The Insane "Social Justice" Thread II

[Kutnupe14]

No, its not. There is absolutely NO word that is so verboten that it cannot even be uttered in a clinical situation. Well, except One. But we wont mention *Voldemor..... Whew. Almost said it.

Not saying its acceptable to use anywhere else, but to say for instance a white HR director in a training or judge/lawyer/etc in a trial cannot utter it as part of a necessary course of professional business is absurd.

(* Wouldnt it be funny if somebody actually put that in the language filter? )

You don't know if it was used in a clinical way. You are assuming because the setting that it must have been so. I'll remind you, that during a "clinical meeting" with WH house staffers, concerning John McCain, someone made light of his illness; and that was deemed to be inappropriate. I assume at some point you've have been to a meeting, if you've you been to enough, you'd probably walked out of a few thinking "I can't believe that idiot said that." The point is, that even in clinical settings some people do or say things that are entirely inappropriate.

 

[KLB]

It is, and everybody knows it. If one is a member of the group that the slur is meant to disparage, it's considered ok.... someone outside of that group, not so much. That goes for Asians, women, Hispanics, gays, family members, Black people, and yes, even white people.

I'll add my, that is silly to the list.

A word should either be OK to not. If a word is so offensive that you want people to not say it, then stop using it. If it is not offensive enough to stop using, quit complaining if others use it.

 

[KLB]

You don't know if it was used in a clinical way. You are assuming because the setting that it must have been so. I'll remind you, that during a "clinical meeting" with WH house staffers, concerning John McCain, someone made light of his illness; and that was deemed to be inappropriate. I assume at some point you've have been to a meeting, if you've you been to enough, you'd probably walked out of a few thinking "I can't believe that idiot said that." The point is, that even in clinical settings some people do or say things that are entirely inappropriate.

True, people can say stupid at any time.

It is just as true that there are people that are looking to be offended at any opportunity. Without being able to see the actual speech in question, all we can do is guess as to what really happened. Content, context and delivery all go into meaning behind words. One of the big reasons so much is misconstrued on the Internet.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I'll add my, that is silly to the list.

A word should either be OK to not. If a word is so offensive that you want people to not say it, then stop using it. If it is not offensive enough to stop using, quit complaining if others use it.

That's fine and dandy in a utopia, but not so much in the real world. I'll give you an example. Lots of women are prone to calling each other "b***h," in an endearing way. By your logic, because those women use the word to refer to each other, it should be completely acceptable for you to say it to any woman who happens to be in your company. I don't know if you're married, but I imagine that if some random guy called your wife a "b***h," he'd probably already be on his ass before he could tell you that he's only using it because other women use it. Am I wrong?

 

[KLB]

That's fine and dandy in a utopia, but not so much in the real world. I'll give you an example. Lots of women are prone to calling each other "b***h" in an endearing way. By your logic, because those women use the word to refer to each other, it should be completely acceptable for you to say it any woman who happens to be in your company. I don't know if you're married, but I imagine that if some random guy called your wife a "b***h," he'd probably already be on his ass before he could tell you that he only using it because other women use it. Am I wrong?

Not exactly what I was saying. If I was using it, then I would have no standing to complain about it. The women in your example should have no place to complain about the use of the word.

Again, either it is taboo or it isn't. If people want to end the use of the word, end it. Stop using it and it will fade away. Keep throwing it around like it is nothing, and it will never go away.

 

[jamil]

It’s the way it is. Accept that humans ain’t past identities yet. It’s okay for women to call women “****s”, black people to call black people n-word, etcetera. But, it’s okay to call white males anything. They’re the majority race, they’re seen as the dominant sex. There’s nothing that can be said that’s a social anathema. And it kinda makes sense that this is so. Black people call me Cracka, Honkey, whatever. INGO doesn’t even star those out. And why should they? That doesn’t hurt me. I’m not offended by it. I don’t feel anything.

But, n-word, c-word, those are some hurtful words coming from the perceived dominant identity. We could look at it as privilege either way. That white males are privileged not to give a **** about it. Woman calls me a dickhead, black person calls me a honkey, yeah. Whateves. So what? They’re just names. Just words. And we can look at it that minorities and women are privileged in that they can call us these things all they want withing the same social stigma.

It would help if we could get past identity. I’d like to see black people have the power to hear a white person saying the n-word without being hurt or offended. That they could claim the power in that word for themselves, the power to feel nothing. We’re not there yet. Identify is the evil that enables words to have group power over individuals.

As a white male, I can view myself as just an individual human, who happens to have light skin, and a dick. I don’t feel like I have to identify as a group with other people with light skin and dicks. We’ll get there when group identity no longer matters, once we move past this idiotic social experiment with intersectional identities concludes.

 

[jamil]

That's fine and dandy in a utopia, but not so much in the real world. I'll give you an example. Lots of women are prone to calling each other "b***h," in an endearing way. By your logic, because those women use the word to refer to each other, it should be completely acceptable for you to say it to any woman who happens to be in your company. I don't know if you're married, but I imagine that if some random guy called your wife a "b***h," he'd probably already be on his ass before he could tell you that he's only using it because other women use it. Am I wrong?

That would be real progress. What can a black person or a woman call a man that really hurts his identification with is race ir sex? The n-word, or b-word are identity slurs. Unless you’re a white male identitarian, no group slur has that power.

That’s the power individuals have. I think white males have a privilage of having individual identity at least to an extent greater than minorities and women.

I’m just starting to explore this idea, so maybe I’m full of **** on it. But it seems to explain why I feel nothing when group slurs are hurled at me. I’d like everyone not to give a ****. It’s nice not to be offended by stuff.

 

[Kutnupe14]

That would be real progress. What can a black person or a woman call a man that really hurts his identification with is race ir sex? The n-word, or b-word are identity slurs. Unless you’re a white male identitarian, no group slur has that power.

That’s the power individuals have. I think white males have a privilage of having individual identity at least to an extent greater than minorities and women.

I’m just starting to explore this idea, so maybe I’m full of **** on it. But it seems to explain why I feel nothing when group slurs are hurled at me. I’d like everyone not to give a ****. It’s nice not to be offended by stuff.

In America, why do you think that is? (it's an easy answer, actually you already answered it)

 

[jamil]

In America, why do you think that is? (it's an easy answer, actually you already answered it)

It’s not that far from you. Identity is a social construct. People are already individuals. They just have to start believing it.

 

[KLB]

That would be real progress. What can a black person or a woman call a man that really hurts his identification with is race ir sex? The n-word, or b-word are identity slurs. Unless you’re a white male identitarian, no group slur has that power.

That’s the power individuals have. I think white males have a privilage of having individual identity at least to an extent greater than minorities and women.

I’m just starting to explore this idea, so maybe I’m full of **** on it. But it seems to explain why I feel nothing when group slurs are hurled at me. I’d like everyone not to give a ****. It’s nice not to be offended by stuff.

While some of what you say may be true, every individual has the choice to be hurt by words or not. Why do the color of your skin and the makeup of your chromosomes make you more able to not give a ?

I imagine age/experience play a large part as well.

 

[Kutnupe14]

It’s not that far from you. Identity is a social construct. People are already individuals. They just have to start believing it.

Can you think of identify constructs that weren't created by the dominant race/sex, i.e. white males? Even the ones meant to disparage their group were mainly self-created.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Are we already arguing as though it was said with malicious intent? Why not assume otherwise, given that's the only evidence we have?

Is there something so wrong as discussing a verboten word, semantics, the word itself?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Are we already arguing as though it was said with malicious intent? Why not assume otherwise, given that's the only evidence we have?

Is there something so wrong as discussing a verboten word, semantics, the word itself?

We don't know. It's folly to assume one over the other.

 

[KLB]

Are we already arguing as though it was said with malicious intent? Why not assume otherwise, given that's the only evidence we have?

Is there something so wrong as discussing a verboten word, semantics, the word itself?

We pretty much don't know what was said other than a single word. Hard to draw any real conclusions based upon that.

Sadly, in this day, in this country, all it takes is a special snowflake to overhear you say a word and your world can come crashing down around you. The higher up in the hierarchy or public eye you are, the better the chance saying the wrong thing will bite you in the ass.

 

[jamil]

While some of what you say may be true, every individual has the choice to be hurt by words or not. Why do the color of your skin and the makeup of your chromosomes make you more able to not give a ?

I imagine age/experience play a large part as well.

I was never an oppressor or women or minorities. The thing that gives me the power not to give a **** is my ability to identify with being an individual. The white male identitarians don’t have that. Feminists don’t have that, and it makes it hard for other women to be individuals first. They’re disparaged for not identifying with the group. Same with “People of color”. They don’t have that ability to identify as individuals either. White identitarians don’t alow it, and minority identitarians don’t allow it. They’re disparaged for it.

Individuals need to stand up and say, **** identities. I am me. I am a person apart from my skin color or what’s between my legs. You can n-word, or h-word, or c-word, or d-word all you want. They’re just words for identitarians. They have no power over me.

Hell. You can call me fatass if you want. It’s not my identity. Fat is just a description.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

We don't know. It's folly to assume one over the other.

The only evidence presented is in favor of non-malicious. We shouldn't negate that, when there's no evidence of malicious intent.

 

[jamil]

Can you think of identify constructs that weren't created by the dominant race/sex, i.e. white males? Even the ones meant to disparage their group were mainly self-created.

They were created by individuals who fabricated an identity. Or, do you mean to sugest that every white male that ever existed or ever will exist is responsible for that? “White male” is an description. It’s not a monolith of behavor or attitude.

 

[jamil]

Are we already arguing as though it was said with malicious intent? Why not assume otherwise, given that's the only evidence we have?

Is there something so wrong as discussing a verboten word, semantics, the word itself?

Well, I’m making no such argument. I’m arguing for humans to get on with evolving socially past group identities. Then words disparaging groups will have no power.

 

[Kutnupe14]

They were created by individuals who fabricated an identity. Or, do you mean to sugest that every white male that ever existed or ever will exist is responsible for that? “White male” is an description. It’s not a monolith of behavor or attitude.

No, of course not... unless they have used it, then there's some ownership consistent with the origin. Not to point fingers, because I'm sure most people are guilty of such offenses (note, I said "people")... but regardless, the origin is relevant, as the practice persists to this day.

 

[jamil]

The only evidence presented is in favor of non-malicious. We shouldn't negate that, when there's no evidence of malicious intent.

Identitarians assume malice. Individuals are free to assume only facts in evidence.

It appears to me that the firing was a sort of socially required virtue signaling.