... but for what it is," Valls told the lower house of Parliament. "We know that there could also be a risk of chemical or biological weapons," he added, though he did not talk of a specific threat.
Iraqi officials expressed concern that the large safe haven the extremists control since overrunning parts of Iraq and Syria last year has left Iraqi authorities largely in the dark over the IS program.
"They now have complete freedom to select locations for their labs and production sites and have a wide range of experts, both civilians and military, to aid them," a senior Iraqi intelligence official told The Associated Press.
The official, like others from the Iraqi and U.S. intelligence agencies who have first-hand knowledge of the IS chemical weapons program, spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive information.
So far, the only overt sign of the group's chemical weapons program has been the apparent use of mustard gas against Iraqi Kurdish fighters and in Syria. In mortars that hit Kurdish forces in northern Iraq earlier this year, preliminary tests by the U.S. showed traces of the chemical agent sulfur mustard. AP
|
On November 20 2015 14:41 Slaughter wrote:
Pretty sure you can dress up as Blade without making yourself look black and people will know who you are.
You probably wont have chances of wiining cosplay contest though (without makeup), which are really serious things in cosplayer comunnity. You know the goal is to look as similiar as possible to reference image.
|
your shit hit the fan when you started teaching people what being offended means instead of letting people feel it; being offended became a thought, an ideology instead of a feeling.
now you're just circle-jerking each other until that bubble you created will burst.
|
On November 20 2015 15:01 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2015 12:11 xDaunt wrote:He's entirely correct about the underlying hypocrisy of the movement. The intellectual bankruptcy is simply astounding. It's an enduring truth that the new revolutionaries bury the old. The old, maybe even doing cutting-edge agitation only 30 years ago, wonder what their movement has become. The new wonder why the old stopped with ending some antiquated traditions and clinging to others. Show nested quote +On November 20 2015 11:52 Plansix wrote:On November 20 2015 11:49 Kickstart wrote:On November 20 2015 11:47 Plansix wrote:On November 20 2015 11:42 Kickstart wrote:On November 20 2015 11:38 Plansix wrote:On November 20 2015 11:31 Kickstart wrote:On November 20 2015 11:27 Plansix wrote:On November 20 2015 11:25 Kickstart wrote:On November 20 2015 11:21 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
I am aware of how free speech works. This isn't about the government stopping you from doing anything, so its not relevant to the matter at hand. We are not discussing that. We are discussion interactions between people. I know you are aware, that's why I am asking you why in your mind they should work differently. Why should people be able to say whatever they want, but not be allowed to wear whatever they want? Are they not both forms of expressing oneself? Again, my point is that you being offended about it does literally nothing. Social norms already dictate that certain costumes or certain speech is offensive and in poor taste and you can be sure that someone who says certain things or wears certain costumes will face consequences for doing so. I mean it just goes back to my original point. You lot are whining about some costumes being offensive, so my question is "so what", as in, what do you think should be done about it. We were not whining, we were discussing. You don't get to decided was offends others. I can see this is going nowhere. It is the same line you give for any such issue. I am aware that I don't get to decide what others find offensive. My question, for the nth time, is what do you think should be done. I already granted you that some costumes are offensive, we don't disagree there. I just don't understand how this 'discussion' you claim to be having is more than a whine when all you are saying is "this and that are offensive". What isn't being done now that should be happening in your mind. I would posit that there is nothing that should be done that doesn't already happen, so there is little point in getting all bent out of shape over it. I disagree, people should talk and have an understanding on what is and isn't offensive. You can't stop people from offending others, but the dialog that results can be less defensive and not laced with denial of the offense. But again we get into sticky territory here. Some people won't agree on what is offensive. I've seen some people say that men who dress as woman for Halloween is offensive, and I think that anyone who finds that offensive is a moron. If I dressed as a woman for whatever reason ( I wouldn't), and someone told me it offended them, I would think they are a moron no matter the reason for their offense, and I would not think I should change my costume. If someone dresses as a black character and paints their face black, I don't see that as being offensive. If someone dressed up in what we call 'blackface', then yes, that is offensive. And the response to that is "don't be an asshole". If someone is offended by what you do, you have two options: 1: Let them know you feel they shouldn't' be offended. 2: Say that you are sorry you offended them and that you wouldn't have done it if you knew it would have. I know which why I respond, but that is me. Again it seems we don't disagree that much. My response would be a mixture of both. "I am sorry that you are offended as that was not my intent, but I think you may be a bit too sensitive" or something to that effect. But you're not really sorry. You don't value their feels or perspective, because if you did you would leave that last part off. I cringed a little. It's not even 10 posts after saying (with moral superiority) that one doesn't get to decide what offends others, before you decide that Kickstart's empathy isn't genuine. Good luck persuading others to your viewpoint! See + Show Spoiler +On November 20 2015 11:57 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2015 11:52 Plansix wrote:On November 20 2015 11:49 Kickstart wrote:On November 20 2015 11:47 Plansix wrote:On November 20 2015 11:42 Kickstart wrote:On November 20 2015 11:38 Plansix wrote:On November 20 2015 11:31 Kickstart wrote:On November 20 2015 11:27 Plansix wrote:On November 20 2015 11:25 Kickstart wrote:On November 20 2015 11:21 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
I am aware of how free speech works. This isn't about the government stopping you from doing anything, so its not relevant to the matter at hand. We are not discussing that. We are discussion interactions between people. I know you are aware, that's why I am asking you why in your mind they should work differently. Why should people be able to say whatever they want, but not be allowed to wear whatever they want? Are they not both forms of expressing oneself? Again, my point is that you being offended about it does literally nothing. Social norms already dictate that certain costumes or certain speech is offensive and in poor taste and you can be sure that someone who says certain things or wears certain costumes will face consequences for doing so. I mean it just goes back to my original point. You lot are whining about some costumes being offensive, so my question is "so what", as in, what do you think should be done about it. We were not whining, we were discussing. You don't get to decided was offends others. I can see this is going nowhere. It is the same line you give for any such issue. I am aware that I don't get to decide what others find offensive. My question, for the nth time, is what do you think should be done. I already granted you that some costumes are offensive, we don't disagree there. I just don't understand how this 'discussion' you claim to be having is more than a whine when all you are saying is "this and that are offensive". What isn't being done now that should be happening in your mind. I would posit that there is nothing that should be done that doesn't already happen, so there is little point in getting all bent out of shape over it. I disagree, people should talk and have an understanding on what is and isn't offensive. You can't stop people from offending others, but the dialog that results can be less defensive and not laced with denial of the offense. But again we get into sticky territory here. Some people won't agree on what is offensive. I've seen some people say that men who dress as woman for Halloween is offensive, and I think that anyone who finds that offensive is a moron. If I dressed as a woman for whatever reason ( I wouldn't), and someone told me it offended them, I would think they are a moron no matter the reason for their offense, and I would not think I should change my costume. If someone dresses as a black character and paints their face black, I don't see that as being offensive. If someone dressed up in what we call 'blackface', then yes, that is offensive. And the response to that is "don't be an asshole". If someone is offended by what you do, you have two options: 1: Let them know you feel they shouldn't' be offended. 2: Say that you are sorry you offended them and that you wouldn't have done it if you knew it would have. I know which why I respond, but that is me. Again it seems we don't disagree that much. My response would be a mixture of both. "I am sorry that you are offended as that was not my intent, but I think you may be a bit too sensitive" or something to that effect. But you're not really sorry. You don't value their feels or perspective, because if you did you would leave that last part off. Erh you're taking it a little too far now. For someone who says someone can't say what offends others, I think it's a little hypocritical of you to tell him he's not actually sorry.
Non-apology apology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A non-apology apology is a statement that has the form of an apology but does not express the expected contrition. It is common in both politics and public relations. It most commonly entails the speaker saying that he or she is sorry not for a behavior, statement or misdeed, but rather is sorry only because a person who has been aggrieved is requesting the apology, expressing a grievance, or is threatening some form of retribution or retaliation.
An example of a non-apology apology would be saying "I'm sorry that you feel that way" to someone who has been offended by a statement. This apology does not admit that there was anything wrong with the remarks made, and additionally, it may be taken as insinuating that the person taking offense was excessively thin-skinned or irrational in taking offense at the remarks in the first place. Another form of non-apology is one which does not apologize directly to the person who was injured or insulted, but instead offers a generic apology "to anyone who might have been offended."[1]
Statements that use the word "sorry" but do not express responsibility for wrongdoing may be meaningful expressions of regret, but such statements can also be used to elicit forgiveness without acknowledging fault.[2]
Just saying....
|
I don't see why this is so controversial. It's pretty simple.
If you have reason to believe that doing something is going to offend a lot of people, you probably shouldn't do it. In the case of black face, most African Americans say that it hearkens back to when white people used it to mock members of their race, and seeing people do it is very upsetting.
Therefore, you shouldn't do it. If you decide to do it anyway, you shouldn't be fined or put in jail or anything, but don't be surprised if people get pissed at you. They have a right to be, because you deliberately did something you knew they would find upsetting.
On the other hand, if you don't have reason to believe a lot of people will be offended by your actions (wearing skimpy clothes for example) then go to town.
If you're the type of person who does what you want regardless of the feelings of others just own up to being a jerk and move on.
|
Freedom of expression is not freedom from social consequences.
|
LOS ANGELES – Skyrocketing rental prices and the surge in a new class of more educated, middle-class renters are fueling a revival of the rent control movement across the country.
About 110 million Americans or more than a third of the U.S. population live in rental units. And the biggest increase from 2013 to 2014 was among households earning $50,000 or more a year — the combined result of the foreclosure crisis and changing demographics.
Millennials whose numbers now exceed baby boomers are delaying two major incentives for home ownership: marriage and kids.
As a result, the supply of apartments has shrunk since the Great Recession while the demand soared, creating a surge in rental prices. More than half of all renters in 19 states and Washington, D.C., spend more than a third of their income — the traditional measure of affordability — on rent.
This affordability crisis has given momentum to the rent control movement for the first time since its heyday in the 1970s, a time of urban renewal and gentrification. Rent control efforts are underway in Seattle and in Richmond and Alameda in California. A national group, Right To The City Alliance, has launched a national Homes for All, Inc., campaign to unite renters.
“For the first time in decades, tenant groups are organizing,” said Tony Romano, organizing director of the alliance. He is based in Atlanta, where tenants are pushing for affordable housing in a new 80-acre development in the heart of the city.
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
