|
On August 03 2013 02:09 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 02:04 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 01:55 Klondikebar wrote:On August 03 2013 01:52 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 01:44 Klondikebar wrote:On August 03 2013 01:41 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 01:35 Klondikebar wrote:On August 03 2013 01:32 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 01:22 ComaDose wrote:On August 03 2013 01:21 Plansix wrote:
[quote] I'm intelligent and I have the degrees and background to prove it. I do not take kindly to being called racist, even if the word could be used correctly.
well are you prejudice against someone based on their race? I am not perfect, so I likely have. I actively try to avoid acting on those prejudices, but I may slip up. But this does not make me racist. Having a prejudice based on race is the definition of racism dude. I understand that this word offends you. But you have got to listen to us when we tell you there are degrees of racism and whether or not a word hurts your feelings doesn't determine whether or not the definition ought to be changed. We are not trying to shame you. We are not saying you should feel like a terrible person and that you are causing huge problems. Please correct your misunderstanding of the word. But you are shaming me, so why should I put up with it? I am everything you have ask. I'm open minded, will to accept hat I have biases and to change them. Why do you feel the need to offend me? Once again, the word "negro" is factually correct, but I don't use it or even attempt to justify using it. I don't tell people offended by it that they are "misunderstanding the word" and attempt to act like its their problem. The fact that you're offended by the word is on you. To be clear, it's not as though we're calling you racist and ourselves blameless. I have racist prejudices myself that I have to consciously work on so that they do not affect how I treat people. I'm not offended when someone points out that I might be acting in a racist way. I acknowledge that it's entirely possible and I attempt to stop acting in said way. Crying at someone who gives me an opportunity to improve simply because their criticism hurt my feelings is pointless. When a word is very clearly defined and you are offended by it when it is used entirely within its own definition...yeah being offended is your problem. Well if you fell the need to offend people, I guess that's on you. I get the impression you have an ax to grind on this subject and seem to enjoy offending people who admit to being straight. I would point out that your argument was used by another member of this community in regards to the word "faggot" and he said "if you are offended its your problem". "Faggot" is bad for the same reason "negro" is bad and both are completely different than calling an action or belief racist. I don't feel the need to offend you. Shinosai and I both have told you time and time again that you're misunderstanding the word. Why do you keep ignoring that? Correct your misunderstanding of the word Plansix. We're not reinventing the definition of racism, we're not telling you to get a thicker skin. I don't understand why this is so hard for you. What would you prefer we call you? Coming up with another word seems pointless because as long as it's a synonym for "a little bit racist" then it's going to offend you so long as you continue to misunderstand what "racist" means. I fully understand the meaning of the term racism. I fully understand that any unconscious prejudices I may have are racist. I don't object to the meaning of the word. I object to you using to discribe me becuase I find it offensive. The same way a black person would if I used the word negro. Or a rape victim asking someone to not use the word in the context of beating someone at a video game. You ask what what I would prefer to be called, you can just say "you sem to have some unconscious prejudices." and that will suffice. If you refuse to change your ways, thats says more about you than it does me. And other words are important. You can't just throw around terms that cover huge sections of people and expect everyone to accept it. A kid from the small town who has never been to New York City is not the same as a KKK member. If you knwo you are going to end up lumping them together, why would you do that? I don't understand this disconnect. You understand that your prejudices might be racist, but you are offended when I call them racist? And please stop comparing calling a prejudice racist to calling a person a slur. Just stop. It's going to tremendously erode any credibility you have and I'm going to care very little about your feelings. And I'm not expecting everyone to accept the word. I'm expecting people who come into this thread for a discussion about tolerance to accept the word. And, more specifically, I'm expecting you, as someone who is trying to understand, to accept the word as it has been given to you.
So you fail to see the point where is becomes a slur, right? Nergo is factually correct, but I would never make the argument you are making to a black person. At some point the word nergo moved beyond fact and became a slur that people throw around to insult others. And why do my feelings not matter to you? I mean, if someone asked not to be called a "jew" who was "jewish", would you insist on calling them that because it is factually correct? Or are the feelings of straight white people just less important and we can't object to being called things we don't like, even if they are true in some way?
|
Consent is based entirely on the perception of the person giving consent. Just because you believe something doesn't or shouldn't matter, doesn't make it irrelevant to the other person. A person, man woman or inbetween has a right to deny sex for whatever reason they wish, and they have a right to know anything that could be considered pertinent to that consent.
Just because you think or know that a trans woman is the same as someone who isn't trans, doesn't mean your partner does and that's what's important.
|
On August 03 2013 01:44 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 01:41 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 01:35 Klondikebar wrote:On August 03 2013 01:32 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 01:22 ComaDose wrote:On August 03 2013 01:21 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 01:18 ComaDose wrote:On August 03 2013 01:11 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 01:06 ComaDose wrote:On August 03 2013 01:04 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
I would say that people do a poor job of using the word and finding different terminology would be best for the discussion. The word “Negro” is factually correct, but I don’t break that one out ever for good reason. The words and how they are used change over time. Open, fair minded people do not like being defined as racist and finding other, less offensive words to describe whatever hang out they may have is best for everyone.
doesn't that legitimize their "hang out" even though its prejudice against someones race? I meant "hang up", sorry about that. And it does, but if it isn't malicious and is a product of something beyond their control(crappy parents that they have worked to get away from), do you want to insult them and make them defensive. Your not dealing with bigots most of the time, but people who want to be opening minded, but might slip now and then. They likely know in the back of their mind that its racist. We have a phrase at my job, “I don’t want to beat them, I want to win.” The same applies here. Do you want to prove to that person that they are racist, or do you want help them change? Your choice of words is important. To their face i might refrain from calling them racist, i see what you are saying now. i thought you meant stop classifying them as racist among intelligent people. I'm intelligent and I have the degrees and background to prove it. I do not take kindly to being called racist, even if the word could be used correctly. well are you prejudice against someone based on their race? I am not perfect, so I likely have. I actively try to avoid acting on those prejudices, but I may slip up. But this does not make me racist. Having a prejudice based on race is the definition of racism dude. I understand that this word offends you. But you have got to listen to us when we tell you there are degrees of racism and whether or not a word hurts your feelings doesn't determine whether or not the definition ought to be changed. We are not trying to shame you. We are not saying you should feel like a terrible person and that you are causing huge problems. Please correct your misunderstanding of the word. But you are shaming me, so why should I put up with it? I am everything you have ask. I'm open minded, will to accept hat I have biases and to change them. Why do you feel the need to offend me? Once again, the word "negro" is factually correct, but I don't use it or even attempt to justify using it. I don't tell people offended by it that they are "misunderstanding the word" and attempt to act like its their problem. The fact that you're offended by the word is on you. To be clear, it's not as though we're calling you racist and ourselves blameless. I have racist prejudices myself that I have to consciously work on so that they do not affect how I treat people. I'm not offended when someone points out that I might be acting in a racist way. I acknowledge that it's entirely possible and I attempt to stop acting in said way. Crying at someone who gives me an opportunity to improve simply because their criticism hurt my feelings is pointless. When a word is very clearly defined and you are offended by it when it is used entirely within its own definition...yeah being offended is your problem.
Considering that the term "racist" is mostly implied to describe people who are actively discriminating in a degrading fashion against other races, it's pretty strange to use the same word to describe any judgment pertaining to race.
I mean, the sentence "on the left are Caucasians and on the right are black people" is a "racist" sentence, in the sense that it's a categorization based on race. But it's not a negative categorization, just like not being attracted to someone isn't a negative categorization.
|
On August 03 2013 02:09 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 01:58 Darkwhite wrote:On August 02 2013 05:15 Iyerbeth wrote:
For the incest argument, you're conflating non disclosure of a one night stand betwen two strangers with someone seeking someone out specifically because of information about them specifically and then dating them. So, if I randomly happen upon her in a nightclub while travelling, she doesn't know we're cousins but I do know, then I'm not obliged to let her know? Whereas, if I was actively seeking her out instead, I would have had to disclose our kinship? I think the relevant difference between the two scenarios is that in one you know (1) personal information about her that (2) she doesn't know and (3) if she had known it would be likely to effect her decision to sleep with you. I think you have a moral obligation to disclose the other person's personal information (but not your own) when that information might be relevant to that person's decision to have sex with you.
My identical twin brother has a wife, but she doesn't know I exist. Late at night, I come into their bedroom, she greets me as if though I were her husband, I make no effort to clear this up and we have sex. Seeing as the misunderstanding here is not personal information about her, I have no obligation to let her know I'm not actually her husband. Is that how it works?
|
On August 03 2013 02:13 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 02:09 Klondikebar wrote:On August 03 2013 02:04 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 01:55 Klondikebar wrote:On August 03 2013 01:52 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 01:44 Klondikebar wrote:On August 03 2013 01:41 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 01:35 Klondikebar wrote:On August 03 2013 01:32 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 01:22 ComaDose wrote:
[quote]
well are you prejudice against someone based on their race? I am not perfect, so I likely have. I actively try to avoid acting on those prejudices, but I may slip up. But this does not make me racist. Having a prejudice based on race is the definition of racism dude. I understand that this word offends you. But you have got to listen to us when we tell you there are degrees of racism and whether or not a word hurts your feelings doesn't determine whether or not the definition ought to be changed. We are not trying to shame you. We are not saying you should feel like a terrible person and that you are causing huge problems. Please correct your misunderstanding of the word. But you are shaming me, so why should I put up with it? I am everything you have ask. I'm open minded, will to accept hat I have biases and to change them. Why do you feel the need to offend me? Once again, the word "negro" is factually correct, but I don't use it or even attempt to justify using it. I don't tell people offended by it that they are "misunderstanding the word" and attempt to act like its their problem. The fact that you're offended by the word is on you. To be clear, it's not as though we're calling you racist and ourselves blameless. I have racist prejudices myself that I have to consciously work on so that they do not affect how I treat people. I'm not offended when someone points out that I might be acting in a racist way. I acknowledge that it's entirely possible and I attempt to stop acting in said way. Crying at someone who gives me an opportunity to improve simply because their criticism hurt my feelings is pointless. When a word is very clearly defined and you are offended by it when it is used entirely within its own definition...yeah being offended is your problem. Well if you fell the need to offend people, I guess that's on you. I get the impression you have an ax to grind on this subject and seem to enjoy offending people who admit to being straight. I would point out that your argument was used by another member of this community in regards to the word "faggot" and he said "if you are offended its your problem". "Faggot" is bad for the same reason "negro" is bad and both are completely different than calling an action or belief racist. I don't feel the need to offend you. Shinosai and I both have told you time and time again that you're misunderstanding the word. Why do you keep ignoring that? Correct your misunderstanding of the word Plansix. We're not reinventing the definition of racism, we're not telling you to get a thicker skin. I don't understand why this is so hard for you. What would you prefer we call you? Coming up with another word seems pointless because as long as it's a synonym for "a little bit racist" then it's going to offend you so long as you continue to misunderstand what "racist" means. I fully understand the meaning of the term racism. I fully understand that any unconscious prejudices I may have are racist. I don't object to the meaning of the word. I object to you using to discribe me becuase I find it offensive. The same way a black person would if I used the word negro. Or a rape victim asking someone to not use the word in the context of beating someone at a video game. You ask what what I would prefer to be called, you can just say "you sem to have some unconscious prejudices." and that will suffice. If you refuse to change your ways, thats says more about you than it does me. And other words are important. You can't just throw around terms that cover huge sections of people and expect everyone to accept it. A kid from the small town who has never been to New York City is not the same as a KKK member. If you knwo you are going to end up lumping them together, why would you do that? I don't understand this disconnect. You understand that your prejudices might be racist, but you are offended when I call them racist? And please stop comparing calling a prejudice racist to calling a person a slur. Just stop. It's going to tremendously erode any credibility you have and I'm going to care very little about your feelings. And I'm not expecting everyone to accept the word. I'm expecting people who come into this thread for a discussion about tolerance to accept the word. And, more specifically, I'm expecting you, as someone who is trying to understand, to accept the word as it has been given to you. So you fail to see the point where is becomes a slur, right? Nergo is factually correct, but I would never make the argument you are making to a black person. And why do my feelings not matter to you? I mean, if someone asked not to be called a "jew" who was "jewish", would you insist on calling them that because it is factually correct? Or are the feelings of straight white people just less important and we can't object to being called things we don't like, even if they are true in some way?
Fuck off Plansix. One word describes an action or a belief. The other one describes the worth of a person. Seriously, you are just crying at this point. "WHAAA This belief I have fits completely and perfectly within the definition of the word and then people used that word to describe my belief WHAAAAAAA!"
It's hard to care about your feelings when you go out of your way to be butthurt and defy all logic in the process. It has nothing to do with you being straight and white, it has everything to do with you being a fucking baby.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On August 03 2013 01:55 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 01:52 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 01:44 Klondikebar wrote:On August 03 2013 01:41 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 01:35 Klondikebar wrote:On August 03 2013 01:32 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 01:22 ComaDose wrote:On August 03 2013 01:21 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 01:18 ComaDose wrote:On August 03 2013 01:11 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
I meant "hang up", sorry about that. And it does, but if it isn't malicious and is a product of something beyond their control(crappy parents that they have worked to get away from), do you want to insult them and make them defensive. Your not dealing with bigots most of the time, but people who want to be opening minded, but might slip now and then. They likely know in the back of their mind that its racist.
We have a phrase at my job, “I don’t want to beat them, I want to win.” The same applies here. Do you want to prove to that person that they are racist, or do you want help them change? Your choice of words is important.
To their face i might refrain from calling them racist, i see what you are saying now. i thought you meant stop classifying them as racist among intelligent people. I'm intelligent and I have the degrees and background to prove it. I do not take kindly to being called racist, even if the word could be used correctly. well are you prejudice against someone based on their race? I am not perfect, so I likely have. I actively try to avoid acting on those prejudices, but I may slip up. But this does not make me racist. Having a prejudice based on race is the definition of racism dude. I understand that this word offends you. But you have got to listen to us when we tell you there are degrees of racism and whether or not a word hurts your feelings doesn't determine whether or not the definition ought to be changed. We are not trying to shame you. We are not saying you should feel like a terrible person and that you are causing huge problems. Please correct your misunderstanding of the word. But you are shaming me, so why should I put up with it? I am everything you have ask. I'm open minded, will to accept hat I have biases and to change them. Why do you feel the need to offend me? Once again, the word "negro" is factually correct, but I don't use it or even attempt to justify using it. I don't tell people offended by it that they are "misunderstanding the word" and attempt to act like its their problem. The fact that you're offended by the word is on you. To be clear, it's not as though we're calling you racist and ourselves blameless. I have racist prejudices myself that I have to consciously work on so that they do not affect how I treat people. I'm not offended when someone points out that I might be acting in a racist way. I acknowledge that it's entirely possible and I attempt to stop acting in said way. Crying at someone who gives me an opportunity to improve simply because their criticism hurt my feelings is pointless. When a word is very clearly defined and you are offended by it when it is used entirely within its own definition...yeah being offended is your problem. Well if you fell the need to offend people, I guess that's on you. I get the impression you have an ax to grind on this subject and seem to enjoy offending people who admit to being straight. I would point out that your argument was used by another member of this community in regards to the word "faggot" and he said "if you are offended its your problem". "Faggot" is bad for the same reason "negro" is bad and both are completely different than calling an action or belief racist. I don't feel the need to offend you. Shinosai and I both have told you time and time again that you're misunderstanding the word. Why do you keep ignoring that? Correct your misunderstanding of the word Plansix. We're not reinventing the definition of racism, we're not telling you to get a thicker skin. I don't understand why this is so hard for you. What would you prefer we call you? Coming up with another word seems pointless because as long as it's a synonym for "a little bit racist" then it's going to offend you so long as you continue to misunderstand what "racist" means. By all means, if there's a term that isn't onerous to use that you would prefer let us know. We'll be glad to use it.
It's like calling someone an "anti-Semite" because he strongly believes Israeli army bombing the shit out of a hospital is fucked up. Neither is it relevant to the discussion nor does it convey the original meaning. It's only to shut people up.
|
On August 03 2013 02:14 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 01:44 Klondikebar wrote:On August 03 2013 01:41 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 01:35 Klondikebar wrote:On August 03 2013 01:32 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 01:22 ComaDose wrote:On August 03 2013 01:21 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 01:18 ComaDose wrote:On August 03 2013 01:11 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 01:06 ComaDose wrote:
[quote]
doesn't that legitimize their "hang out" even though its prejudice against someones race? I meant "hang up", sorry about that. And it does, but if it isn't malicious and is a product of something beyond their control(crappy parents that they have worked to get away from), do you want to insult them and make them defensive. Your not dealing with bigots most of the time, but people who want to be opening minded, but might slip now and then. They likely know in the back of their mind that its racist. We have a phrase at my job, “I don’t want to beat them, I want to win.” The same applies here. Do you want to prove to that person that they are racist, or do you want help them change? Your choice of words is important. To their face i might refrain from calling them racist, i see what you are saying now. i thought you meant stop classifying them as racist among intelligent people. I'm intelligent and I have the degrees and background to prove it. I do not take kindly to being called racist, even if the word could be used correctly. well are you prejudice against someone based on their race? I am not perfect, so I likely have. I actively try to avoid acting on those prejudices, but I may slip up. But this does not make me racist. Having a prejudice based on race is the definition of racism dude. I understand that this word offends you. But you have got to listen to us when we tell you there are degrees of racism and whether or not a word hurts your feelings doesn't determine whether or not the definition ought to be changed. We are not trying to shame you. We are not saying you should feel like a terrible person and that you are causing huge problems. Please correct your misunderstanding of the word. But you are shaming me, so why should I put up with it? I am everything you have ask. I'm open minded, will to accept hat I have biases and to change them. Why do you feel the need to offend me? Once again, the word "negro" is factually correct, but I don't use it or even attempt to justify using it. I don't tell people offended by it that they are "misunderstanding the word" and attempt to act like its their problem. The fact that you're offended by the word is on you. To be clear, it's not as though we're calling you racist and ourselves blameless. I have racist prejudices myself that I have to consciously work on so that they do not affect how I treat people. I'm not offended when someone points out that I might be acting in a racist way. I acknowledge that it's entirely possible and I attempt to stop acting in said way. Crying at someone who gives me an opportunity to improve simply because their criticism hurt my feelings is pointless. When a word is very clearly defined and you are offended by it when it is used entirely within its own definition...yeah being offended is your problem. Considering that the term "racist" is mostly implied to describe people who are actively discriminating in a degrading fashion against other races, it's pretty strange to use the same word to describe any judgment pertaining to race.I mean, the sentence "on the left are Caucasians and on the right are black people" is a "racist" sentence, in the sense that it's a categorization based on race. But it's not a negative categorization, just like not being attracted to someone isn't a negative categorization.
Absolutely none of that is true in this thread. Get your head out of your ass. I am so so tired of this discussion. Instead of actually discussing the issues people completely derail the thread by crying about how a clearly defined word being used completely appropriately offends them.
|
On August 03 2013 02:16 Darkwhite wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 02:09 Mercy13 wrote:On August 03 2013 01:58 Darkwhite wrote:On August 02 2013 05:15 Iyerbeth wrote:
For the incest argument, you're conflating non disclosure of a one night stand betwen two strangers with someone seeking someone out specifically because of information about them specifically and then dating them. So, if I randomly happen upon her in a nightclub while travelling, she doesn't know we're cousins but I do know, then I'm not obliged to let her know? Whereas, if I was actively seeking her out instead, I would have had to disclose our kinship? I think the relevant difference between the two scenarios is that in one you know (1) personal information about her that (2) she doesn't know and (3) if she had known it would be likely to effect her decision to sleep with you. I think you have a moral obligation to disclose the other person's personal information (but not your own) when that information might be relevant to that person's decision to have sex with you. My identical twin brother has a wife, but she doesn't know I exist. Late at night, I come into their bedroom, she greets me as if though I were her husband, I make no effort to clear this up and we have sex. Seeing as the misunderstanding here is not personal information about her, I have no obligation to let her know I'm not actually her husband. Is that how it works?
You are mentally a different person so no that's not how it works and yes it is dishonest and yes it is immoral. Twins =/= same person as you're both still morally responsible for your own actions.
|
On August 03 2013 02:16 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 02:13 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 02:09 Klondikebar wrote:On August 03 2013 02:04 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 01:55 Klondikebar wrote:On August 03 2013 01:52 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 01:44 Klondikebar wrote:On August 03 2013 01:41 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 01:35 Klondikebar wrote:On August 03 2013 01:32 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
I am not perfect, so I likely have. I actively try to avoid acting on those prejudices, but I may slip up. But this does not make me racist. Having a prejudice based on race is the definition of racism dude. I understand that this word offends you. But you have got to listen to us when we tell you there are degrees of racism and whether or not a word hurts your feelings doesn't determine whether or not the definition ought to be changed. We are not trying to shame you. We are not saying you should feel like a terrible person and that you are causing huge problems. Please correct your misunderstanding of the word. But you are shaming me, so why should I put up with it? I am everything you have ask. I'm open minded, will to accept hat I have biases and to change them. Why do you feel the need to offend me? Once again, the word "negro" is factually correct, but I don't use it or even attempt to justify using it. I don't tell people offended by it that they are "misunderstanding the word" and attempt to act like its their problem. The fact that you're offended by the word is on you. To be clear, it's not as though we're calling you racist and ourselves blameless. I have racist prejudices myself that I have to consciously work on so that they do not affect how I treat people. I'm not offended when someone points out that I might be acting in a racist way. I acknowledge that it's entirely possible and I attempt to stop acting in said way. Crying at someone who gives me an opportunity to improve simply because their criticism hurt my feelings is pointless. When a word is very clearly defined and you are offended by it when it is used entirely within its own definition...yeah being offended is your problem. Well if you fell the need to offend people, I guess that's on you. I get the impression you have an ax to grind on this subject and seem to enjoy offending people who admit to being straight. I would point out that your argument was used by another member of this community in regards to the word "faggot" and he said "if you are offended its your problem". "Faggot" is bad for the same reason "negro" is bad and both are completely different than calling an action or belief racist. I don't feel the need to offend you. Shinosai and I both have told you time and time again that you're misunderstanding the word. Why do you keep ignoring that? Correct your misunderstanding of the word Plansix. We're not reinventing the definition of racism, we're not telling you to get a thicker skin. I don't understand why this is so hard for you. What would you prefer we call you? Coming up with another word seems pointless because as long as it's a synonym for "a little bit racist" then it's going to offend you so long as you continue to misunderstand what "racist" means. I fully understand the meaning of the term racism. I fully understand that any unconscious prejudices I may have are racist. I don't object to the meaning of the word. I object to you using to discribe me becuase I find it offensive. The same way a black person would if I used the word negro. Or a rape victim asking someone to not use the word in the context of beating someone at a video game. You ask what what I would prefer to be called, you can just say "you sem to have some unconscious prejudices." and that will suffice. If you refuse to change your ways, thats says more about you than it does me. And other words are important. You can't just throw around terms that cover huge sections of people and expect everyone to accept it. A kid from the small town who has never been to New York City is not the same as a KKK member. If you knwo you are going to end up lumping them together, why would you do that? I don't understand this disconnect. You understand that your prejudices might be racist, but you are offended when I call them racist? And please stop comparing calling a prejudice racist to calling a person a slur. Just stop. It's going to tremendously erode any credibility you have and I'm going to care very little about your feelings. And I'm not expecting everyone to accept the word. I'm expecting people who come into this thread for a discussion about tolerance to accept the word. And, more specifically, I'm expecting you, as someone who is trying to understand, to accept the word as it has been given to you. So you fail to see the point where is becomes a slur, right? Nergo is factually correct, but I would never make the argument you are making to a black person. And why do my feelings not matter to you? I mean, if someone asked not to be called a "jew" who was "jewish", would you insist on calling them that because it is factually correct? Or are the feelings of straight white people just less important and we can't object to being called things we don't like, even if they are true in some way? Fuck off Plansix. One word describes an action or a belief. The other one describes the worth of a person. Seriously, you are just crying at this point. "WHAAA This belief I have fits completely and perfectly within the definition of the word and then people used that word to describe my belief WHAAAAAAA!" It's hard to care about your feelings when you go out of your way to be butthurt and defy all logic in the process. It has nothing to do with you being straight and white, it has everything to do with you being a fucking baby.
Right, you can't see why calling someone racist is offensive. The same way someone from the south would object to the idea that the word Negro is offensive. They would all the offended black person a baby and that they should toughen up and get over it. The word is factually correct and that is all that matters.
The simple fact of the matter is that you don’t care that calling someone racist offends them. You want to use the word and your reasons are your own. I would say its about on the same level as saying the word “rape” in the context of video games and not giving a shit if you offend a rape victim.
|
On August 03 2013 02:09 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 02:04 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 01:55 Klondikebar wrote:On August 03 2013 01:52 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 01:44 Klondikebar wrote:On August 03 2013 01:41 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 01:35 Klondikebar wrote:On August 03 2013 01:32 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 01:22 ComaDose wrote:On August 03 2013 01:21 Plansix wrote:
[quote] I'm intelligent and I have the degrees and background to prove it. I do not take kindly to being called racist, even if the word could be used correctly.
well are you prejudice against someone based on their race? I am not perfect, so I likely have. I actively try to avoid acting on those prejudices, but I may slip up. But this does not make me racist. Having a prejudice based on race is the definition of racism dude. I understand that this word offends you. But you have got to listen to us when we tell you there are degrees of racism and whether or not a word hurts your feelings doesn't determine whether or not the definition ought to be changed. We are not trying to shame you. We are not saying you should feel like a terrible person and that you are causing huge problems. Please correct your misunderstanding of the word. But you are shaming me, so why should I put up with it? I am everything you have ask. I'm open minded, will to accept hat I have biases and to change them. Why do you feel the need to offend me? Once again, the word "negro" is factually correct, but I don't use it or even attempt to justify using it. I don't tell people offended by it that they are "misunderstanding the word" and attempt to act like its their problem. The fact that you're offended by the word is on you. To be clear, it's not as though we're calling you racist and ourselves blameless. I have racist prejudices myself that I have to consciously work on so that they do not affect how I treat people. I'm not offended when someone points out that I might be acting in a racist way. I acknowledge that it's entirely possible and I attempt to stop acting in said way. Crying at someone who gives me an opportunity to improve simply because their criticism hurt my feelings is pointless. When a word is very clearly defined and you are offended by it when it is used entirely within its own definition...yeah being offended is your problem. Well if you fell the need to offend people, I guess that's on you. I get the impression you have an ax to grind on this subject and seem to enjoy offending people who admit to being straight. I would point out that your argument was used by another member of this community in regards to the word "faggot" and he said "if you are offended its your problem". "Faggot" is bad for the same reason "negro" is bad and both are completely different than calling an action or belief racist. I don't feel the need to offend you. Shinosai and I both have told you time and time again that you're misunderstanding the word. Why do you keep ignoring that? Correct your misunderstanding of the word Plansix. We're not reinventing the definition of racism, we're not telling you to get a thicker skin. I don't understand why this is so hard for you. What would you prefer we call you? Coming up with another word seems pointless because as long as it's a synonym for "a little bit racist" then it's going to offend you so long as you continue to misunderstand what "racist" means. I fully understand the meaning of the term racism. I fully understand that any unconscious prejudices I may have are racist. I don't object to the meaning of the word. I object to you using to discribe me becuase I find it offensive. The same way a black person would if I used the word negro. Or a rape victim asking someone to not use the word in the context of beating someone at a video game. You ask what what I would prefer to be called, you can just say "you sem to have some unconscious prejudices." and that will suffice. If you refuse to change your ways, thats says more about you than it does me. And other words are important. You can't just throw around terms that cover huge sections of people and expect everyone to accept it. A kid from the small town who has never been to New York City is not the same as a KKK member. If you knwo you are going to end up lumping them together, why would you do that? I don't understand this disconnect. You understand that your prejudices might be racist, but you are offended when I call them racist? And please stop comparing calling a prejudice racist to calling a person a slur. Just stop. It's going to tremendously erode any credibility you have and I'm going to care very little about your feelings. And I'm not expecting everyone to accept the word. I'm expecting people who come into this thread for a discussion about tolerance to accept the word. And, more specifically, I'm expecting you, as someone who is trying to understand, to accept the word as it has been given to you. There is nothing I can do to change the definition of the word and despite requests for a different term several times now, you have failed to provide one. My patience for your feelings is wearing thin.
You also have no problems calling other people "assholes". In my book that is a slur.
|
On August 03 2013 02:19 fugs wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 02:16 Darkwhite wrote:On August 03 2013 02:09 Mercy13 wrote:On August 03 2013 01:58 Darkwhite wrote:On August 02 2013 05:15 Iyerbeth wrote:
For the incest argument, you're conflating non disclosure of a one night stand betwen two strangers with someone seeking someone out specifically because of information about them specifically and then dating them. So, if I randomly happen upon her in a nightclub while travelling, she doesn't know we're cousins but I do know, then I'm not obliged to let her know? Whereas, if I was actively seeking her out instead, I would have had to disclose our kinship? I think the relevant difference between the two scenarios is that in one you know (1) personal information about her that (2) she doesn't know and (3) if she had known it would be likely to effect her decision to sleep with you. I think you have a moral obligation to disclose the other person's personal information (but not your own) when that information might be relevant to that person's decision to have sex with you. My identical twin brother has a wife, but she doesn't know I exist. Late at night, I come into their bedroom, she greets me as if though I were her husband, I make no effort to clear this up and we have sex. Seeing as the misunderstanding here is not personal information about her, I have no obligation to let her know I'm not actually her husband. Is that how it works? You are mentally a different person so no that's not how it works and yes it is dishonest and yes it is immoral. Twins =/= same person as you're both still morally responsible for your own actions.
Cis =/= trans for most people. Claiming otherwise is just being wilfully ignorant.
|
On August 03 2013 02:19 fugs wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 02:16 Darkwhite wrote:On August 03 2013 02:09 Mercy13 wrote:On August 03 2013 01:58 Darkwhite wrote:On August 02 2013 05:15 Iyerbeth wrote:
For the incest argument, you're conflating non disclosure of a one night stand betwen two strangers with someone seeking someone out specifically because of information about them specifically and then dating them. So, if I randomly happen upon her in a nightclub while travelling, she doesn't know we're cousins but I do know, then I'm not obliged to let her know? Whereas, if I was actively seeking her out instead, I would have had to disclose our kinship? I think the relevant difference between the two scenarios is that in one you know (1) personal information about her that (2) she doesn't know and (3) if she had known it would be likely to effect her decision to sleep with you. I think you have a moral obligation to disclose the other person's personal information (but not your own) when that information might be relevant to that person's decision to have sex with you. My identical twin brother has a wife, but she doesn't know I exist. Late at night, I come into their bedroom, she greets me as if though I were her husband, I make no effort to clear this up and we have sex. Seeing as the misunderstanding here is not personal information about her, I have no obligation to let her know I'm not actually her husband. Is that how it works? You are mentally a different person so no that's not how it works and yes it is dishonest and yes it is immoral. Twins =/= same person as you're both still morally responsible for your own actions.
Why should he have to disclose any information about himself? It's not like she knows, so there's no harm in it right? It's just one night of sex, so long as no one knows, no one gets hurt! But If she found out she might resort to violence. Why should he have to put himself in danger just because she might care about something when clearly he doesn't? Does her right to know trump his right to withhold information and have sex?
|
On August 03 2013 02:16 Darkwhite wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 02:09 Mercy13 wrote:On August 03 2013 01:58 Darkwhite wrote:On August 02 2013 05:15 Iyerbeth wrote:
For the incest argument, you're conflating non disclosure of a one night stand betwen two strangers with someone seeking someone out specifically because of information about them specifically and then dating them. So, if I randomly happen upon her in a nightclub while travelling, she doesn't know we're cousins but I do know, then I'm not obliged to let her know? Whereas, if I was actively seeking her out instead, I would have had to disclose our kinship? I think the relevant difference between the two scenarios is that in one you know (1) personal information about her that (2) she doesn't know and (3) if she had known it would be likely to effect her decision to sleep with you. I think you have a moral obligation to disclose the other person's personal information (but not your own) when that information might be relevant to that person's decision to have sex with you. My identical twin brother has a wife, but she doesn't know I exist. Late at night, I come into their bedroom, she greets me as if though I were her husband, I make no effort to clear this up and we have sex. Seeing as the misunderstanding here is not personal information about her, I have no obligation to let her know I'm not actually her husband. Is that how it works?
Hm I can see how what I wrote could be interpreted as "I think you have a moral obligation to disclose the other person's personal information (but [NEVER] your own) when that information might be relevant to that person's decision to have sex with you."
What I meant was "I think you have a moral obligation to disclose the other person's personal information (but not NECESSARILY] your own) when that information might be relevant to that person's decision to have sex with you"
Sorry for the ambiguity : )
|
On August 03 2013 02:25 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 02:19 fugs wrote:On August 03 2013 02:16 Darkwhite wrote:On August 03 2013 02:09 Mercy13 wrote:On August 03 2013 01:58 Darkwhite wrote:On August 02 2013 05:15 Iyerbeth wrote:
For the incest argument, you're conflating non disclosure of a one night stand betwen two strangers with someone seeking someone out specifically because of information about them specifically and then dating them. So, if I randomly happen upon her in a nightclub while travelling, she doesn't know we're cousins but I do know, then I'm not obliged to let her know? Whereas, if I was actively seeking her out instead, I would have had to disclose our kinship? I think the relevant difference between the two scenarios is that in one you know (1) personal information about her that (2) she doesn't know and (3) if she had known it would be likely to effect her decision to sleep with you. I think you have a moral obligation to disclose the other person's personal information (but not your own) when that information might be relevant to that person's decision to have sex with you. My identical twin brother has a wife, but she doesn't know I exist. Late at night, I come into their bedroom, she greets me as if though I were her husband, I make no effort to clear this up and we have sex. Seeing as the misunderstanding here is not personal information about her, I have no obligation to let her know I'm not actually her husband. Is that how it works? You are mentally a different person so no that's not how it works and yes it is dishonest and yes it is immoral. Twins =/= same person as you're both still morally responsible for your own actions. Cis =/= trans for most people. Claiming otherwise is just being wilfully ignorant.
It shouldn't be about popular opinion, trans people aren't exactly popular just like other minorities aren't exactly popular. The minorities' rights shouldn't hinge on popular opinion. My medical history is my business understand? You're afraid of an idea, a penis that doesn't exist anymore. A penis that was transformed back into a vagina from the same material that all vaginas are made out of. Because it doesn't exist anymore it's not any of your business as it doesn't affect you.
You're trying to claim that your entitlement to information trumps my right to privacy and that's morally reprehensible.
|
On August 03 2013 02:19 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 02:14 Shiori wrote:On August 03 2013 01:44 Klondikebar wrote:On August 03 2013 01:41 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 01:35 Klondikebar wrote:On August 03 2013 01:32 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 01:22 ComaDose wrote:On August 03 2013 01:21 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 01:18 ComaDose wrote:On August 03 2013 01:11 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
I meant "hang up", sorry about that. And it does, but if it isn't malicious and is a product of something beyond their control(crappy parents that they have worked to get away from), do you want to insult them and make them defensive. Your not dealing with bigots most of the time, but people who want to be opening minded, but might slip now and then. They likely know in the back of their mind that its racist.
We have a phrase at my job, “I don’t want to beat them, I want to win.” The same applies here. Do you want to prove to that person that they are racist, or do you want help them change? Your choice of words is important.
To their face i might refrain from calling them racist, i see what you are saying now. i thought you meant stop classifying them as racist among intelligent people. I'm intelligent and I have the degrees and background to prove it. I do not take kindly to being called racist, even if the word could be used correctly. well are you prejudice against someone based on their race? I am not perfect, so I likely have. I actively try to avoid acting on those prejudices, but I may slip up. But this does not make me racist. Having a prejudice based on race is the definition of racism dude. I understand that this word offends you. But you have got to listen to us when we tell you there are degrees of racism and whether or not a word hurts your feelings doesn't determine whether or not the definition ought to be changed. We are not trying to shame you. We are not saying you should feel like a terrible person and that you are causing huge problems. Please correct your misunderstanding of the word. But you are shaming me, so why should I put up with it? I am everything you have ask. I'm open minded, will to accept hat I have biases and to change them. Why do you feel the need to offend me? Once again, the word "negro" is factually correct, but I don't use it or even attempt to justify using it. I don't tell people offended by it that they are "misunderstanding the word" and attempt to act like its their problem. The fact that you're offended by the word is on you. To be clear, it's not as though we're calling you racist and ourselves blameless. I have racist prejudices myself that I have to consciously work on so that they do not affect how I treat people. I'm not offended when someone points out that I might be acting in a racist way. I acknowledge that it's entirely possible and I attempt to stop acting in said way. Crying at someone who gives me an opportunity to improve simply because their criticism hurt my feelings is pointless. When a word is very clearly defined and you are offended by it when it is used entirely within its own definition...yeah being offended is your problem. Considering that the term "racist" is mostly implied to describe people who are actively discriminating in a degrading fashion against other races, it's pretty strange to use the same word to describe any judgment pertaining to race.I mean, the sentence "on the left are Caucasians and on the right are black people" is a "racist" sentence, in the sense that it's a categorization based on race. But it's not a negative categorization, just like not being attracted to someone isn't a negative categorization. Absolutely none of that is true in this thread. Get your head out of your ass. I am so so tired of this discussion. Instead of actually discussing the issues people completely derail the thread by crying about how a clearly defined word being used completely appropriately offends them.
It's trivially a true use of the term, but it's inadvisable in the same sense that talking about homosexuality alongside pedophilia and zoophilia is offensive, even though they're all technically considered deviations from the most common (not normal in the sense of "should," just in terms of commonness) orientation of heterosexuality.
|
United States43748 Posts
On August 03 2013 01:58 fugs wrote:
A transwoman is the same as a ciswoman, I should not have to pass some freaky test to qualify as one kind of human being over another. Basing the 'difference' on surgery should be irrelevant because the surgery is none of your business. Your right to know the quality of a woman's vagina is trumped by the right of that woman to keep her medical information to herself. Sorry if you feel otherwise but there's a ton of entitlement going around in this thread and expecting transwomen to give you their most intimate details reeks of male entitlement.
I am a girl, it should really be that simple. Not telling you about being born with a penis is not rape, the penis is completely irrelevant because it doesn't exist anymore therefore the memory of that penis is not yours to be concerned about. You are afraid of an idea, an idea can't be persecuted and it can't be legally punished because it doesn't exist. The penis doesn't exist anymore, the flesh that it consisted of has been transformed. That flesh is the same flesh a cis woman's vagina is made out of (if you know how the penis is formed in the womb) so again, there is no difference outside of medical science's ability to repair nature's damage.
You heard that right guys, your penis is really an inverted vagina. If you don't like that you should blame nature for making you that way. <3
You don't get to decide what someone else views as relevant. This is something you and klondike seem to refuse to understand. You can think nothing could be less relevant but that doesn't make it irrelevant to someone else.
It is immoral to conceal something which is, or is likely to be, very relevant to their decision to consent to sex for the purpose of getting them to consent to sex when they otherwise would not. Again, you do not get to decide what they find relevant or how valid their criteria are. Dismissing their criteria as dumb or saying "fuck that guy, I don't care" is pretty rapey.
|
On August 03 2013 01:32 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 01:22 ComaDose wrote:On August 03 2013 01:21 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 01:18 ComaDose wrote:On August 03 2013 01:11 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 01:06 ComaDose wrote:On August 03 2013 01:04 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 00:58 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 00:56 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 03 2013 00:46 shinosai wrote:
[quote]
Not only is it racist, but the jewish law is incredibly racist as well. If you seriously consider someone racist solely based on the fact that he wants to have jewish children I doubt we get much further. I would urge you to be much more careful about throwing such words around, all you end up is washed-out terms nobody cares about anymore. If you keep shouting wolf whenever you see a dog people arent gonna bother when you actually face a wolf. There are different degrees of racism. The argument "I'm not as bad as a member of the KKK, therefore I cannot be racist" is not convincing to even the dullest of minds. It fits the definition. You are discriminating against a person based solely on their racial origins and nothing else. What else could we possibly call that? I would say that people do a poor job of using the word and finding different terminology would be best for the discussion. The word “Negro” is factually correct, but I don’t break that one out ever for good reason. The words and how they are used change over time. Open, fair minded people do not like being defined as racist and finding other, less offensive words to describe whatever hang out they may have is best for everyone. doesn't that legitimize their "hang out" even though its prejudice against someones race? I meant "hang up", sorry about that. And it does, but if it isn't malicious and is a product of something beyond their control(crappy parents that they have worked to get away from), do you want to insult them and make them defensive. Your not dealing with bigots most of the time, but people who want to be opening minded, but might slip now and then. They likely know in the back of their mind that its racist. We have a phrase at my job, “I don’t want to beat them, I want to win.” The same applies here. Do you want to prove to that person that they are racist, or do you want help them change? Your choice of words is important. To their face i might refrain from calling them racist, i see what you are saying now. i thought you meant stop classifying them as racist among intelligent people. I'm intelligent and I have the degrees and background to prove it. I do not take kindly to being called racist, even if the word could be used correctly. well are you prejudice against someone based on their race? I am not perfect, so I likely have. I actively try to avoid acting on those prejudices, but I may slip up. But this does not make me racist.
oh yeah me too. i've done racist things unfortunately. so the answer to my question would have been more easily relayed as "no". i don't think we are racists.
|
On August 03 2013 02:26 RockIronrod wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 02:19 fugs wrote:On August 03 2013 02:16 Darkwhite wrote:On August 03 2013 02:09 Mercy13 wrote:On August 03 2013 01:58 Darkwhite wrote:On August 02 2013 05:15 Iyerbeth wrote:
For the incest argument, you're conflating non disclosure of a one night stand betwen two strangers with someone seeking someone out specifically because of information about them specifically and then dating them. So, if I randomly happen upon her in a nightclub while travelling, she doesn't know we're cousins but I do know, then I'm not obliged to let her know? Whereas, if I was actively seeking her out instead, I would have had to disclose our kinship? I think the relevant difference between the two scenarios is that in one you know (1) personal information about her that (2) she doesn't know and (3) if she had known it would be likely to effect her decision to sleep with you. I think you have a moral obligation to disclose the other person's personal information (but not your own) when that information might be relevant to that person's decision to have sex with you. My identical twin brother has a wife, but she doesn't know I exist. Late at night, I come into their bedroom, she greets me as if though I were her husband, I make no effort to clear this up and we have sex. Seeing as the misunderstanding here is not personal information about her, I have no obligation to let her know I'm not actually her husband. Is that how it works? You are mentally a different person so no that's not how it works and yes it is dishonest and yes it is immoral. Twins =/= same person as you're both still morally responsible for your own actions. Why should he have to disclose any information about himself? It's not like she knows, so there's no harm in it right? It's just one night of sex, so long as no one knows, no one gets hurt! But If she found out she might resort to violence. Why should he have to put himself in danger just because she might care about something when clearly he doesn't? Does her right to know trump his right to withhold information and have sex? \
Because he is a physically different person, an individual with a separate birth certificate than his identical twin brother. By law they are not the same individual and therefor it is rape.
Your analogy is bad because you're jumping the gap and claiming that replacing the individual is the same as reconstructive surgery when it's not. The trans person is a single individual and when you meet them for a hookup afterwards you are getting that person. Whereas in your analogy the woman is married to one person and then having another individual sleep with her without her permission. THAT IS RAPE.
|
United States43748 Posts
On August 03 2013 02:35 fugs wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 02:25 maybenexttime wrote:On August 03 2013 02:19 fugs wrote:On August 03 2013 02:16 Darkwhite wrote:On August 03 2013 02:09 Mercy13 wrote:On August 03 2013 01:58 Darkwhite wrote:On August 02 2013 05:15 Iyerbeth wrote:
For the incest argument, you're conflating non disclosure of a one night stand betwen two strangers with someone seeking someone out specifically because of information about them specifically and then dating them. So, if I randomly happen upon her in a nightclub while travelling, she doesn't know we're cousins but I do know, then I'm not obliged to let her know? Whereas, if I was actively seeking her out instead, I would have had to disclose our kinship? I think the relevant difference between the two scenarios is that in one you know (1) personal information about her that (2) she doesn't know and (3) if she had known it would be likely to effect her decision to sleep with you. I think you have a moral obligation to disclose the other person's personal information (but not your own) when that information might be relevant to that person's decision to have sex with you. My identical twin brother has a wife, but she doesn't know I exist. Late at night, I come into their bedroom, she greets me as if though I were her husband, I make no effort to clear this up and we have sex. Seeing as the misunderstanding here is not personal information about her, I have no obligation to let her know I'm not actually her husband. Is that how it works? You are mentally a different person so no that's not how it works and yes it is dishonest and yes it is immoral. Twins =/= same person as you're both still morally responsible for your own actions. Cis =/= trans for most people. Claiming otherwise is just being wilfully ignorant. It shouldn't be about popular opinion, trans people aren't exactly popular just like other minorities aren't exactly popular. The minorities' rights shouldn't hinge on popular opinion. My medical history is my business understand? You're afraid of an idea, a penis that doesn't exist anymore. A penis that was transformed back into a vagina from the same material that all vaginas are made out of. Because it doesn't exist anymore it's not any of your business as it doesn't affect you. You're trying to claim that your entitlement to information trumps my right to privacy and that's morally reprehensible.
Regarding your medical history being private. Nobody is forcing you to wear a star of David. You don't have any obligation to disclose anything right up until the point at which it affects someone else, at which point you do.
The rest of your post is just "I think your beliefs are dumb which entitles me to disregard them even when it affects you".
|
On August 03 2013 02:40 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 01:32 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 01:22 ComaDose wrote:On August 03 2013 01:21 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 01:18 ComaDose wrote:On August 03 2013 01:11 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 01:06 ComaDose wrote:On August 03 2013 01:04 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 00:58 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 00:56 Snusmumriken wrote:
[quote]
If you seriously consider someone racist solely based on the fact that he wants to have jewish children I doubt we get much further. I would urge you to be much more careful about throwing such words around, all you end up is washed-out terms nobody cares about anymore. If you keep shouting wolf whenever you see a dog people arent gonna bother when you actually face a wolf. There are different degrees of racism. The argument "I'm not as bad as a member of the KKK, therefore I cannot be racist" is not convincing to even the dullest of minds. It fits the definition. You are discriminating against a person based solely on their racial origins and nothing else. What else could we possibly call that? I would say that people do a poor job of using the word and finding different terminology would be best for the discussion. The word “Negro” is factually correct, but I don’t break that one out ever for good reason. The words and how they are used change over time. Open, fair minded people do not like being defined as racist and finding other, less offensive words to describe whatever hang out they may have is best for everyone. doesn't that legitimize their "hang out" even though its prejudice against someones race? I meant "hang up", sorry about that. And it does, but if it isn't malicious and is a product of something beyond their control(crappy parents that they have worked to get away from), do you want to insult them and make them defensive. Your not dealing with bigots most of the time, but people who want to be opening minded, but might slip now and then. They likely know in the back of their mind that its racist. We have a phrase at my job, “I don’t want to beat them, I want to win.” The same applies here. Do you want to prove to that person that they are racist, or do you want help them change? Your choice of words is important. To their face i might refrain from calling them racist, i see what you are saying now. i thought you meant stop classifying them as racist among intelligent people. I'm intelligent and I have the degrees and background to prove it. I do not take kindly to being called racist, even if the word could be used correctly. well are you prejudice against someone based on their race? I am not perfect, so I likely have. I actively try to avoid acting on those prejudices, but I may slip up. But this does not make me racist. oh yeah me too. i've done racist things unfortunately. so the answer to my question would have been more easily relayed as "no". i don't think we are racists.
I think its a valid point that as long as their is no malice involved, calling a person a racist or their actions racist can be viewed a offensive. Though correct, it is likely better to find a different word that conveys the same meaning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
