A restaurant in Stillwater, OK

[GwynnInTheHall]

that's not how Grace works btw.

It does in my world.

[Ken]

It does in my world.

that's fine, but just to be clear you might should use a different word, because you are definitely not appropriately using grace in that context.

[Sour Masher]

Then inform yourself it took me all of 30 seconds to find several examples of why some people are offended by the term Eskimo.

And offense shouldn't have to be quantified, it should be respected and resolved.

BTW, anyone branding a product in today's society should be diligent in the vetting process to avoid any offense.

I am sure I read all of the examples you did, and I'd bet many more than you did, and if you think 30 seconds of Google searching makes you well informed on something, that is an example of a massive problem our country has these days--far too many form quick opinions on minimal, poorly vetted sources they find with a 30 second Google search.

What my minimal (but likely more than yours) research told me is that the term is offensive to the Innuit community. I was being generous in assuming that Mith has information on this I do not for him to bring up how we should not get bent out of shape over 0.1% of a population being offended by an innocuous term. It is the second time he made that point. First, he made it by bringing up a term no one was offended by for his ethnic heritage. My point, if you read carefully, is why is he or anyone else trying to make that argument in this case? It does not seem to apply here.

But continue to try to pick an argument with an ally, by all means.

[Sour Masher]

that's fine, but just to be clear you might should use a different word, because you are definitely not appropriately using grace in that context.

Are you sure? Did you do a FULL 30 second Google search to become sure? You can't be sure of something unless you spend 30 whole seconds looking it up on Google. I read that on Google, btw, so I know it is true.

[GwynnInTheHall]

that's fine, but just to be clear you might should use a different word, because you are definitely not appropriately using grace in that context.

I was quoting Gregg, not my word and as someone who does not believe in religion or any theological doctrine, grace really doesn't exist in my world, I guess Forgiveness would be the closest word to it and again, I'm not keen on forgiving repeated transgressions.

But hey--I can only be me.

[Ken]

if you think 30 seconds of Google searching makes you well informed on something, that is an example of a massive problem our country has these days--far too many form quick opinions on minimal, poorly vetted sources they find with a 30 second Google search.

this can't be overstated, it's a huge, huge issue.

[umjewman]

this can't be overstated, it's a huge, huge issue.

I disagree.

I learned about otters and heavy lifting from 30 seconds on Google. Invaluable research tool.

[GwynnInTheHall]

I am sure I read all of the examples you did, and I'd bet many more than you did, and if you think 30 seconds of Google searching makes you well informed on something, that is an example of a massive problem our country has these days--far too many form quick opinions on minimal, poorly vetted sources they find with a 30 second Google search.

What my minimal (but likely more than yours) research told me is that the term is offensive to the Innuit community. I was being generous in assuming that Mith has information on this I do not for him to bring up how we should not get bent out of shape over 0.1% of a population being offended by an innocuous term. It is the second time he made that point. First, he made it by bringing up a term no one was offended by for his ethnic heritage. My point, if you read carefully, is why is he or anyone else trying to make that argument in this case? It does not seem to apply here.

But continue to try to pick an argument with an ally, by all means.

Some of the most productive debates occur between like minded people. And though I don't doubt your research, to assume you've done more on the issue than I is, well, possible, but is it likely? You know I don't get all vitriolic unless I've done my work and have the data to back up my position. My Google comment was me being trite in response to your "I am admittedly not well informed on this issue" comment. I took you at your word and NOW you tell me otherwise? Or are you just being argumentative (you've already diminished my position by inferring I hadn't done as much research as you and if you admittedly are "not well informed" what does that make me?)


Again it is NOT UP TO YOU or even ME to decide if the term is innocuous or not--it's up to those offended.

WHITE FOLKS DON'T GET TÔ ARGUE AGAINST THE OFFENDED.

We are only to respect the sensibilities of the offended and after centuries of oppression, STFU and acquiesce to their sense of what is hurtful to them and what is not.

[Sour Masher]

Some of the most productive debates occur between like minded people. And though I don't doubt your research, to assume you've done more on the issue than I is, well, possible, but is it likely? You know I don't get all vitriolic unless I've done my work and have the data to back up my position. My Google comment was me being trite in response to your "I am admittedly not well informed on this issue" comment. I took you at your word and NOW you tell me otherwise? Or are you just being argumentative (you've already diminished my position by inferring I hadn't done as much research as you and if you admittedly are "not well informed" what does that make me?)


Again it is NOT UP TO YOU or even ME to decide if the term is innocuous or not--it's up to those offended.

WHITE FOLKS DON'T GET TÔ ARGUE AGAINST THE OFFENDED.

We are only to respect the sensibilities of the offended and after centuries of oppression, STFU and acquiesce to their sense of what is hurtful to them and what is not.

You and I have differing definitions of what it means to be well-informed, is the main issue, it seems. I boned up on this when this thread started. Mith has implied twice that this term isn't offensive to most Innuits. None of my research led me to that conclusion, but since I know I don't know everything there is to know on this, I refrained from calling Mith out full-force on this. I wanted to give him a chance to clarify and expand, open to the possibility I have missed something. I want clarity on why this thread has turned into the place where we are talking about hypothetical cases where the people white people are labeling are not offended by that label. That does not seem to apply here, so I don't get why Mith has twice made that point. We are both in agreement that who matters here are the people being labeled and caricatured.

And I loved your line "Again it is NOT UP TO YOU or even ME to decide if the term is innocuous or not--it's up to those offended," both because I agree with it, and because you added the "even me" unironically, I think .

[Mithrandir]

Some of the most productive debates occur between like minded people. And though I don't doubt your research, to assume you've done more on the issue than I is, well, possible, but is it likely? You know I don't get all vitriolic unless I've done my work and have the data to back up my position. My Google comment was me being trite in response to your "I am admittedly not well informed on this issue" comment. I took you at your word and NOW you tell me otherwise? Or are you just being argumentative (you've already diminished my position by inferring I hadn't done as much research as you and if you admittedly are "not well informed" what does that make me?)


Again it is NOT UP TO YOU or even ME to decide if the term is innocuous or not--it's up to those offended.

WHITE FOLKS DON'T GET TÔ ARGUE AGAINST THE OFFENDED.

We are only to respect the sensibilities of the offended and after centuries of oppression, STFU and acquiesce to their sense of what is hurtful to them and what is not.

That is what I am talking about. At what point does a term become offensive enough to make a big deal about? You keep talking in generalities, but if you dig deep enough many many mnay m,nay terms can be considered offensive to someone? Again, where is the line drawn?

I just used .01% as a point that if only a very, very, very small percentage of the offended group cares, then why is change necessary?

[Sour Masher]

That is what I am talking about. At what point does a term become offensive enough to make a big deal about? You keep talking in generalities, but if you dig deep enough many many mnay m,nay terms can be considered offensive to someone? Again, where is the line drawn?

I just used .01% as a point that if only a very, very, very small percentage of the offended group cares, then why is change necessary?

Ah, the person I wanted clarity from--Mith, why are you implying that a very, very small percentage of Inuits are offended by this term? What evidence do you have for that? If you have none, why are you choosing this thread as your place to make that point?

[Mithrandir]

You and I have differing definitions of what it means to be well-informed, is the main issue, it seems. I boned up on this when this thread started. Mith has implied twice that this term isn't offensive to most Innuits. None of my research led me to that conclusion, but since I know I don't know everything there is to know on this, I refrained from calling Mith out full-force on this. I wanted to give him a chance to clarify and expand, open to the possibility I have missed something. I want clarity on why this thread has turned into the place where we are talking about hypothetical cases where the people white people are labeling are not offended by that label. That does not seem to apply here, so I don't get why Mith has twice made that point. We are both in agreement that who matters here are the people being labeled and caricatured.

I did not mean to make that point. My entire point was how do we determine if a term is offensive? Can any group just decide a term offends them and they rush to judgement?

I am not trying to stir the pot or appear rude. i am asking a legitimate question. But unfortunately people tend to jump to their own defensive positions and even a simple question gets picked apart as insensitive.

[Mithrandir]

Ah, the person I wanted clarity from--Mith, why are you implying that a very, very small percentage of Inuits are offended by this term? What evidence do you have for that? If you have none, why are you choosing this thread as your place to make that point?

I chose this thread because as I was skimming it I got the thought of; When is a term is considered offensive enough that it is never used again without being a jerk. I just happened to be i this thread. Sorry for the confusion.

[Sour Masher]

I did not mean to make that point. My entire point was how do we determine if a term is offensive? Can any group just decede a term offends them and they rush to judgement?

I am not trying to stir the pot or appear rude. i am asking a legitimate question. But unfortunately people tend to jump to their own defensive positions and even a simple question gets picked apart as insensitive.

I get the question. I think it is a good question. I just wasn't clear on why you were making it in this case. Innuits seem to agree this term is offensive. If we all agree that is who should decide, I don't get the issue in this case.

[Ken]

I get the question. I think it is a good question. I just wasn't clear on why you were making it in this case. Innuits seem to agree this term is offensive. If we all agree that is who should decide, I don't get the issue in this case.

He's talking more in the abstract, not this specific issue necessarily, but where is the line.