Originally posted by Mithrandir
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
A restaurant in Stillwater, OK
Collapse
X
-
If I whisper my wicked marching orders into the ether with no regard to where or how they may bear fruit, I am blameless should a broken spirit carry those orders out upon the innocent, for it was not my hand that took the action merely my lips which let slip their darkest wish. ~Daniel Devereaux 2011
Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
-
Originally posted by Mithrandir View PostI 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.
So, the question you are bringing up is, where is the tipping point for when we as a society should agree to abide by changing our language? We agree it comes from the community of people being labeled, but how many in that community have to be offended? I don't have an answer. I would say if it is only 1 in a thousand, that is not enough. A significant number? How many would depend to me on how informed people are on the history of a term. Many might not be offended, because they don't yet know that history, but would be offended if they did.
Comment
-
Originally posted by GwynnInTheHall View PostI don't understand WHY there has to be a quantifiable related to this--You either care about what someone thinks or you do not. If ONE Inuit, isn't that all that matters? I have learned that my position of Privledge does not allow me the ability to relate to or fully understand the power of an offensive moniker. So if I am to truly be an advocate for the oppressed, I must defer to THIER sense of what is or is not offensive and again--if we're to say One life lost is too many, shouldn't we also adhere to One life diminished is too many as well?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mithrandir View PostI 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.
generally - almost exclusively - it's related to righting past wrongs; these aren't random words.It certainly feels that way. But I'm distrustful of that feeling and am curious about evidence.
Comment
-
Originally posted by GwynnInTheHall View PostI don't understand WHY there has to be a quantifiable related to this--You either care about what someone thinks or you do not. If ONE Inuit, isn't that all that matters? I have learned that my position of Privledge does not allow me the ability to relate to or fully understand the power of an offensive moniker. So if I am to truly be an advocate for the oppressed, I must defer to THIER sense of what is or is not offensive and again--if we're to say One life lost is too many, shouldn't we also adhere to One life diminished is too many as well?
It's never black and white.
While I agree with your premise and the ideas behind it, it's not reality in some cases.
Comment
-
Originally posted by TranaGreg View Postbut it isn't as subjective as this - virtually all offensive terms I'm aware of have decades/centuries of history behind them, involving colonialism, subjugation, slavery, etc.
generally - almost exclusively - it's related to righting past wrongs; these aren't random words.
The article talks about the generational divide on the term Negro recently, and colored before that.
And I see it in my own house. My wife is Jamaican and does not prefer the term AA to describe her, because she does not see herself as AA. She doesn't think it fair for her to even claim herself as part of that more oppressed heritage. It leaves me always struggling with the best term to use when I don't know someone's heritage. AA, I have been taught by my wife, is not the all-inclusive term for someone that looks like her.
Using her as an example again, she has no problem with the term mixed race to describe our own children. In fact, she prefers it to biracial. Others are offended by that term and prefer biracial. I am left wondering what it appropriate to call my own kids. So, sometimes this stuff is a moving target, is my point.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sour Masher View PostAll good points, but some of it does change with time as well, and I think that is what leads to the push back. If someone grew up using a term that a people preferred and that term changes, that can lead to slowness being aware of that change and embracing it. In the AA community, you see that, with younger folks embracing new terms and labeling old terms offensive when older folks don't see it that way at all. Here is an article related to that: https://www.cnn.com/2014/02/19/livin...ers/index.html
The article talks about the generational divide on the term Negro recently, and colored before that.
And I see it in my own house. My wife is Jamaican and does not prefer the term AA to describe her, because she does not see herself as AA. She doesn't think it fair for her to even claim herself as part of that more oppressed heritage. It leaves me always struggling with the best term to use when I don't know someone's heritage. AA, I have been taught by my wife, is not the all-inclusive term for someone that looks like her.
Using her as an example again, she has no problem with the term mixed race to describe our own children. In fact, she prefers it to biracial. Others are offended by that term and prefer biracial. I am left wondering what it appropriate to call my own kids. So, sometimes this stuff is a moving target, is my point.If DMT didn't exist we would have to invent it. There has to be a weirdest thing. Once we have the concept weird, there has to be a weirdest thing. And DMT is simply it.
- Terence McKenna
Bullshit is everywhere. - George Carlin (& Jon Stewart)
How old would you be if you didn't know how old you are? - Satchel Paige
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ken View PostThis is a very utopian viewpoint without room for reality. What if 99 people perform a religious ritual for hundreds of years and then there is 1 individual in that community that expresses that the ritual offends them? Who is right?
It's never black and white.
While I agree with your premise and the ideas behind it, it's not reality in some cases.If DMT didn't exist we would have to invent it. There has to be a weirdest thing. Once we have the concept weird, there has to be a weirdest thing. And DMT is simply it.
- Terence McKenna
Bullshit is everywhere. - George Carlin (& Jon Stewart)
How old would you be if you didn't know how old you are? - Satchel Paige
Comment
-
Originally posted by DMT View PostI've never heard of anyone taking offense to "mixed race". Biracial doesn't encompass children who are from more than two races.
Comment
-
Right, I think there's a big difference between preferential versus offensive language.If DMT didn't exist we would have to invent it. There has to be a weirdest thing. Once we have the concept weird, there has to be a weirdest thing. And DMT is simply it.
- Terence McKenna
Bullshit is everywhere. - George Carlin (& Jon Stewart)
How old would you be if you didn't know how old you are? - Satchel Paige
Comment
-
What drives me crazy is how many organizations still produce forms that allow respondents to select only one race. I always check both and write in all-caps CHANGE YOUR FORM.If DMT didn't exist we would have to invent it. There has to be a weirdest thing. Once we have the concept weird, there has to be a weirdest thing. And DMT is simply it.
- Terence McKenna
Bullshit is everywhere. - George Carlin (& Jon Stewart)
How old would you be if you didn't know how old you are? - Satchel Paige
Comment
-
Originally posted by GwynnInTheHall View PostI don't understand WHY there has to be a quantifiable related to this--You either care about what someone thinks or you do not. If ONE Inuit, isn't that all that matters? I have learned that my position of Privledge does not allow me the ability to relate to or fully understand the power of an offensive moniker. So if I am to truly be an advocate for the oppressed, I must defer to THIER sense of what is or is not offensive and again--if we're to say One life lost is too many, shouldn't we also adhere to One life diminished is too many as well?
I understand our WHITE PRIVILEGE, but that doesn't mean we have to listen to everyone who cries "Offended"."I lingered round them, under that benign sky: watched the moths fluttering among the heath and harebells, listened to the soft wind breathing through the grass, and wondered how any one could ever imagine unquiet slumbers for the sleepers in that quiet earth."
Comment
-
Originally posted by DMT View PostRight, I think there's a big difference between preferential versus offensive language."I lingered round them, under that benign sky: watched the moths fluttering among the heath and harebells, listened to the soft wind breathing through the grass, and wondered how any one could ever imagine unquiet slumbers for the sleepers in that quiet earth."
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sour Masher View PostAh, got it. I think the conflation of the general question and this specific case is what confused me. Separating the question from this case, I understand your point. Yeah, this stuff is a moving target, and it is confusing sometimes when something is socially acceptable one day and is not the next. I finally get that. When I was young, I did not get that, and older people who still used terms I knew were offensive confused and annoyed me.
So, the question you are bringing up is, where is the tipping point for when we as a society should agree to abide by changing our language? We agree it comes from the community of people being labeled, but how many in that community have to be offended? I don't have an answer. I would say if it is only 1 in a thousand, that is not enough. A significant number? How many would depend to me on how informed people are on the history of a term. Many might not be offended, because they don't yet know that history, but would be offended if they did.
Darn work!"I lingered round them, under that benign sky: watched the moths fluttering among the heath and harebells, listened to the soft wind breathing through the grass, and wondered how any one could ever imagine unquiet slumbers for the sleepers in that quiet earth."
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ken View PostThis is a very utopian viewpoint without room for reality. What if 99 people perform a religious ritual for hundreds of years and then there is 1 individual in that community that expresses that the ritual offends them? Who is right?
It's never black and white.
While I agree with your premise and the ideas behind it, it's not reality in some cases.
BTW, I dislike religion, so I'd say--well if you all can't agree lets just get rid of it all together.If I whisper my wicked marching orders into the ether with no regard to where or how they may bear fruit, I am blameless should a broken spirit carry those orders out upon the innocent, for it was not my hand that took the action merely my lips which let slip their darkest wish. ~Daniel Devereaux 2011
Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Comment
Comment