Cher Ami?
- Status
What, we're sharing who now?
M
makare
one of the things i like best about my group of friends is no one gets offended if we text while talking. Well actually the only person I know who gets upset about it is my mom because she is convinced I am talking about her. When my friends and I are at lunch or whatever we are usually talking to each other and also texting... well whomever it is we are texting. I am glad they are so relaxed about it.
M
makare
aw i was hoping for a better response o_c 
BananaHands
Staff member
Hipsters.
Hate 'em.
Hate 'em.
BananaHands
Staff member
Although some of them are cute and into nerdy things. But sometimes they're into nerdy things just to be into nerdy things. And that offends me.
BananaHands
Staff member
dunno.
M
makare
LMAO
M
makare
It's ugly hat themed week.
Madness.
I know, I just had to continue the trend.
GasBandit
Staff member
I don't know about being nasty as a way to "stay relevant." I don't even know what that would mean in an open forum context. It sounds like cliquespeak to me.
But none of that is what this thread, this question is about. If your boss sexually harasses you, you aren't just offended by it, you are intimidated, shamed, maybe even violated. If you are bullied, you aren't offended by it, you are intimidated, shamed, maybe even physically harmed.
The difference is this - if we're out in public and you wear a shirt I find offensive, I don't have a right to make you take it off. I don't have a right to have the government force you to take it off, or punish you for it. And if I confront you and tell you, "I am offended by your shirt," you would be completely within bounds to say, "so, what?"
But too many people think they have a right to never, ever be offended.
No, those are different situations. The first you can't get away from without incurring substantial hardship (though I do think there's more wolf-crying in that area than anyone wants to admit). The second is children, in which developmental instruction is too important for them to be left to find their own way (which would most likely end up recreating lord of the flies anyway). The third entirely depends on context.
But none of that is what this thread, this question is about. If your boss sexually harasses you, you aren't just offended by it, you are intimidated, shamed, maybe even violated. If you are bullied, you aren't offended by it, you are intimidated, shamed, maybe even physically harmed.
The difference is this - if we're out in public and you wear a shirt I find offensive, I don't have a right to make you take it off. I don't have a right to have the government force you to take it off, or punish you for it. And if I confront you and tell you, "I am offended by your shirt," you would be completely within bounds to say, "so, what?"
But too many people think they have a right to never, ever be offended.
Alright then.
Your quote that set me off is that "hatespeech" doesn't exist. That just isn't the case. If someone calls me a fag at work. THAT is sexual harrassment, and it is hatespeech. And the person saying it should be fired faster than his head can spin.
Basically, you can't deal in absolutes, because nothing is absolute. There's a major difference between being a douche and being hateful and actively abusive.
GasBandit
Staff member
Above emphasis mine. That is sexual harrasment. He should be fired. But "hatespeech" is used so very, very far outside that context as well. It's definition is nebulous, except it seems to only favor "progressive" interpretation. IE - it's not "hatespeech" to call someone an inbred redneck. But it is "hatespeech" when Rush Limbaugh says the sports media goes easier on Donovan McNabb because they want to see a (rare) black quarterback do well.
It often ceases being anything other than a perjorative to describe any expressed thought or opinion that disagrees with the people who push "political correctness." The term "hatespeech" is downright Orwellian. Sort of like "hate crime." It's double plus ungood.
GasBandit
Staff member
Or, you know, it's not, and there are people who are looking for excuses to "get offended."
M
makare
Lol Orwell ref is the new Hitler ref.
Hate speech and Hate crimes have actual meaning within the law.
hate speech. (1988) Speech that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, such as a particular race, esp. in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence.
hate crime. (1984) A crime motivated by the victim's race, color, ethnicity, religion, or national origin. • Certain groups have lobbied to expand the definition by statute to include a crime motivated by the victim's disability, gender, or sexual orientation.
Straight outta Black's yo.
Hate speech and Hate crimes have actual meaning within the law.
hate speech. (1988) Speech that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, such as a particular race, esp. in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence.
hate crime. (1984) A crime motivated by the victim's race, color, ethnicity, religion, or national origin. • Certain groups have lobbied to expand the definition by statute to include a crime motivated by the victim's disability, gender, or sexual orientation.
Straight outta Black's yo.
GasBandit
Staff member
And yet they're used for so much more than that. When Limbaugh made that comment, he was commenting on the tendencies of journalists, not maligning McNabb based upon his race. But it doesn't matter to the professionally offended.
Right, because there's nothing racist about saying "(whatever)... because he's black." Whether it's "Well, obvious he has a drug problem because he's black" or "The press views him positively because he's black". The press isn't nice to Donovan McNabb because he's usually media-friendly and cooperative, they're not nice to him because the fans love him. According to Rush, it's "because he's [a] black [quarterback]". And that's racist. And if I have to explain why that's racist, or why it's a bad thing, there is no point in discussing anything with you, ever.
GasBandit
Staff member
So would you say that the statement "our affirmative action quotas are not met, and we should hire this less qualified person because he's black" is one that indicates a racist agenda? Or what about "he understands the plight of the underclass better because he's black" then? These are common items that get a pass because they favor "progressive" thought processes.
But to put it in simpler terms for you: Limbaugh was calling the sports media racist.
The fact of the matter is that the term hate speech, in addition to describing makare's book-delved definition, is also used as an accusation that the accuser wants to have so much gravity from the mere accusation in and of itself to silence dissent and end discussion.
The fans love McNabb? Philly Phans hated him. They booed him when he was drafted and booed him nearly every game...
It was just sad that he was the best thing to ever hit that team.
It was just sad that he was the best thing to ever hit that team.
GasBandit
Staff member
You edited your post while I was submitting mine, but whatever. The real reason there's no discussing anything with me, ever, is because you're one of the professionally (or perhaps even recreationally) offended. You will never allow any fact to stand that robs you of your license to white-knight.
And apparently you know very little about football, too.
M
makare
Gas do you understand the concepts of positive and negative?
GasBandit
Staff member
Do you understand that they have no bearing on this topic?
- Status