"Appologizing" For Perceived Insults

30th March 2003, 10:06 PM

It's really one thing to be personally offended about something that's said to you.

If you are offended for other people, in the P.C. case, I think Scott Adams in his book, "Dilbert and the Way of the Weasel", summed it up best.

In the sense of appologizing to people who are outraged in the name of others, the nicest thing I can say is, "I'm sorry that you feel that way."

I'm not personally always going to be that nice.

If any of you feel that you are the personal representative of all "downtrodden" people who are in some manner wronged by the occasional off-color comment, and are outraged "for them", I highly recomment you go get a life of your very own, instead of trying to live other peoples lives by proxy.

When people flame me about some perceived insult to a "group of people" who "ought to be upset", It's really almost as pathetic as people who kill themselves over a dramatic turn in a soap opera. Or perhaps the "virtual death" of a keychain pet.

c4ts · 30th March 2003, 10:21 PM

Well, there was that one time- today- when I felt sorry for that Desim board becasue Franko payed a visit, posting under the name of Serpent.

30th March 2003, 10:25 PM

Did you feel offended because they "should be"?

c4ts · 30th March 2003, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by evildave
Did you feel offended because they "should be"?

Uh, no, not really. I was mostly offended that "Serpent" was using his posts by "Franko" and "Wraith" on this message board to prove that Logical Deism was spreading across the web! Honestly, I haven't seen anything from him lately anywhere, and can only assume it means that everybody has ceased to exist but him.

AmateurScientist · 31st March 2003, 12:58 AM

Excellent commentary Dave.

I've had this very same reaction oh so many times, but just haven't articulated as you have just now.

Leftist Busybodies. Funny, but usually "busybody" is a term applied to those who meddle in others' affairs from the moral right.

AS

Kiwi9 · 31st March 2003, 02:33 AM

It's really one thing to be personally offended about something that's said to you.

Why be so nasty to oneself? Why take offence? Doing so is a choice we make, and not a very sensible one.

About 25 years ago I fortunately came across Wayne W. Dyer's book Your Erroneous Zones, and still have it -- brown-pages, faded cover, dog-ears, underlinings and all.

The best part is on pages 20-24 where Dyer shows us, using logic, that we can choose how we feel, and that if we change our language from, "That p____s me off" to, "I p____d myself off over that," and to, "I hurt my feelings over what he/she did," etc. we soon start to wonder why we are being so silly, so mean to ourselves. Viola! A much happier life ensues. We stop hitting ourselves on the head with a hammer.

The book is so good I gave away about ten copies over the years and I know that it changed a few lives, including my own. Although it's claimed to have been a best-seller for years, Your Erroneous Zones seems to have had little effect in its own country, yet it's the best self-help book I've read.

I tell you mate, it's a bloody bewdy!

AmateurScientist · 31st March 2003, 02:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by evildave

If any of you feel that you are the personal representative of all "downtrodden" people who are in some manner wronged by the occasional off-color comment, and are outraged "for them", I highly recomment you go get a life of your very own, instead of trying to live other peoples lives by proxy.

When people flame me about some perceived insult to a "group of people" who "ought to be upset", It's really almost as pathetic as people who kill themselves over a dramatic turn in a soap opera. Or perhaps the "virtual death" of a keychain pet.

Agreed. I think it's even more than that. In a very real way, it is a particularly insidious kind of conceit to deem that one knows or even can know what is best for others. This is the cardinal sin of PCers, and by extension, of all bleeding hearts everywhere.

AS

Q-Source · 31st March 2003, 03:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by AmateurScientist

Leftist Busybodies. Funny, but usually "busybody" is a term applied to those who meddle in others' affairs from the moral right.

What does "PC" mean?

Leftist busybodies?, is there another meaning for that?

I am not really sure if I understand what Evildave is saying, but is he suggesting that we should only be offended if someone insults us?

Ummm...

31st March 2003, 03:08 AM

Evildave made some comments that were stereotypical in jest. Someone came along and asked him to refrain from making stereotypical comments for these reasons:

1) They subtly reinforce stereotypes
2) Steroetypes can be harmful

1,2) Hence we can conclude that stereotypical comments can be subtly harmful.

Evildave got offended. But I suppose it is easier for him to remember the other person as the one being offended, hence this thread.

BillyTK · 31st March 2003, 03:17 AM

I'm insulted that someone should be so insensitive as to spell apologising with an extraneous p!

But the use of "z" instead of "s" is just so typical of US cultural imperialism! I demand you apologise on behalf of yourself and your fellow spelling-abusing countrypersons!

Marquis de Carabas · 31st March 2003, 07:41 AM

I refuse to respond to the poll on the grounds that it is offensive to easily offended people.

AmateurScientist · 31st March 2003, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Q-Source

What does "PC" mean?

Leftist busybodies?, is there another meaning for that?

I am not really sure if I understand what Evildave is saying, but is he suggesting that we should only be offended if someone insults us?

Ummm...

PC=Politically Correct.

If you are not familiar with it, it is a wholesale process of declaring that certain words and phrases are themselves "offensive," and thus not to be used, lest one incur the wrath of PC advocates.

It has even gone so far as to be codified in "speech codes" on many US college campuses, in which the use of particular words and phrases is itself deemed "hate speech," and which can bring about official punishment by the school administration.

This is a horrible trend which seeks to inhibit the free exchange of ideas and to force conformity to a particular political orthodoxy or ideology.

I made up "leftist busybodies." A busybody is someone who meddles in the affairs of others, telling them what they can and cannot do. It usually connotes a self-righteous little old lady with her hair in a bun telling others not to drink or smoke or use profanity because God doesn't like that. I think this may have something to do with the legacy of the temperance movement icon Carry Nation.

AS

Skeptical Greg · 31st March 2003, 08:03 AM

Once I got past the point ( in my life ) where I took insults personally, I have subscribed to the philosophy of:

" An insult is only an insult if you accept it."..
Just another version of.. " If the shoe fits....."

Kiwi9,

Dyer's book impressed me also. Since it mostly deals with personal responsibility for one's feelings and actions, it doesn't surprise me that, while being a book that a lot of people would read, and say " Hey, that makes since..", a lot of people would also say " .....he's talking about someone else, cause' I'm not like that.."

Q-Source · 31st March 2003, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by AmateurScientist

PC=Politically Correct.

If you are not familiar with it, it is a wholesale process of declaring that certain words and phrases are themselves "offensive," and thus not to be used, lest one incur the wrath of PC advocates.

Thanks for the explanation.

Quote:

It has even gone so far as to be codified in "speech codes" on many US college campuses, in which the use of particular words and phrases is itself deemed "hate speech," and which can bring about official punishment by the school administration.

It must be terrible to be scared of making a politically incorrect statement.

This just reminds me that in these days, the University where I am doing a research now, sent us a letter where it was recommended to avoid as much as possible to make any comment about the War in Iraq.

Quote:

This is a horrible trend which seeks to inhibit the free exchange of ideas and to force conformity to a particular political orthodoxy or ideology.

It IS horrible if the person who is doing the comment have his free speech limited. But let's also consider the group of people who those opinions are directed to.
Opinions are subjective.

Quote:

I made up "leftist busybodies." A busybody is someone who meddles in the affairs of others, telling them what they can and cannot do. It usually connotes a self-righteous little old lady with her hair in a bun telling others not to drink or smoke or use profanity because God doesn't like that. I think this may have something to do with the legacy of the temperance movement icon Carry Nation.

Really?

Someone in this forum called me a busybody, I thought that he was calling me a Prostitute.

Flaherty · 31st March 2003, 10:02 AM

I'm a graduate of FSU and a big football fan. For about 10 years now there has been a fairly low level attempt to get us to change our athletic nickname, Seminoles. The PC crowd says this name exploits the downtrodden Seminole Tribe.

They are right that the Tribe has been treated badly in the past, but this has nothing to do with Florida State's use of the name. First, the university has the official permission of the Seminole Tribe to use the name. Second, the university sets aside x number of full academic scholarships for the Tribe. Third, the Tribe gets a percentage of the university's merchandising revenues. Fourth, "Seminoles" is simply the offical name of an ethnic group, no different than Irish, Illini, and other names used by various sports teams. It is not the same as deroggetory nicknames such as Redskins.

I think it's clear that both parties benefit from the arrangement. Yet, the protesters, some of whom it must be said are also Seminole indians, proceed as if they know what it best for the Tribe better than the Tribe leadership does. That strikes me as a kind of insulting paternalism, no matter how good the protestors' intentions are. It implicitly assumes that the Seminole Tribe is too stupid or simple to act in its own best interest.

The moment the Seminole Tribe officially tells FSU that it may no longer use their name, then I will support changing it. Until then, the PC people can bite me.

31st March 2003, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rusty_the_boy_robot
Evildave made some comments that were stereotypical in jest. Someone came along and asked him to refrain from making stereotypical comments for these reasons:

1) They subtly reinforce stereotypes
2) Steroetypes can be harmful

1,2) Hence we can conclude that stereotypical comments can be subtly harmful.

Evildave got offended. But I suppose it is easier for him to remember the other person as the one being offended, hence this thread.

Gosh, and this guy's so bad, he's telling me what I should be upset about!

neutrino_cannon · 31st March 2003, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by c4ts
Well, there was that one time- today- when I felt sorry for that Desim board becasue Franko payed a visit, posting under the name of Serpent.

No way!

Surely it was another logical deist, I hear the godess has many clients... folowers! Yeah, that's it.

Point the way please *rubs hands together*, I have a lot of make up *mutters something incoherant about TLOP*.

edited to add:

Oh, wait. He submerged again, perhaps never to be seen. Oh well, got too excited there, didn't read the whole post.

Dragonrock · 1st April 2003, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Flaherty
I'm a graduate of FSU and a big football fan. For about 10 years now there has been a fairly low level attempt to get us to change our athletic nickname, Seminoles. The PC crowd says this name exploits the downtrodden Seminole Tribe.

They are right that the Tribe has been treated badly in the past, but this has nothing to do with Florida State's use of the name. First, the university has the official permission of the Seminole Tribe to use the name. Second, the university sets aside x number of full academic scholarships for the Tribe. Third, the Tribe gets a percentage of the university's merchandising revenues. Fourth, "Seminoles" is simply the offical name of an ethnic group, no different than Irish, Illini, and other names used by various sports teams. It is not the same as deroggetory nicknames such as Redskins.

I think it's clear that both parties benefit from the arrangement. Yet, the protesters, some of whom it must be said are also Seminole indians, proceed as if they know what it best for the Tribe better than the Tribe leadership does. That strikes me as a kind of insulting paternalism, no matter how good the protestors' intentions are. It implicitly assumes that the Seminole Tribe is too stupid or simple to act in its own best interest.

The moment the Seminole Tribe officially tells FSU that it may no longer use their name, then I will support changing it. Until then, the PC people can bite me.

This reminds me of the American Indian highschool football team who called themselves the "Fighting Whites". They did it to call attention to the use of names like the reds or the redskins. However, Most people loved it and the students got upset when people did not get offended.

Beleth · 1st April 2003, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by evildave
If any of you feel that you are the personal representative of all "downtrodden" people who are in some manner wronged by the occasional off-color comment, and are outraged "for them", I highly recomment you go get a life of your very own, instead of trying to live other peoples lives by proxy.

How about when the opposite happens?

Say, for instance, that you're straight, but have mannerisms or other attributes that are typically associated with homosexuals. Say that you personally find nothing wrong with being homosexual; it just so happens that you are not.

Should you be offended when someone calls you gay?

Skeptical Greg · 1st April 2003, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Beleth
How about when the opposite happens?

Say, for instance, that you're straight, but have mannerisms or other attributes that are typically associated with homosexuals. Say that you personally find nothing wrong with being homosexual; it just so happens that you are not.

Should you be offended when someone calls you gay?

Offended? Only if you think there is something wrong with being gay..

I find it hard to be offended by someone elses stupidity and ignorance...

As I said earlier, " What's an insult, if you don't accept it?".

1st April 2003, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Should you be offended when someone calls you gay?

What? As in bright, lively happy? If a 78 year old woman called your clothes "gay", would you actually fly off the handle at her? Are you so insecure about your sexuality?

Or more importantly, do you really care what some random jerk says about you?

Of course, this is a directed insult, rather than a perceived insult. If some moron called you "gay", nobody would get particularly upset at all about it "for you". Unless (of course) they thought you were some sort of weak/feeble person who couldn't take care of himself. Then they might jump in. "Don't harrass the retard!"

Do you consider the people you "get upset for" to be weak and feeble? Isn't that in its self an implied insult?

I'm certainly not going to be the one to behave in any way "offended" about someone calling me "gay". You have to work especially hard on an insult for me to give it personal notice.

Rather than flipping out at people for saying things that "might" be offensive to others, why not concentrate on proper education, instead? If you think someone is being inadvertently insensitive, why not take them aside and talk about it? If you think they're being deliberately insensitive, or are thoroughly conditioned to be insensitive, what makes you think you'll change them by becomming indignant?

The world is full of diversity, and there's nothing wrong with that. I feel it's actually quite healthy to have it.

If everyone simply conformed, and were forced to believe the same things and behaved in exactly the same way, that would be a textbook model for a stagnant life-crushing Hell on Earth.

It's just too bad certain religious types seem to want exactly that.

Kevin_Lowe · 2nd April 2003, 03:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by evildave

If any of you feel that you are the personal representative of all "downtrodden" people who are in some manner wronged by the occasional off-color comment, and are outraged "for them", I highly recomment you go get a life of your very own, instead of trying to live other peoples lives by proxy.

:sarcasm on:

Boy, I wish we could build a time machine and send you back in time to sort out those PC white civil rights activists who got all offended over racial segregation. They all needed to get lives, instead of trying to live other people's lives by proxy.

Skeptical Greg · 2nd April 2003, 04:17 AM

Wow, 20 replys before anyone played the ' race ' card..

Not a record, but respectable.

Christian · 2nd April 2003, 06:56 AM

These people are missing the point.

1) It is a fallacy to believe one can say anything that he or she wants.

Diogenes wrote:
I find it hard to be offended by someone elses stupidity and ignorance...

As I said earlier, " What's an insult, if you don't accept it?".

2) It not a matter of being offended or not, if the people around you start believing your are a paedophile, it is irrelevant whether you accept the insult or not. The consequences of other's perceptions can be hazarous to your well being.

I can't recall if you are an atheist or not. But I've heard many complain forcefully about the perception that atheist are immoral. I think atheist are right to complain.

BillyTK · 2nd April 2003, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Christian
2) It not a matter of being offended or not, if the people around you start believing your are a paedophile, it is irrelevant whether you accept the insult or not. The consequences of other's perceptions can be hazarous to your well being.

For example: Paediatrician attacks 'ignorant' vandals

Quote:

A hospital paediatrician has hit out at vandals who forced her to flee her home after apparently taking her job title to mean she was a paedophile

...and I wish I was making this up. An extreme case admittedly, but not the only one.

AmateurScientist · 2nd April 2003, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Flaherty
I'm a graduate of FSU and a big football fan. For about 10 years now there has been a fairly low level attempt to get us to change our athletic nickname, Seminoles. The PC crowd says this name exploits the downtrodden Seminole Tribe.

I agree with you. If "Seminole" were some sort of racial or ethic eptithet or slur, than the PC crown might have a point. There is nothing derogatory about calling a group by the same name they call themselves, however, especially when it is not at all pejorative.

I regard the Atlanta Braves in exactly the same fashion. "Braves" has never been a pejorative term. It refers to noble Indian warriors. How is that a slur? How can anyone reasonable take offense at this neutral, or even flattering and admirable name?

Cleveland Indians. Despite that they traditionally suck as a team, the term "Indians" has historically not been a pejorative term. If anything, it is simply ambiguous and geographically misleading. So? It is simply not derogatory and shouldn't be a PC target. Why is "Native American" preferable. It is no more accurate than "Indian," as the so-called Native Americans simply immigrated to the Americas thousands of years before European explorers and immigrants did.

Again, PC idiots.

The irony is that before the whitebread limosine liberal PC crowd started taking "offense" by proxy for the Indians, no one heard any criticism or hurt expressed by the Indians themselves. I suspect that many were actually proud for their people to be recgnized and adopted as team names.

AS

PC idiots.

2nd April 2003, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

:sarcasm on:

Boy, I wish we could build a time machine and send you back in time to sort out those PC white civil rights activists who got all offended over racial segregation. They all needed to get lives, instead of trying to live other people's lives by proxy.

Welcome to the forum.

So, is this extreme example on a par with someone freaking out over a misinterpreted joke read off the internet?

I happen to enjoy what could be seen as terribly "offensive" jokes occasionally. I seek them out. Even compose them. World Trade Center jokes. Space Shuttle jokes. Heck, even the occasional priest/pedophile joke.

How would you care to illustrate the connection where telling a joke (even a particularly off-color one) is akin to agreeing with abominable systems like apartheid?

The idea of cleaning up communication to remove components that are offensive according to racial, gender, religious and other cultural components to make information accessible to everyone is a noble goal.

The practice of creatively misinterpreting every statement to mean people support various forms of bigotry is exactly contrary to the original goals that "Political Correctness" sought to achieve. It tends to portray people who only support clear, accessible communication into "fringe wackos" due to their association with the actual fringe wackos who stir up a tempest in a teapot at every opportunity.

It's similar to those "anti-war" protestors who doctor pictures of 'Dubya' into Hitler look-alikes. They do more harm to their own cause than they help it...

Of course, a large portion of America's population can't tell ad-hominem attacks from valid arguments, so perhaps these "wackos" are using the most effective means of communication to reach the majority of people. It sure seems to work in politics.

Skeptical Greg · 3rd April 2003, 04:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Christian
These people are missing the point.

1) It is a fallacy to believe one can say anything that he or she wants.

2) It not a matter of being offended or not, if the people around you start believing your are a paedophile, it is irrelevant whether you accept the insult or not. The consequences of other's perceptions can be hazarous to your well being.

I can't recall if you are an atheist or not. But I've heard many complain forcefully about the perception that atheist are immoral. I think atheist are right to complain.

These are some excellent points..

Thanks for pointing out a flaw in my thinking..

I have a little regrouping to do..

Christian · 3rd April 2003, 06:48 AM

Evildave wrote:
So, is this extreme example on a par with someone freaking out over a misinterpreted joke read off the internet?

I happen to enjoy what could be seen as terribly "offensive" jokes occasionally. I seek them out. Even compose them. World Trade Center jokes. Space Shuttle jokes. Heck, even the occasional priest/pedophile joke.

How would you care to illustrate the connection where telling a joke (even a particularly off-color one) is akin to agreeing with abominable systems like apartheid?

The idea of cleaning up communication to remove components that are offensive according to racial, gender, religious and other cultural components to make information accessible to everyone is a noble goal.

The practice of creatively misinterpreting every statement to mean people support various forms of bigotry is exactly contrary to the original goals that "Political Correctness" sought to achieve. It tends to portray people who only support clear, accessible communication into "fringe wackos" due to their association with the actual fringe wackos who stir up a tempest in a teapot at every opportunity.

It's similar to those "anti-war" protestors who doctor pictures of 'Dubya' into Hitler look-alikes. They do more harm to their own cause than they help it...

Of course, a large portion of America's population can't tell ad-hominem attacks from valid arguments, so perhaps these "wackos" are using the most effective means of communication to reach the majority of people. It sure seems to work in politics.

The level of you speech has risen to a serious level and now you are engaging in real debate. I'm glad.

Regardless if I agree with you or not, the way you are presenting your ideas tells me there is a purpose to your jokes and I can respect that.

Diogenes wrote:
These are some excellent points..

Thanks for pointing out a flaw in my thinking..

I have a little regrouping to do..

I not only can respect this, but admire it in a *huge* way.

Beleth · 3rd April 2003, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by evildave

Quote:

Originally posted by Beleth
Should you be offended when someone calls you gay?

What? As in bright, lively happy?

No, of course not.

Quote:

If a 78 year old woman called your clothes "gay", would you actually fly off the handle at her? Are you so insecure about your sexuality?

Or more importantly, do you really care what some random jerk says about you?

It depends on the situation. I can think of scenarios - being in a redneck bar, for instance - where being called gay by some random jerk could potentially get you very well beaten up.

Quote:

Of course, this is a directed insult, rather than a perceived insult. If some moron called you "gay", nobody would get particularly upset at all about it "for you".

No, not "for you", but definitely "against you".

Quote:

Do you consider the people you "get upset for" to be weak and feeble? Isn't that in its self an implied insult?

I know when someone is using a word as an insult. Whether I personally find that word insulting or not is immaterial.

I went to Canada for a week on a student exchange program. (It was in junior high, so it was a big thing for the time.) A bunch of the Canadian students there called us American students "Yankees". Now, we didn't take it as an insult, but they certainly meant it as an insult.

Quote:

Rather than flipping out at people for saying things that "might" be offensive to others, why not concentrate on proper education, instead? If you think someone is being inadvertently insensitive, why not take them aside and talk about it? If you think they're being deliberately insensitive, or are thoroughly conditioned to be insensitive, what makes you think you'll change them by becomming indignant?

And what makes you think I'll change them by talking to them? Do you take kindly to being lectured by strangers?

Quote:

The world is full of diversity, and there's nothing wrong with that. I feel it's actually quite healthy to have it.

I would love to live in a world where that viewpoint was the rule, and not the exception, like it is in the world we live in...

3rd April 2003, 06:58 PM

The thing is, diversity includes those buttheads who say "bad" things.

My only recommendation would be not to hang around in "red neck bars" where people are prone to pick fights. That sounds stupid, rather than "politically correct".

Where you may be "certain" that people won't "listen" to a rational appeal, why should they even give notice to some sort of whiney and antagonizing behavior when you overhear something said in a way you don't like.

You know, I don't personally care what however many red neck mouth breathers think (and "red neck" is a derogatory term, just like "******" BTW). If you go into a "red neck" bar where they are prone to speak and behave in non-"PC" manners, and then try to "correct" them there, you are asking to have your ass kicked.

You especially deserve it if you walk into a place where you happen to see "cowboy hats" and just assume they're all a bunch of bigots.

They've called Americans "Yanks" in Canada, the UK and lots of other places for a very, very long time now. If you get upset about that, I'm afraid for what you'll do at an ice cream parlor that has what you perceive to be the wrong name for "chocolate".

c4ts · 3rd April 2003, 07:31 PM

I like baseball, but I hate that part where I lose. Something should be done about that...

Skeptical Greg · 4th April 2003, 04:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by evildave

Rather than flipping out at people for saying things that "might" be offensive to others, why not concentrate on proper education, instead? If you think someone is being inadvertently insensitive, why not take them aside and talk about it? If you think they're being deliberately insensitive, or are thoroughly conditioned to be insensitive, what makes you think you'll change them by becomming indignant?

I appreciate the sincerity of this Dave, but I couldn't stifle the image of Gene Wilder and Richard Pryor in ' Stir Crazy ', trying to reason with their fellow inmates. ( I believe it was Wilder trying to reason in Pryors defense )

4th April 2003, 07:51 AM

Ah, I see.

I don't mean "education" as in try to educate the adults who've formed habits of a lifetime.

I mean kids, who haven't developed these strong patterns, yet. With a little consistant sensitivity training, the behavior will be quite eradicated within a century.

Of course, that does require long-term planning, and commitment to a goal that you probably won't live to see achieved.

That's yet another weakness of the human condition illustrated: Patience.

Skeptical Greg · 4th April 2003, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by evildave
Ah, I see.

I don't mean "education" as in try to educate the adults who've formed habits of a lifetime.

I mean kids, who haven't developed these strong patterns, yet. With a little consistant sensitivity training, the behavior will be quite eradicated within a century.

Of course, that does require long-term planning, and commitment to a goal that you probably won't live to see achieved.

That's yet another weakness of the human condition illustrated: Patience.

I do understand.

Contrary to the environment I was bought up in, I have made an extreme effort not to discuss other people with my son (soon to be 9 ), in terms of race, skin hue, religion, culture (past or present), percieved or obvious handicap, etc., and I find it refreshing that he does not do this out of hand either.

When you sit down with a child and start discussing some past atrocity, done by a group of people to another group of people, they will immediately choose sides(mentally), and start treating those sides differently, but not necessarily in the manner you intended or in a manner you might consider fair and just.

I think the point I'm trying to make, is that you do not have to educate children about the differences in people. If there really is a difference, they will discover it for themselves.

The problem we face though, is that they do get exposed to the influence of the opinions of other people, and our best intentions often equate to damage control, after the fact.

4th April 2003, 10:16 AM

And if a LOT of people spent this sort of time and effort teaching their children, and if it was covered regularly in school, and what would be the net effect?

As they get older, cover community response to hate.

Certainly prejudice and hate will never be gone. Even if you "eradicated" it, someone would only "reinvent" it as soon as the education against it stopped.

Simply keep innoculating children against it, and at least you'll always have the majority be immune, or at least aware of and actively resisting it.

Having that curious minority of haters around is still very useful as people you can show how "not to be like". This is in its self a prejudice, but prejudice directed against prejudice is better than prejudice directed at people for other reasons.

Beleth · 4th April 2003, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by evildave
You know, I don't personally care what however many red neck mouth breathers think (and "red neck" is a derogatory term, just like "******" BTW).

To have you point this out is precisely why I used it.

Are you, yourself, a redneck? If not, aren't you being a bit hypocritical by claiming that the term is derogatory in the same thread that you espouse that it's wrong to be offended "for" someone else?

Quote:

They've called Americans "Yanks" in Canada, the UK and lots of other places for a very, very long time now. If you get upset about that, I'm afraid for what you'll do at an ice cream parlor that has what you perceive to be the wrong name for "chocolate".

You know, if you actually read what I wrote, you would have seen this line:

Quote:

Originally posted by Beleth
Now, we didn't take it as an insult, but they certainly meant it as an insult.

In other words, I didn't get upset at that. So I'm not sure what your point is here.

4th April 2003, 07:08 PM

I don't think they "meant" it as an insult.

They could've said "Fine upstanding citizens of the United States of America", and you could have taken it as an insult, anyway. At least they didn't call you "wetbacks", for comming up from south of the border.

As for "being a redneck", I do score points on the Foxworthy index. I own an old and very beat up pickup truck. The highways and roads to my house are numbered instead of named. I live in a rural setting. I have a gravel driveway. I let weeds grow in my yard, then let them die off so I can mow them only once. I have even lived in Mississippi, Oklahoma and Texas. By the very metrics of most people who would arbitrarily use the term "redneck" in a derogatory manner, I am indeed a "redneck". I've even had a sunburn on my neck.

Kevin_Lowe · 7th April 2003, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by evildave

Welcome to the forum.

So, is this extreme example on a par with someone freaking out over a misinterpreted joke read off the internet?

I happen to enjoy what could be seen as terribly "offensive" jokes occasionally. I seek them out. Even compose them. World Trade Center jokes. Space Shuttle jokes. Heck, even the occasional priest/pedophile joke.

How would you care to illustrate the connection where telling a joke (even a particularly off-color one) is akin to agreeing with abominable systems like apartheid?

I suppose it's akin in a very loose sense if the joke is sufficiently offensive, sufficiently bad, and picks out an already oppressed group for ridicule.

I like a good Space Shuttle joke myself. Irish jokes and Scot jokes were staples for comedians like The Two Ronnies, but they usually pitched them sufficiently cleverly that they seemed witty rather than racist. Like their news item about the Glasgow Theatre Company's performance of Three Coins in a Fountain, which was closed by police after the audience rushed the stage.

But I've read some racist jokes that were so unfunny they struck me as being racist abuse under a very thin veneer of jokedom. So I'd feel obliged to get stuck into people who told such jokes in my presence. Tell me to get a life if you will.

Dancing David · 7th April 2003, 11:07 AM

I agree whole heartedly that we should not get offended for other people!

However I am not sure that it is good for all of us to stand by while someone makes that offensive joke. Some humor is based upon cultural reversal ( I'll type slowly and twice if you don't understand), some humor is based upon derision of other people for being who they are (look somebody threw away a perfectly good while male).

Humor that is abusive should not be tolerated as it is a form of violence and perpetuates violence.

Right now I think that it is PC to bash the PC movement. I do feel that institutional prejudice should be changed.

Second favorite bumper sticker: Nuke a Gay whale for Jesus.

Peace dancing David

PS What did the masochist about the sadist?

No (Hah! Cthulhu will eat it, then you'll know you had one)	3	75.00%
Yes, and willing to have it eaten	0	0%
Yes, but unwilling to have it eaten (tough)	0	0%
He has agreed not to eat my soul, for now	1	25.00%
other (specify)	0	0%
Voters: 4. You may not vote on this poll

30th March 2003, 10:06 PM	#1
evildave Guest Posts: n/a	"Appologizing" For Perceived Insults It's really one thing to be personally offended about something that's said to you. If you are offended for other people, in the P.C. case, I think Scott Adams in his book, "Dilbert and the Way of the Weasel", summed it up best. In the sense of appologizing to people who are outraged in the name of others, the nicest thing I can say is, "I'm sorry that you feel that way." I'm not personally always going to be that nice. If any of you feel that you are the personal representative of all "downtrodden" people who are in some manner wronged by the occasional off-color comment, and are outraged "for them", I highly recomment you go get a life of your very own, instead of trying to live other peoples lives by proxy. When people flame me about some perceived insult to a "group of people" who "ought to be upset", It's really almost as pathetic as people who kill themselves over a dramatic turn in a soap opera. Or perhaps the "virtual death" of a keychain pet.
evildave Guest Posts: n/a

30th March 2003, 10:21 PM	#2
c4ts Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Your base Posts: 8,427	Well, there was that one time- today- when I felt sorry for that Desim board becasue Franko payed a visit, posting under the name of Serpent.
	__________________ Ha ha ha ha.... Stupid signature size limit.

30th March 2003, 10:25 PM	#3
evildave Guest Posts: n/a	Did you feel offended because they "should be"?
evildave Guest Posts: n/a

30th March 2003, 10:30 PM	#4
c4ts Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Your base Posts: 8,427	Quote: Originally posted by evildave *Did you feel offended* because they "should be"?** Uh, no, not really. I was mostly offended that "Serpent" was using his posts by "Franko" and "Wraith" on this message board to prove that Logical Deism was spreading across the web! Honestly, I haven't seen anything from him lately anywhere, and can only assume it means that everybody has ceased to exist but him.
	__________________ Ha ha ha ha.... Stupid signature size limit.

31st March 2003, 12:58 AM	#5
AmateurScientist JREF Kid Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 5,325	Excellent commentary Dave. I've had this very same reaction oh so many times, but just haven't articulated as you have just now. Leftist Busybodies. Funny, but usually "busybody" is a term applied to those who meddle in others' affairs from the moral right. AS

31st March 2003, 02:33 AM	#6
Kiwi9 Scholar Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 70	It's really one thing to be personally offended about something that's said to you. Why be so nasty to oneself? Why take offence? Doing so is a choice we make, and not a very sensible one. About 25 years ago I fortunately came across Wayne W. Dyer's book Your Erroneous Zones, and still have it -- brown-pages, faded cover, dog-ears, underlinings and all. The best part is on pages 20-24 where Dyer shows us, using logic, that we can choose how we feel, and that if we change our language from, "That p____s me off" to, "I p____d myself off over that," and to, "I hurt my feelings over what he/she did," etc. we soon start to wonder why we are being so silly, so mean to ourselves. Viola! A much happier life ensues. We stop hitting ourselves on the head with a hammer. The book is so good I gave away about ten copies over the years and I know that it changed a few lives, including my own. Although it's claimed to have been a best-seller for years, Your Erroneous Zones seems to have had little effect in its own country, yet it's the best self-help book I've read. I tell you mate, it's a bloody bewdy!
Kiwi9 Scholar Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 70

31st March 2003, 02:45 AM	#7
AmateurScientist JREF Kid Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 5,325	Re: "Appologizing" For Perceived Insults Quote: Originally posted by evildave If any of you feel that you are the personal representative of all "downtrodden" people who are in some manner wronged by the occasional off-color comment, and are outraged "for them", I highly recomment you go get a life of your very own, instead of trying to live other peoples lives by proxy. When people flame me about some perceived insult to a "group of people" who "ought to be upset", It's really almost as pathetic as people who kill themselves over a dramatic turn in a soap opera. Or perhaps the "virtual death" of a keychain pet. Agreed. I think it's even more than that. In a very real way, it is a particularly insidious kind of conceit to deem that one knows or even can know what is best for others. This is the cardinal sin of PCers, and by extension, of all bleeding hearts everywhere. AS

31st March 2003, 03:02 AM	#8
Q-Source Guest Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 1,268	Quote: Originally posted by AmateurScientist Leftist Busybodies. Funny, but usually "busybody" is a term applied to those who meddle in others' affairs from the moral right. What does "PC" mean? Leftist busybodies?, is there another meaning for that? I am not really sure if I understand what Evildave is saying, but is he suggesting that we should only be offended if someone insults us? Ummm...
Q-Source Guest Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 1,268

31st March 2003, 03:08 AM	#9
Rusty_the_boy_robot Guest Posts: n/a	Evildave made some comments that were stereotypical in jest. Someone came along and asked him to refrain from making stereotypical comments for these reasons: 1) They subtly reinforce stereotypes 2) Steroetypes can be harmful 1,2) Hence we can conclude that stereotypical comments can be subtly harmful. Evildave got offended. But I suppose it is easier for him to remember the other person as the one being offended, hence this thread.
Rusty_the_boy_robot Guest Posts: n/a

31st March 2003, 03:17 AM	#10
BillyTK Master Poster Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 2,625	I'm insulted that someone should be so insensitive as to spell apologising with an extraneous p! But the use of "z" instead of "s" is just so typical of US cultural imperialism! I demand you apologise on behalf of yourself and your fellow spelling-abusing countrypersons!
BillyTK Master Poster Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 2,625	__________________ Part-timer.

31st March 2003, 07:41 AM	#11
Marquis de Carabas Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: vuori Posts: 27,106	I refuse to respond to the poll on the grounds that it is offensive to easily offended people.
	__________________ Jesus ... wasn't he the bloke who turned fish into wine and made the lepers multiply? -KateHL Violence is more acceptable than incest. I have been told to keep this in mind.

31st March 2003, 07:50 AM	#12
AmateurScientist JREF Kid Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 5,325	Quote: Originally posted by Q-Source What does "PC" mean? Leftist busybodies?, is there another meaning for that? I am not really sure if I understand what Evildave is saying, but is he suggesting that we should only be offended if someone insults us? Ummm... PC=Politically Correct. If you are not familiar with it, it is a wholesale process of declaring that certain words and phrases are themselves "offensive," and thus not to be used, lest one incur the wrath of PC advocates. It has even gone so far as to be codified in "speech codes" on many US college campuses, in which the use of particular words and phrases is itself deemed "hate speech," and which can bring about official punishment by the school administration. This is a horrible trend which seeks to inhibit the free exchange of ideas and to force conformity to a particular political orthodoxy or ideology. I made up "leftist busybodies." A busybody is someone who meddles in the affairs of others, telling them what they can and cannot do. It usually connotes a self-righteous little old lady with her hair in a bun telling others not to drink or smoke or use profanity because God doesn't like that. I think this may have something to do with the legacy of the temperance movement icon Carry Nation. AS

31st March 2003, 08:03 AM	#13
Skeptical Greg Agave Wine Connoisseur Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past 'Resume Speed' Posts: 12,874	Once I got past the point ( in my life ) where I took insults personally, I have subscribed to the philosophy of: " An insult is only an insult if you accept it.".. Just another version of.. " If the shoe fits....." Kiwi9, Dyer's book impressed me also. Since it mostly deals with personal responsibility for one's feelings and actions, it doesn't surprise me that, while being a book that a lot of people would read, and say " Hey, that makes since..", a lot of people would also say " .....he's talking about someone else, cause' I'm not like that.."
	__________________ " Somewhere between Jesus dying on the cross, and a giant bunny hiding eggs,there seems to be a gap in information. " Stan - Southpark Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

31st March 2003, 08:50 AM	#14
Q-Source Guest Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 1,268	Quote: Originally posted by AmateurScientist PC=Politically Correct. If you are not familiar with it, it is a wholesale process of declaring that certain words and phrases are themselves "offensive," and thus not to be used, lest one incur the wrath of PC advocates. Thanks for the explanation. Quote: It has even gone so far as to be codified in "speech codes" on many US college campuses, in which the use of particular words and phrases is itself deemed "hate speech," and which can bring about official punishment by the school administration. It must be terrible to be scared of making a politically incorrect statement. This just reminds me that in these days, the University where I am doing a research now, sent us a letter where it was recommended to avoid as much as possible to make any comment about the War in Iraq. Quote: This is a horrible trend which seeks to inhibit the free exchange of ideas and to force conformity to a particular political orthodoxy or ideology. It IS horrible if the person who is doing the comment have his free speech limited. But let's also consider the group of people who those opinions are directed to. Opinions are subjective. Quote: I made up "leftist busybodies." A busybody is someone who meddles in the affairs of others, telling them what they can and cannot do. It usually connotes a self-righteous little old lady with her hair in a bun telling others not to drink or smoke or use profanity because God doesn't like that. I think this may have something to do with the legacy of the temperance movement icon Carry Nation. Really? Someone in this forum called me a busybody, I thought that he was calling me a Prostitute.
Q-Source Guest Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 1,268

31st March 2003, 10:02 AM	#15
Flaherty Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 292	Florida State Seminoles I'm a graduate of FSU and a big football fan. For about 10 years now there has been a fairly low level attempt to get us to change our athletic nickname, Seminoles. The PC crowd says this name exploits the downtrodden Seminole Tribe. They are right that the Tribe has been treated badly in the past, but this has nothing to do with Florida State's use of the name. First, the university has the official permission of the Seminole Tribe to use the name. Second, the university sets aside x number of full academic scholarships for the Tribe. Third, the Tribe gets a percentage of the university's merchandising revenues. Fourth, "Seminoles" is simply the offical name of an ethnic group, no different than Irish, Illini, and other names used by various sports teams. It is not the same as deroggetory nicknames such as Redskins. I think it's clear that both parties benefit from the arrangement. Yet, the protesters, some of whom it must be said are also Seminole indians, proceed as if they know what it best for the Tribe better than the Tribe leadership does. That strikes me as a kind of insulting paternalism, no matter how good the protestors' intentions are. It implicitly assumes that the Seminole Tribe is too stupid or simple to act in its own best interest. The moment the Seminole Tribe officially tells FSU that it may no longer use their name, then I will support changing it. Until then, the PC people can bite me.
Flaherty Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 292	__________________ "After all, who of us in our lives hasn't set fire to some great public building?" -- Graham Chapman

31st March 2003, 07:18 PM	#16
evildave Guest Posts: n/a	Quote: Originally posted by Rusty_the_boy_robot Evildave made some comments that were stereotypical in jest. Someone came along and asked him to refrain from making stereotypical comments for these reasons: 1) They subtly reinforce stereotypes 2) Steroetypes can be harmful 1,2) Hence we can conclude that stereotypical comments can be subtly harmful. Evildave got offended. But I suppose it is easier for him to remember the other person as the one being offended, hence this thread. Gosh, and this guy's so bad, he's telling me what I should be upset about!
evildave Guest Posts: n/a

31st March 2003, 07:28 PM	#17
neutrino_cannon Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Seventh circle of limbo Posts: 2,575	Quote: Originally posted by c4ts Well, there was that one time- today- when I felt sorry for that Desim board becasue Franko payed a visit, posting under the name of Serpent. No way! Surely it was another logical deist, I hear the godess has many clients... folowers! Yeah, that's it. Point the way please rubs hands together, I have a lot of make up mutters something incoherant about TLOP. edited to add: Oh, wait. He submerged again, perhaps never to be seen. Oh well, got too excited there, didn't read the whole post.
	__________________ "Man would have been too happy, if, limiting himself to the visible objects which interested him, he had employed, to perfect his real sciences, his laws, his morals, his education, one half-the efforts he has put into his researches on the Divinity" -Percy Bysshe Shelley, The Necessity of Atheism

1st April 2003, 10:00 AM	#18
Dragonrock Militant Elvisian Tacoist Join Date: May 2002 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 9,856	Re: Florida State Seminoles Quote: Originally posted by Flaherty I'm a graduate of FSU and a big football fan. For about 10 years now there has been a fairly low level attempt to get us to change our athletic nickname, Seminoles. The PC crowd says this name exploits the downtrodden Seminole Tribe. They are right that the Tribe has been treated badly in the past, but this has nothing to do with Florida State's use of the name. First, the university has the official permission of the Seminole Tribe to use the name. Second, the university sets aside x number of full academic scholarships for the Tribe. Third, the Tribe gets a percentage of the university's merchandising revenues. Fourth, "Seminoles" is simply the offical name of an ethnic group, no different than Irish, Illini, and other names used by various sports teams. It is not the same as deroggetory nicknames such as Redskins. I think it's clear that both parties benefit from the arrangement. Yet, the protesters, some of whom it must be said are also Seminole indians, proceed as if they know what it best for the Tribe better than the Tribe leadership does. That strikes me as a kind of insulting paternalism, no matter how good the protestors' intentions are. It implicitly assumes that the Seminole Tribe is too stupid or simple to act in its own best interest. The moment the Seminole Tribe officially tells FSU that it may no longer use their name, then I will support changing it. Until then, the PC people can bite me. This reminds me of the American Indian highschool football team who called themselves the "Fighting Whites". They did it to call attention to the use of names like the reds or the redskins. However, Most people loved it and the students got upset when people did not get offended.
	__________________ ...it rings a bell in my head that just don't chime...--pillory There is no God but the Great Taco In The Sky and Elvis is his prophet.

1st April 2003, 11:16 AM	#19
Beleth FAQ Creator Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Not in a cave Posts: 4,134	Re: "Appologizing" For Perceived Insults Quote: Originally posted by evildave If any of you feel that you are the personal representative of all "downtrodden" people who are in some manner wronged by the occasional off-color comment, and are outraged "for them", I highly recomment you go get a life of your very own, instead of trying to live other peoples lives by proxy. How about when the opposite happens? Say, for instance, that you're straight, but have mannerisms or other attributes that are typically associated with homosexuals. Say that you personally find nothing wrong with being homosexual; it just so happens that you are not. Should you be offended when someone calls you gay?
	__________________ Administrator and Head Moderator, The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe Forum Big Fan, Stop Sylvia Browne I will come back only after the words "Hi, Nyarl!" are returned to the post http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...5&postcount=14 .

1st April 2003, 11:50 AM	#20
Skeptical Greg Agave Wine Connoisseur Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past 'Resume Speed' Posts: 12,874	Re: Re: "Appologizing" For Perceived Insults Quote: Originally posted by Beleth How about when the opposite happens? Say, for instance, that you're straight, but have mannerisms or other attributes that are typically associated with homosexuals. Say that you personally find nothing wrong with being homosexual; it just so happens that you are not. Should you be offended when someone calls you gay? Offended? Only if you think there is something wrong with being gay.. I find it hard to be offended by someone elses stupidity and ignorance... As I said earlier, " What's an insult, if you don't accept it?".
	__________________ " Somewhere between Jesus dying on the cross, and a giant bunny hiding eggs,there seems to be a gap in information. " Stan - Southpark Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

1st April 2003, 09:54 PM	#21
evildave Guest Posts: n/a	Quote: Should you be offended when someone calls you gay? What? As in bright, lively happy? If a 78 year old woman called your clothes "gay", would you actually fly off the handle at her? Are you so insecure about your sexuality? Or more importantly, do you really care what some random jerk says about you? Of course, this is a directed insult, rather than a perceived insult. If some moron called you "gay", nobody would get particularly upset at all about it "for you". Unless (of course) they thought you were some sort of weak/feeble person who couldn't take care of himself. Then they might jump in. "Don't harrass the retard!" Do you consider the people you "get upset for" to be weak and feeble? Isn't that in its self an implied insult? I'm certainly not going to be the one to behave in any way "offended" about someone calling me "gay". You have to work especially hard on an insult for me to give it personal notice. Rather than flipping out at people for saying things that "might" be offensive to others, why not concentrate on proper education, instead? If you think someone is being inadvertently insensitive, why not take them aside and talk about it? If you think they're being deliberately insensitive, or are thoroughly conditioned to be insensitive, what makes you think you'll change them by becomming indignant? The world is full of diversity, and there's nothing wrong with that. I feel it's actually quite healthy to have it. If everyone simply conformed, and were forced to believe the same things and behaved in exactly the same way, that would be a textbook model for a stagnant life-crushing Hell on Earth. It's just too bad certain religious types seem to want exactly that.
evildave Guest Posts: n/a

2nd April 2003, 03:56 AM	#22
Kevin_Lowe Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Queensland Posts: 10,290	Re: "Appologizing" For Perceived Insults Quote: Originally posted by evildave If any of you feel that you are the personal representative of all "downtrodden" people who are in some manner wronged by the occasional off-color comment, and are outraged "for them", I highly recomment you go get a life of your very own, instead of trying to live other peoples lives by proxy. :sarcasm on: Boy, I wish we could build a time machine and send you back in time to sort out those PC white civil rights activists who got all offended over racial segregation. They all needed to get lives, instead of trying to live other people's lives by proxy.

2nd April 2003, 04:17 AM	#23
Skeptical Greg Agave Wine Connoisseur Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past 'Resume Speed' Posts: 12,874	Wow, 20 replys before anyone played the ' race ' card.. Not a record, but respectable.
	__________________ " Somewhere between Jesus dying on the cross, and a giant bunny hiding eggs,there seems to be a gap in information. " Stan - Southpark Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

2nd April 2003, 06:56 AM	#24
Christian Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: El Salvador Posts: 1,090	These people are missing the point. 1) It is a fallacy to believe one can say anything that he or she wants. Diogenes wrote: I find it hard to be offended by someone elses stupidity and ignorance... As I said earlier, " What's an insult, if you don't accept it?". 2) It not a matter of being offended or not, if the people around you start believing your are a paedophile, it is irrelevant whether you accept the insult or not. The consequences of other's perceptions can be hazarous to your well being. I can't recall if you are an atheist or not. But I've heard many complain forcefully about the perception that atheist are immoral. I think atheist are right to complain.
	__________________ "The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place." George Bernand Shaw.-

2nd April 2003, 07:47 AM	#25
BillyTK Master Poster Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 2,625	Quote: Originally posted by Christian 2) It not a matter of being offended or not, if the people around you start believing your are a paedophile, it is irrelevant whether you accept the insult or not. The consequences of other's perceptions can be hazarous to your well being. For example: Paediatrician attacks 'ignorant' vandals Quote: A hospital paediatrician has hit out at vandals who forced her to flee her home after apparently taking her job title to mean she was a paedophile ...and I wish I was making this up. An extreme case admittedly, but not the only one.
BillyTK Master Poster Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 2,625	__________________ Part-timer.

2nd April 2003, 06:41 PM	#26
AmateurScientist JREF Kid Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 5,325	Re: Florida State Seminoles Quote: Originally posted by Flaherty I'm a graduate of FSU and a big football fan. For about 10 years now there has been a fairly low level attempt to get us to change our athletic nickname, Seminoles. The PC crowd says this name exploits the downtrodden Seminole Tribe. I agree with you. If "Seminole" were some sort of racial or ethic eptithet or slur, than the PC crown might have a point. There is nothing derogatory about calling a group by the same name they call themselves, however, especially when it is not at all pejorative. I regard the Atlanta Braves in exactly the same fashion. "Braves" has never been a pejorative term. It refers to noble Indian warriors. How is that a slur? How can anyone reasonable take offense at this neutral, or even flattering and admirable name? Cleveland Indians. Despite that they traditionally suck as a team, the term "Indians" has historically not been a pejorative term. If anything, it is simply ambiguous and geographically misleading. So? It is simply not derogatory and shouldn't be a PC target. Why is "Native American" preferable. It is no more accurate than "Indian," as the so-called Native Americans simply immigrated to the Americas thousands of years before European explorers and immigrants did. Again, PC idiots. The irony is that before the whitebread limosine liberal PC crowd started taking "offense" by proxy for the Indians, no one heard any criticism or hurt expressed by the Indians themselves. I suspect that many were actually proud for their people to be recgnized and adopted as team names. AS PC idiots.

2nd April 2003, 08:23 PM	#27
evildave Guest Posts: n/a	Re: Re: "Appologizing" For Perceived Insults Quote: Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe :sarcasm on: Boy, I wish we could build a time machine and send you back in time to sort out those PC white civil rights activists who got all offended over racial segregation. They all needed to get lives, instead of trying to live other people's lives by proxy. Welcome to the forum. So, is this extreme example on a par with someone freaking out over a misinterpreted joke read off the internet? I happen to enjoy what could be seen as terribly "offensive" jokes occasionally. I seek them out. Even compose them. World Trade Center jokes. Space Shuttle jokes. Heck, even the occasional priest/pedophile joke. How would you care to illustrate the connection where telling a joke (even a particularly off-color one) is akin to agreeing with abominable systems like apartheid? The idea of cleaning up communication to remove components that are offensive according to racial, gender, religious and other cultural components to make information accessible to everyone is a noble goal. The practice of creatively misinterpreting every statement to mean people support various forms of bigotry is exactly contrary to the original goals that "Political Correctness" sought to achieve. It tends to portray people who only support clear, accessible communication into "fringe wackos" due to their association with the actual fringe wackos who stir up a tempest in a teapot at every opportunity. It's similar to those "anti-war" protestors who doctor pictures of 'Dubya' into Hitler look-alikes. They do more harm to their own cause than they help it... Of course, a large portion of America's population can't tell ad-hominem attacks from valid arguments, so perhaps these "wackos" are using the most effective means of communication to reach the majority of people. It sure seems to work in politics.
evildave Guest Posts: n/a

3rd April 2003, 04:22 AM	#28
Skeptical Greg Agave Wine Connoisseur Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past 'Resume Speed' Posts: 12,874	Quote: Originally posted by Christian These people are missing the point. 1) It is a fallacy to believe one can say anything that he or she wants. 2) It not a matter of being offended or not, if the people around you start believing your are a paedophile, it is irrelevant whether you accept the insult or not. The consequences of other's perceptions can be hazarous to your well being. I can't recall if you are an atheist or not. But I've heard many complain forcefully about the perception that atheist are immoral. I think atheist are right to complain. These are some excellent points.. Thanks for pointing out a flaw in my thinking.. I have a little regrouping to do..
	__________________ " Somewhere between Jesus dying on the cross, and a giant bunny hiding eggs,there seems to be a gap in information. " Stan - Southpark Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

3rd April 2003, 06:48 AM	#29
Christian Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: El Salvador Posts: 1,090	Evildave wrote: So, is this extreme example on a par with someone freaking out over a misinterpreted joke read off the internet? I happen to enjoy what could be seen as terribly "offensive" jokes occasionally. I seek them out. Even compose them. World Trade Center jokes. Space Shuttle jokes. Heck, even the occasional priest/pedophile joke. How would you care to illustrate the connection where telling a joke (even a particularly off-color one) is akin to agreeing with abominable systems like apartheid? The idea of cleaning up communication to remove components that are offensive according to racial, gender, religious and other cultural components to make information accessible to everyone is a noble goal. The practice of creatively misinterpreting every statement to mean people support various forms of bigotry is exactly contrary to the original goals that "Political Correctness" sought to achieve. It tends to portray people who only support clear, accessible communication into "fringe wackos" due to their association with the actual fringe wackos who stir up a tempest in a teapot at every opportunity. It's similar to those "anti-war" protestors who doctor pictures of 'Dubya' into Hitler look-alikes. They do more harm to their own cause than they help it... Of course, a large portion of America's population can't tell ad-hominem attacks from valid arguments, so perhaps these "wackos" are using the most effective means of communication to reach the majority of people. It sure seems to work in politics. The level of you speech has risen to a serious level and now you are engaging in real debate. I'm glad. Regardless if I agree with you or not, the way you are presenting your ideas tells me there is a purpose to your jokes and I can respect that. Diogenes wrote: These are some excellent points.. Thanks for pointing out a flaw in my thinking.. I have a little regrouping to do.. I not only can respect this, but admire it in a huge way.
	__________________ "The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place." George Bernand Shaw.-

3rd April 2003, 06:43 PM	#30
Beleth FAQ Creator Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Not in a cave Posts: 4,134	Quote: Originally posted by evildave Quote: Originally posted by Beleth Should you be offended when someone calls you gay? What? As in bright, lively happy? No, of course not. Quote: If a 78 year old woman called your clothes "gay", would you actually fly off the handle at her? Are you so insecure about your sexuality? Or more importantly, do you really care what some random jerk says about you? It depends on the situation. I can think of scenarios - being in a redneck bar, for instance - where being called gay by some random jerk could potentially get you very well beaten up. Quote: Of course, this is a directed insult, rather than a perceived insult. If some moron called you "gay", nobody would get particularly upset at all about it "for you". No, not "for you", but definitely "against you". Quote: Do you consider the people you "get upset for" to be weak and feeble? Isn't that in its self an implied insult? I know when someone is using a word as an insult. Whether I personally find that word insulting or not is immaterial. I went to Canada for a week on a student exchange program. (It was in junior high, so it was a big thing for the time.) A bunch of the Canadian students there called us American students "Yankees". Now, we didn't take it as an insult, but they certainly meant it as an insult. Quote: Rather than flipping out at people for saying things that "might" be offensive to others, why not concentrate on proper education, instead? If you think someone is being inadvertently insensitive, why not take them aside and talk about it? If you think they're being deliberately insensitive, or are thoroughly conditioned to be insensitive, what makes you think you'll change them by becomming indignant? And what makes you think I'll change them by talking to them? Do you take kindly to being lectured by strangers? Quote: The world is full of diversity, and there's nothing wrong with that. I feel it's actually quite healthy to have it. I would love to live in a world where that viewpoint was the rule, and not the exception, like it is in the world we live in...
	__________________ Administrator and Head Moderator, The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe Forum Big Fan, Stop Sylvia Browne I will come back only after the words "Hi, Nyarl!" are returned to the post http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...5&postcount=14 .

3rd April 2003, 06:58 PM	#31
evildave Guest Posts: n/a	The thing is, diversity includes those buttheads who say "bad" things. My only recommendation would be not to hang around in "red neck bars" where people are prone to pick fights. That sounds stupid, rather than "politically correct". Where you may be "certain" that people won't "listen" to a rational appeal, why should they even give notice to some sort of whiney and antagonizing behavior when you overhear something said in a way you don't like. You know, I don't personally care what however many red neck mouth breathers think (and "red neck" is a derogatory term, just like "*****" BTW). If you go into a "red neck" bar where they are prone to speak and behave in non-"PC" manners, and then try to "correct" them there, you are asking* to have your ass kicked. You especially deserve it if you walk into a place where you happen to see "cowboy hats" and just assume they're all a bunch of bigots. They've called Americans "Yanks" in Canada, the UK and lots of other places for a very, very long time now. If you get upset about that, I'm afraid for what you'll do at an ice cream parlor that has what you perceive to be the wrong name for "chocolate".
evildave Guest Posts: n/a

3rd April 2003, 07:31 PM	#32
c4ts Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Your base Posts: 8,427	I like baseball, but I hate that part where I lose. Something should be done about that...
	__________________ Ha ha ha ha.... Stupid signature size limit.

4th April 2003, 04:49 AM	#33
Skeptical Greg Agave Wine Connoisseur Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past 'Resume Speed' Posts: 12,874	Quote: Originally posted by evildave Rather than flipping out at people for saying things that "might" be offensive to others, why not concentrate on proper education, instead? If you think someone is being inadvertently insensitive, why not take them aside and talk about it? If you think they're being deliberately insensitive, or are thoroughly conditioned to be insensitive, what makes you think you'll change them by becomming indignant? I appreciate the sincerity of this Dave, but I couldn't stifle the image of Gene Wilder and Richard Pryor in ' Stir Crazy ', trying to reason with their fellow inmates. ( I believe it was Wilder trying to reason in Pryors defense )
	__________________ " Somewhere between Jesus dying on the cross, and a giant bunny hiding eggs,there seems to be a gap in information. " Stan - Southpark Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

4th April 2003, 07:51 AM	#34
evildave Guest Posts: n/a	Ah, I see. I don't mean "education" as in try to educate the adults who've formed habits of a lifetime. I mean kids, who haven't developed these strong patterns, yet. With a little consistant sensitivity training, the behavior will be quite eradicated within a century. Of course, that does require long-term planning, and commitment to a goal that you probably won't live to see achieved. That's yet another weakness of the human condition illustrated: Patience.
evildave Guest Posts: n/a