# opinion on political correctness?



## carp (Mar 23, 2017)

i think it rad but comedy can be a bit dodgy

edit: this has escalated into a debate


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Mar 23, 2017)

It's a very horrible thing meant to defend only those who are easily offended.

Just because one person or group can't do some thing (i.e. disability, forbidden) or doesn't do something doesn't mean nobody should be allowed to even talk about it.
Just because not everybody follows your lifestyle doesn't mean nobody should be allowed to do it or talk about it.

Plus, it became a tool for oppression of specific groups rather than to minimize offensiveness.

Political Correctness is ridiculous. I should tell PC Principal from South Park that.


----------



## Corrie (Mar 23, 2017)

It's over the top and people can't take a joke anymore it seems. 

I hope it dies.


----------



## Soda Fox (Mar 23, 2017)

I'm not a fan of it. I think there's something to be said about people who choose to try to be as politically correct as possible, and I do think it's something we can tell people is polite to follow and good manners, but I don't like the culture of shoving it down everyone's throat and labeling people with -ist/-phobic. I think the current culture around it only serves to divide people. 

Teach, don't force. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar after all.


----------



## UglyMonsterFace (Mar 23, 2017)

I try to be politically correct in my daily and professional life. But keep it out of my jokes and entertainment. People take it too far nowadays and everyone is so sensitive. No one can make a joke without someone saying it's offensive.. But sometimes the funniest jokes are offensive...


----------



## PizzaTotinoBoy (Mar 23, 2017)

I don't like it at all. I believe that, at least, the modern definition of being "PC" is a limit of one's own free speech in a way. Like Soda Fox said, it divides more people than anything.(Much like a lot of other movements that are meant to stop hate yet are a cause of just more hate). I believe you can joke about anything in the right context, and I believe that everyone's entitled to their own opinion. Just...Don't be a jerk. That's literally all you need to do. Not limit your own opinions and beliefs because some oversensitive entitled brat wants you to be someone you aren't. I mean then it starts asking the question of who and who doesn't deserve respect, etc, it's overcomplicated, just basically don't be a jerk. End of story.


----------



## Leen (Mar 23, 2017)

Warning: this may damage/wound some fragile egos:

****s like to use the word politically correct in a negative light because they want to be able to say messed up/offensive things (i.e. ableist, racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.) but not be called out on the fact that they are saying these things. So, they use politically correct in a negative way and call everyone else sensitive. When in reality, they're the sensitive ones because they can't handle being called an ableist **** when they are saying ableist ****.


----------



## UglyMonsterFace (Mar 23, 2017)

Leen said:


> Warning: this may damage/wound some fragile egos:
> 
> A**holes like to use the word politically correct in a negative light because they want to be able to say messed up/offensive things (i.e. ableist, racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.) but not be called out on the fact that they are saying these things. So, they use politically correct in a negative way and call everyone else sensitive. When in reality, they're the sensitive ones because they can't handle being called an ableist a**hole when they are saying ableist s**t.



While that is the case *for some people*, that is seriously quite a generalisation. See, I enjoy myself a good sexist joke, even a joke that uses racial stereotypes (even towards my own culture/nationality). Does that mean I'm a sexist? Or a racist? No, it doesn't. What we find funny does not usually indicate what kind of people we are. Just like liking violent movies does not mean that we like violence in real life. What truly indicates whether one is a jerk is their treatment of others. So calling someone the N word, or using derogatory terms when describing an LGBTQ person is vastly different from just laughing/making a sexist joke about a woman belonging in a kitchen or whatever.


----------



## Leen (Mar 23, 2017)

Arize said:


> While that is the case *for some people*, that is seriously quite a generalisation. See, I enjoy myself a good sexist joke, even a joke that uses racial stereotypes (even towards my own culture/nationality). Does that mean I'm a sexist? Or a racist? No, it doesn't. What we find funny does not usually indicate what kind of people we are. Just like liking violent movies does not mean that we like violence in real life. What truly indicates whether one is a jerk is their treatment of others. So calling someone the N word, or using derogatory terms when describing an LGBTQ person is vastly different from just laughing/making a sexist joke about a woman belonging in a kitchen or whatever.




I disagree. I think partaking in and enjoying these types of jokes when you are not a member of the group/class, being made fun of or whom the joke is being made at the expense of _is_ a racist/sexist act, and when you do that, you _are_ being racist/sexist. It's very different when you are poking fun at your own culture vs making a joke at the expense of another.


----------



## Corrie (Mar 23, 2017)

Leen said:


> Warning: this may damage/wound some fragile egos:
> 
> A**holes like to use the word politically correct in a negative light because they want to be able to say messed up/offensive things (i.e. ableist, racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.) but not be called out on the fact that they are saying these things. So, they use politically correct in a negative way and call everyone else sensitive. When in reality, they're the sensitive ones because they can't handle being called an ableist a**hole when they are saying ableist s**t.



tbh I see it mainly being used by really sensitive people in order to make others bow down before them and kiss their ass, more than the example you're making. Not saying your point is wrong as it does happen, just saying that I personally do not see that happening very often. 

I personally hate when people who are generally dicks, act like a dick and then use the "it's my opinion!!" as an excuse.


----------



## forestyne (Mar 23, 2017)

Leen said:


> Warning: this may damage/wound some fragile egos:
> 
> A**holes like to use the word politically correct in a negative light because they want to be able to say messed up/offensive things (i.e. ableist, racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.) but not be called out on the fact that they are saying these things. So, they use politically correct in a negative way and call everyone else sensitive. When in reality, they're the sensitive ones because they can't handle being called an ableist a**hole when they are saying ableist s**t.



you sound the most sensitive here though lol

Not everybody who makes a joke like that is racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, ect. If they don't say it with intent to cause harm, it is not something-ist. I make fun of myself with offensive jokes, but I'm not sexist, homophobic or have a prejudice against people with mental health problems.


----------



## visibleghost (Mar 23, 2017)

political correctness is such a hated thing lmao but really what most ppl seem to mean when they say that they hate that pc crap is that thry want to b allowed to be disrespectful and mean 2 people like ??


----------



## Bowie (Mar 23, 2017)

Sensitivity will ruin the world.


----------



## Leen (Mar 23, 2017)

forestyne said:


> you sound the most sensitive here though lol
> 
> Not everybody who makes a joke like that is racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, ect. If they don't say it with intent to cause harm, it is not something-ist. I make fun of myself with offensive jokes, but I'm not sexist, homophobic or have a prejudice against people with mental health problems.



Forestyne, it's not about being sensitive. It's about respect. _Please refer to earlier post about calling people sensitive when they're calling you out on disrespectful ****._


----------



## Red Cat (Mar 23, 2017)

visibleghost said:


> political correctness is such a hated thing lmao but really what most ppl seem to mean when they say that they hate that pc crap is that thry want to b allowed to be disrespectful and mean 2 people like ??



The world would be a really boring place if everyone was always civil and polite. A little nasty every now and then spices things up.


----------



## mariostarn (Mar 23, 2017)

Political correctness has gone over the top.
People who are offended by every little thing they don't agree with and the people who are offensive for the sake of being offensive are just two types of the same problem.


----------



## Corrie (Mar 23, 2017)

Red Cat said:


> The world would be a really boring place if everyone was always civil and polite. A little nasty every now and then spices things up.



For sure. As long as no one is getting hurt or killed over it, a little joke every now and again doesn't hurt anyone.


----------



## forestyne (Mar 23, 2017)

Red Cat said:


> The world would be a really boring place if everyone was always civil and polite. A little nasty every now and then spices things up.



The world will never be perfect. Sensitivity to a simple joke will kill us all.

- - - Post Merge - - -



Leen said:


> Forestyne, it's not about being sensitive. It's about respect. _Please refer to earlier post about calling people sensitive when they're calling you out on disrespectful s**t._



*But not everyone who makes a racist/homophobic/ableist/transphobic/HURTFUL LABEL joke is NOT that label. 

It does not mean that they don't respect that race, gender or sexual orientation.*


----------



## LambdaDelta (Mar 23, 2017)

the fact that "people should be treated with respect" is apparently a thing up for debate showcases a complete failure of American society

I mean, alongside like probably a billion other things as well


----------



## Leen (Mar 23, 2017)

forestyne said:


> The world will never be perfect. Sensitivity to a simple joke will kill us all.
> 
> - - - Post Merge - - -
> 
> ...



That's exactly what that means, though. It's different when you're not part of the group. 

"Omg I'm not racist/homophobic/ableist for saying a racist/homophobic/ableist joke as a white, straight, able lady! I have black/gay/disabled friends!"


----------



## Corrie (Mar 23, 2017)

Leen said:


> That's exactly what that means, though. It's different when you're not part of the group.
> 
> "Omg I'm not racist/homophobic/ableist for saying a racist/homophobic/ableist joke as a white, straight, able lady! I have black/gay/disabled friends!"



I personally think that if a slur is not to be used by anyone outside of the group it is attacking, it shouldn't be used at all, period.


----------



## Soda Fox (Mar 23, 2017)

Ash Q. Scrumfleton said:


> I don't like it at all. I believe that, at least, the modern definition of being "PC" is a limit of one's own free speech in
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## forestyne (Mar 23, 2017)

Corrie said:


> *I personally think that if a slur is not to be used by anyone outside of the group it is attacking, it shouldn't be used at all, period.*



I agree. I don't agree with using slurs at all, or reclaiming them. I don't want to be called an f-word at all, why would I want to be called that word by my peers??


----------



## LambdaDelta (Mar 23, 2017)

forestyne said:


> The world will never be perfect. Sensitivity to a simple joke will kill us all.



jokes have repercussions. they don't exist in a vacuum separate from the rest of societal culture. also, if your entire "joke" is just something demeaning, then it's both not a good joke in the first place and just serves to further confirm humanity's preestablished ****tiness


----------



## Corrie (Mar 23, 2017)

forestyne said:


> I agree. I don't agree with using slurs at all, or reclaiming them. I don't want to be called an f-word at all, why would I want to be called that word by my peers??



A-freaking-men!

If that slur is so offensive to you, then why are you treating it like it's a cute inside joke among your friends? I don't see how that makes sense. 

The most popular example I can think of is the N word where apparently it's okay for black people to say it (and apparently it's treated as a positive thing) but no other group. Like what?


----------



## forestyne (Mar 23, 2017)

LambdaDelta said:


> jokes have repercussions. *they don't exist in a vacuum separate from the rest of societal culture.* also, if your entire "joke" is just something demeaning, then it's both not a good joke in the first place and just serves to further confirm humanity's preestablished ****tiness



aw man, they don't? 

I believe that if you're gonna tell a joke, don't run away and hide behind the Victim Card™.


----------



## Red Cat (Mar 23, 2017)

Leen said:


> That's exactly what that means, though. It's different when you're not part of the group.
> 
> "Omg I'm not racist/homophobic/ableist for saying a racist/homophobic/ableist joke as a white, straight, able lady! I have black/gay/disabled friends!"



I don't think you understand the difference between a race / gender / sexuality / whatever based joke and racist / sexist / homophobic statements. Like if I say "Asians are bad drivers", it may or may not be funny but it's not really malicious or demonizing. If I say "Muslims are terrorists", then that crosses the line because it demonizes them. It is okay for people to poke fun at other people as long as it's not malicious. That's part of human nature, and the reason why people hate the term "political correctness" is because being politically correct basically forces us to go against our human nature and basically program ourselves into robots because of people who can't take a gentle ribbing.


----------



## LambdaDelta (Mar 23, 2017)

Soda Fox said:


> Freedom of speech is our #1 right and that should be protected. Yeah everyone should be polite but it's important to allow people to be allowed to say jerk things if they want.
> 
> Like I said before - teach manners, dont force it.



the american concept of free of speech is absolute bull**** too now, imo

not because free speech itself is actually bad, but because of how much it's now just used by people to justify their hateful ideologies, while simultaneously and hypocritically attempting to shut down the speech of others they demean


----------



## UglyMonsterFace (Mar 23, 2017)

People need to remember that a joke is not a statement. A joke isn't reality. We make fun of stereotypes because they are often very ridiculous and sometimes even generally true, that we might be able to relate with, and it's funny. So there's a difference between saying a joke that the punchline is the woman making a sandwich (etc), and a person seriously saying, "Women shouldn't work, they should stay at home and make a man his food." I'm an Asian and people make jokes about Asians being Gods at math, terrible drivers, having very strict parents, etc. Do I get offended? Absolutely not. In fact, I make fun of that stuff too. Who cares. As long as they aren't calling me derogatory terms or actually have those stereotypical opinions of me. It's all in good jest. There are of course, truly racist jokes, but it is usually due to whether or not the person telling the joke actually believes in that stereotype, which in turn makes it a statement masquerading as a joke.


----------



## forestyne (Mar 23, 2017)

Red Cat said:


> I don't think you understand the difference between a race / gender / sexuality / whatever based joke and racist / sexist / homophobic statements. Like if I say "Asians are bad drivers", it may or may not be funny but it's not really malicious or demonizing. If I say "Muslims are terrorists", then that crosses the line because it demonizes them. It is okay for people to poke fun at other people as long as it's not malicious. That's part of human nature, and the reason why people hate the term "political correctness" is because being politically correct basically forces us to go against our human nature and basically program ourselves into robots because of people who can't take a gentle ribbing.



Yes, there's also a difference between saying something to try and be funny and saying something with malicious intent and trying to degrade that race/gender/sexuality


----------



## visibleghost (Mar 23, 2017)

reclaiming slurs is good imo. like, not always but often. like w queer. i hate that people try to make ppl dtop using it because it is a Big Bad Slur like ??? it used to be sure but the lgbtq community has worked rly hard to reclaim it and make it into a word for us. it's ok if youre lgbtq and dont want to call urself queer but i think it is overly sensitive and giving in to the oppressors to see it as a slur again


----------



## Corrie (Mar 23, 2017)

visibleghost said:


> reclaiming slurs is good imo. like, not always but often. like w queer. i hate that people try to make ppl dtop using it because it is a Big Bad Slur like ??? it used to be sure but the lgbtq community has worked rly hard to reclaim it and make it into a word for us. it's ok if youre lgbtq and dont want to call urself queer but i think it is overly sensitive and giving in to the oppressors to see it as a slur again



I'm all for changing the meaning of slurs too as long as everyone, no matter what race/gender/etc you are, can use it too.


----------



## Corrie (Mar 23, 2017)

double post, RIP


----------



## visibleghost (Mar 23, 2017)

forestyne said:


> Yes, there's also a difference between saying something to try and be funny and saying something with malicious intent and trying to degrade that race/gender/sexuality



true. i think that it really depends on the situation if a joke is ok or suiteable or whatever. if the joke is said to be mean or the funny thing is just "this thing is offensive and i think it is funny to make people sad" thats not cool. but if you say stuff like "oh you couldnt tell im (gay/mentally ill/autistic/whatever) from looking at me?" as a joke isnt offensive in the same way bc it isnt meant to hurt people and it is mockign the stereotypes and not individials. idk if u get what i mean but hhhh

- - - Post Merge - - -



Corrie said:


> I'm all for changing the meaning of slurs too as long as everyone, no matter what race/gender/etc you are, can use it too.



thing is tho that some words are still used as slurs by those people. like w the n word is still used as a racist thing. some people are fine w anyon saying it but soem people arent. im not black so i cant rly say much about it, but i feel like it really makes sense that it is a very sensitive (like idk what to call it but Yhhh u know ppl have lots of feelings abt it) word. it still isnt a neutral word u know?
i think it depends on the slur tho. like i personally think everyone should use the word queer to describe lgbtq ppl. thats just me tho and i guess there are people who dont agree with me.
like, i think that once a slur is "fully reclaimed" or whatever i should call it it's just a regular word. but until thatas happened i think it is totally understandable that people get upset when non black people use the n word


----------



## nintendofan85 (Mar 23, 2017)

I don't really like it, and many people definitely take it too far. I don't necessarily like offending people but it should not affect jokes and comedy. That's a big reason why the new version of MADtv has been pretty disappointing.


----------



## lostineverfreeforest (Mar 23, 2017)

It's used as an excuse for special little snowflakes to fly into an entitled rage and feel morally superior. IMO it has a place but has been taken way too far by certain groups. If somebody holds unconventional/politically incorrect views on race, sex, etc. I'll still respect their right to say it even if I personally disagree with said views. You can spend your entire life getting outraged by every little, asinine thing and it will solve nothing.


----------



## Corrie (Mar 23, 2017)

visibleghost said:


> true. i think that it really depends on the situation if a joke is ok or suiteable or whatever. if the joke is said to be mean or the funny thing is just "this thing is offensive and i think it is funny to make people sad" thats not cool. but if you say stuff like "oh you couldnt tell im (gay/mentally ill/autistic/whatever) from looking at me?" as a joke isnt offensive in the same way bc it isnt meant to hurt people and it is mockign the stereotypes and not individials. idk if u get what i mean but hhhh
> 
> - - - Post Merge - - -
> 
> ...



You're 100% correct. Until the word is completely regular, people may have mixed feelings about it. It just confuses me when a black person tells anyone who isn't black that they can't say the N word but they're somehow okay with black people saying it to them. It kinda sends a confusing message to whether or not the word is considered bad or good. 

Queer is basically not a slur anymore from what I've seen which is good.


----------



## UglyMonsterFace (Mar 23, 2017)

Corrie said:


> You're 100% correct. Until the word is completely regular, people may have mixed feelings about it. It just confuses me when a black person tells anyone who isn't black that they can't say the N word but they're somehow okay with black people saying it to them. It kinda sends a confusing message to whether or not the word is considered bad or good.
> 
> Queer is basically not a slur anymore from what I've seen which is good.



I think that's because usually, when a black person is called the N word by another race, it is usually in a derogatory manner. So the original use of the word has not yet died, and is still racist. But when black people use it around each other, they usually do use it casually, in a friendly manner, so they trust each other to use the word in the way they're okay with. Other people are not trusted to do the same. It makes sense to me, and I can't really say much against it because what do I know about that stuff. It's almost the same way I feel to being called a chink. It's never been used by another race in a friendly way, and only when people have been racist towards me, so I would not be okay with others just throwing that word around. But I'm not going to cry about it if it happens either, which it has, many times.


----------



## Aquari (Mar 23, 2017)

in my honest opinion, political correctness went from being respectful and sensible towards others to just wanting to be a victim and willing to do almost anything to be one.

i'll just leave it at that, if you disagree with my statement then i guess im sorry but i will not argue over it.


----------



## forestyne (Mar 23, 2017)

visibleghost said:


> reclaiming slurs is good imo. like, not always but often. like w queer. i hate that people try to make ppl dtop using it because it is a Big Bad Slur like ??? it used to be sure but the lgbtq community has worked rly hard to reclaim it and make it into a word for us. it's ok if youre lgbtq and dont want to call urself queer but i think it is *overly sensitive and giving in to the oppressors to see it as a slur again*



I hate the world queer. I don't mind people using it, but in my head I always link it to BuzzFeed and SJWs for some reason.


----------



## Twisterheart (Mar 23, 2017)

I don't like it. People have taken it way too far.


----------



## PizzaTotinoBoy (Mar 23, 2017)

Leen said:


> Warning: this may damage/wound some fragile egos:
> 
> A**holes like to use the word politically correct in a negative light because they want to be able to say messed up/offensive things (i.e. ableist, racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.) but not be called out on the fact that they are saying these things. So, they use politically correct in a negative way and call everyone else sensitive. When in reality, they're the sensitive ones because they can't handle being called an ableist a**hole when they are saying ableist s**t.



I use it in a negative light because it's limiting something I believe everyone has a right to: Speech and an opinion. Now, do I think that it's okay to call people slurs or be completely derogatory to someone? No. Because that's just not being a good person. I don't have an issue making jokes with people because a joke is just a joke. It's to make light of something, or it's just used to have a good time. If we stuck with having humor that had to conform to some one group of people's opinions, humor would be dead. If we had to conform to this "PC-movement" where everyone has to think the exact same way, it wouldn't be right, it'd be violating a basic right. Freedom of speech is important, having an opinion is important. Nobody's going to agree on the exact same thing every single time anyways. That's impossible. If the person you don't agree with really bothers you _that_ much, you can try to chime in with your thoughts. Nothing wrong with that. Maybe both of you will learn something. Maybe you don't like a joke? Too bad, ignore it because it's making someone else's life just the tiniest bit better. What's so wrong with that, people enjoying themselves? As long as it's in the right context, there's nothing wrong with a little humor here and there. I mean, it's a lot different than killing or beating someone just because of race, politics, etc. Everyone's entitled to their own opinions. 


Also, I'd just like to point out that, your claim doesn't apply to everyone, despite what you say. I really don't give a damn what some someone calls me. Hell, my friends and I even like to make jokes about eachother, but we all know we don't hate eachother. Maybe some people are going to feel that way, I'm sure there's plenty of people who your claim applies to. Just not everyone.




I don't know if I got my point across, or if I even had one but I really just felt like stating a few opinions.


----------



## forestyne (Mar 23, 2017)

Ash Q. Scrumfleton said:


> I use it in a negative light because it's limiting something I believe *everyone has a right to: Speech and an opinion.* Now, do I think that it's okay to call people slurs or be completely derogatory to someone? No. Because that's just not being a good person. I don't have an issue making jokes with people because a joke is just a joke. It's to make light of something, or it's just used to have a good time. If we stuck with having humor that had to conform to some one group of people's opinions, humor would be dead. If we had to conform to this "PC-movement" where everyone has to think the exact same way, it wouldn't be right, it'd be violating a basic right. Freedom of speech is important, having an opinion is important. Nobody's going to agree on the exact same thing every single time anyways. That's impossible. If the person you don't agree with really bothers you _that_ much, you can try to chime in with your thoughts. Nothing wrong with that. Maybe both of you will learn something. Maybe you don't like a joke? Too bad, ignore it because it's making someone else's life just the tiniest bit better. *What's so wrong with that, people enjoying themselves?* *As long as it's in the right context, there's nothing wrong with a little humor here and there.* I mean, it's a lot different than killing or beating someone just because of race, politics, etc. Everyone's entitled to their own opinions.
> 
> 
> Also, I'd just like to point out that, *your claim doesn't apply to everyone, despite what you say.* I really don't give a damn what some someone calls me. Hell, my friends and I even like to make jokes about eachother, but we all know we don't hate eachother. Maybe some people are going to feel that way, I'm sure there's plenty of people who your claim applies to. Just not everyone.
> ...



I agree, it's a basic human right to think what they want, to hold opinions and to express them. Not being allowed to tell a joke because it clashes with some SJW's beliefs is oppressing their right to freedom of speech. When you're saying something genuinely with malicious intent or because you have a prejudice or phobia of someone is different to telling a joke without meaning what you're saying.


----------



## LambdaDelta (Mar 23, 2017)

forestyne said:


> Yes, there's also a difference between saying something to try and be funny and saying something with malicious intent and trying to degrade that race/gender/sexuality



something something a community acting like idiots will eventually be flooded by actual idiots


----------



## Ghost Soda (Mar 23, 2017)

In my experience, "political correctness" is bigot speak for "i want to be able to freely spout racist/sexist/homophobic/ect. garbage without being called out for it".

And if the only jokes you can make involve making fun of people that are different than you, then news flash; you have a terrible sense of humor.


----------



## Leen (Mar 23, 2017)

Ghost Soda said:


> In my experience, "political correctness" is bigot speak for "i want to be able to freely spout racist/sexist/homophobic/ect. garbage without being called out for it".
> 
> And if the only jokes you can make involve making fun of people that are different than you, then news flash; you have a terrible sense of humor.









There's still hope for humanity yet.


----------



## nostalgibra (Mar 23, 2017)

I agree with a lot of comments here about how bigots use the term to justify their ****ty behavior, but I also do enjoy jokes that aren't overly offensive, particularly jokes about stereotypes. We're laughing at how silly the stereotype is, not the people themselves. It's a slippery slope with humor. But I think as long as you're aware of race and gender and other important things, taking part in jokes of that nature is acceptable.


----------



## Jeremy (Mar 23, 2017)

This thread has been reopened after we closed it to address some reports.  Please remember to be respectful of others' opinions, especially when it comes to potentially controversial subjects like this.  Thank you.


----------



## made08 (Mar 23, 2017)

I don't like the term "political correctness." I think that everyone should just try harder to be nicer and more respectful to one another. If you want to crack a joke, then that's fine, but just think about it before you say it, and be prepared to apologize if someone's feelings get hurt. 

I realize this is a very simple answer but I really don't think that it boils down to much more than this.


----------



## Red Cat (Mar 23, 2017)

Arize said:


> I think that's because usually, when a black person is called the N word by another race, it is usually in a derogatory manner. So the original use of the word has not yet died, and is still racist. But when black people use it around each other, they usually do use it casually, in a friendly manner, so they trust each other to use the word in the way they're okay with. Other people are not trusted to do the same. It makes sense to me, and I can't really say much against it because what do I know about that stuff. It's almost the same way I feel to being called a chink. It's never been used by another race in a friendly way, and only when people have been racist towards me, so I would not be okay with others just throwing that word around. But I'm not going to cry about it if it happens either, which it has, many times.



I can see how a word can have different meanings based on the context in which it's used, but that context should not be solely based on the gender / sexuality / race / etc. of the person whose mouth the word came out of. That is a double standard in itself. It also reinforces the belief that people of different races, genders, and sexualities are separate clans instead of "just like everyone else". It's okay if minority groups want to "reclaim" derogatory terms and give them a more positive meaning, but then they shouldn't be shocked or outraged if and when outside groups start using them too. Words are words, and the same words should have the same meaning no matter whose mouth they come out of if we are really aiming for equality.


----------



## forestyne (Mar 23, 2017)

Ghost Soda said:


> In my experience, "political correctness" is bigot speak for "i want to be able to freely spout racist/sexist/homophobic/ect. garbage without being called out for it".
> 
> And if the only jokes you can make involve making fun of people that are different than you, then news flash; you have a terrible sense of humor.



But they're just jokes. We'd be better off being programmed machines if we couldn't tell jokes. It's sensitive people like this that ruin it for everybody.

- - - Post Merge - - -

"Why did the chicken cross the road" is a suicide joke. All comedy is offensive. Just let us live.


----------



## UglyMonsterFace (Mar 23, 2017)

Red Cat said:


> I can see how a word can have different meanings based on the context in which it's used, but that context should not be solely based on the gender / sexuality / race / etc. of the person whose mouth the word came out of. That is a double standard in itself. It also reinforces the belief that people of different races, genders, and sexualities are separate clans instead of "just like everyone else". It's okay if minority groups want to "reclaim" derogatory terms and give them a more positive meaning, but then they shouldn't be shocked or outraged if and when outside groups start using them too. Words are words, and the same words should have the same meaning no matter whose mouth they come out of if we are really aiming for equality.



I wish I had more of a solid opinion on this subject, but I honestly don't know what is the right thing and the wrong thing. I err on the side of simply not using derogatory terms. I completely understand what you are saying, but I also understand why black people want to keep the word within their community. It's just something that I cannot completely relate to until I have experienced it myself, and like my example, I don't like being called a chink by others (including other Asians), but I sometimes make fun of myself and call myself that. It's just a very grey area with the N word, and I still see it as a bad word for myself to say, but I don't get offended when I hear it from a black person (unless it's being used negatively). But I also don't mind when people sing along to lyrics and that word is in it and they say it. So.. yeah.. just a very grey area.


----------



## Mink777 (Mar 23, 2017)

It disgusts me. I can't participate any any political discussion because people can't take a joke. It's probably for the best, though.


----------



## Red Cat (Mar 23, 2017)

Arize said:


> I wish I had more of a solid opinion on this subject, but I honestly don't know what is the right thing and the wrong thing. I err on the side of simply not using derogatory terms. I completely understand what you are saying, but I also understand why black people want to keep the word within their community. It's just something that I cannot completely relate to until I have experienced it myself, and like my example, I don't like being called a chink by others (including other Asians), but I sometimes make fun of myself and call myself that. It's just a very grey area with the N word, and I still see it as a bad word for myself to say, but I don't get offended when I hear it from a black person (unless it's being used negatively). But I also don't mind when people sing along to lyrics and that word is in it and they say it. So.. yeah.. just a very grey area.



There is indeed a lot of grey area, which is why people get frustrated when they get called a bigot for saying something which falls into that grey area.


----------



## Bella789 (Mar 23, 2017)

I'm new to this forum, but I've read comments on lgbtq stuff, it escalates easily so I'm not bothering into it but people should respect people on their political opinions


----------



## made08 (Mar 24, 2017)

Red Cat said:


> I can see how a word can have different meanings based on the context in which it's used, but that context should not be solely based on the gender / sexuality / race / etc. of the person whose mouth the word came out of. That is a double standard in itself. It also reinforces the belief that people of different races, genders, and sexualities are separate clans instead of "just like everyone else". It's okay if minority groups want to "reclaim" derogatory terms and give them a more positive meaning, but then they shouldn't be shocked or outraged if and when outside groups start using them too. Words are words, and the same words should have the same meaning no matter whose mouth they come out of if we are really aiming for equality.



I think that you're right that words *should* have the same meaning regardless of who used them, but the fact of the matter is that they don't. Words have history, words have weight

- - - Post Merge - - -

Also I'm a little curious as to why people want to use the N word. I can't imagine why anyone would really want to use it? Other than black people reclaiming the slur and trying to turn it into something positive (like how LGBTQ+ people are trying to reclaim queer) I don't really see any other context for it to be used, except for maybe in a literature or history lesson.


----------



## p e p p e r (Mar 24, 2017)

it's ****ing annoying. it's mind control & oppression


----------



## Red Cat (Mar 24, 2017)

made08 said:


> I think that you're right that words *should* have the same meaning regardless of who used them, but the fact of the matter is that they don't. Words have history, words have weight
> 
> - - - Post Merge - - -
> 
> Also I'm a little curious as to why people want to use the N word. I can't imagine why anyone would really want to use it? Other than black people reclaiming the slur and trying to turn it into something positive (like how LGBTQ+ people are trying to reclaim queer) I don't really see any other context for it to be used, except for maybe in a literature or history lesson.



Yes, words have history, but given that history, it makes even less sense for the groups most offended by those words to use the words themselves. Like I'm supposed to understand the history of the n word and how terrible it is and thus never use it, but black people can just casually toss the n word around without understanding or caring about the terrible history behind it. If the history is that irrelevant to people that they choose to use the word when there are tons of other words people can use to call each other, then why should I get a history lecture if I use the word?


----------



## made08 (Mar 24, 2017)

Red Cat said:


> Yes, words have history, but given that history, it makes even less sense for the groups most offended by those words to use the words themselves. Like I'm supposed to understand the history of the n word and how terrible it is and thus never use it, but black people can just casually toss the n word around without understanding or caring about the terrible history behind it. If the history is that irrelevant to people that they choose to use the word when there are tons of other words people can use to call each other, then why should I get a history lecture if I use the word?



I don't want to argue, but I do think it's a little rude to say that Black people use the N word carelessly and that they don't understand it. If anything, I'd think that they would care the most about the history of the N word. I believe the reason (and correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not Black and don't feel that I am an expert on this subject) that the N word was used amongst black individuals was because they didn't want the word to be used against them, and they decided to make it into something of their own. That's sort of the idea behind reclaiming slurs. I don't really know that we're at the point where the word has been completely distanced from its original meaning--or if that point will ever truly be reached--since the history of it is still very, very recent. I also disagree with you on the topic of relevance. I think the word is relevant to Black people, their personal struggle with regards to race, and to their personal history, amongst other things. 

I'm not advocating for you to use or to not use the N word, but I think it's important to treat it as more than "just a word."


----------



## Soda Fox (Mar 24, 2017)

To me the current idea of political correctness is unattainable. There are so many different ways each individual wants to be treated, and political correctness seeks to appeal to each individual. We'll sorry guys, there's several billion people on this planet who have different wants and can find hundreds of billion things offensive. If one side of the spectrum can start silencing the other, then the reverse can happen, too.

I do think people should be decent to one another, but it goes both ways. If someone accidentally misgenders you, or asks how many kids you have when you have none nor the desire to have any, or assumes something about you without even knowing you, take it in stride. If they apologize great, if they don't, or shrug it off. People aren't perfect and we can't force them to be perfect. What we can do is be accepting of their faults and lead by example on how we want the world to be.

Personally I don't want a world that falls to two sides refusing to compromise and arguments that just turn into name-calling.


----------



## carp (Mar 24, 2017)

Soda Fox said:


> People aren't perfect and we can't force them to be perfect.



bb true


----------



## fenris (Mar 24, 2017)

I've noticed a lot of people bringing up freedom of speech, and I just want to note something important:

freedom of speech means that (within reason) the government can't arrest you for what you say.  it doesn't mean you can say whatever you want, whenever you want.  if you say something folks don't like, you can and may face repercussions for it.

also, I've seen it said that citing free speech when called out is the ultimate concession: you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say in defense of your position is that it isn't literally illegal to express.


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Mar 24, 2017)

fenris said:


> I've noticed a lot of people bringing up freedom of speech, and I just want to note something important:
> 
> freedom of speech means that (within reason) the government can't arrest you for what you say.  it doesn't mean you can say whatever you want, whenever you want.  if you say something folks don't like, you can and may face repercussions for it.
> 
> also, I've seen it said that citing free speech when called out is the ultimate concession: you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say in defense of your position is that it isn't literally illegal to express.



Now I'm not trying to say that you are one of these guys, but did you know that those who try to use the strict definition of freedom of speech to point out that it doesn't protect speech from political correctness and those who find people who complain about political correctness and SJWs annoying are actually SJWs? When people are annoyed by anti-SJWs or annoyed by those who think political correctness is a bad thing, it kinda hints that they actually support political correctness (which includes the suspension of those five students that worn American flag shirts on Cinco de Mayo, one of the few cases where it has gone too far). Even at the beginning, it was ridiculous. Now it's mutated to a more dangerous level.

I did want it to become illegal because of the damages done, but I don't think it doesn't need to be illegal anymore. Why? It's because when people use coercive political correctness to bully someone else, the one applying PC gets a major backlash. Remember when Food Network fired Paula Deen for saying the N-word 28 years before she got fired. Although people would not defend her use of that word, Food Network lost a lot of viewers because of that. They even received several hate comments on their Facebook page. Remember when a Christian bakery refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple and got sued for that. The lesbian couple received tons of death threats from others, really bad ones, worse than the kind of death threats companies normally get when something isn't going peoples' way. And all these people who beg for safe spaces, trigger warnings, and no-platforms in college, more people view them negatively. As much as aggression against people who are PC can get really mean, and as much as I do not tolerate this kind lf behavior if it gets that bad, I felt it's justified. The reason, if you are unwillingly to respect their right to have an opinion or even respect their rights in general, then you shouldn't even get respect. Sure it doesn't have to be in form of death threats, but bullying people with political correctness should guarantee a backlash.

I understand some would pull the SJW card or "political correctness" card to defend their bigotry, but those who complain about that usually support political correctness and find politically incorrect stuff to be offensive.


----------



## Soda Fox (Mar 24, 2017)

fenris said:


> I've noticed a lot of people bringing up freedom of speech, and I just want to note something important:
> 
> freedom of speech means that (within reason) the government can't arrest you for what you say.  it doesn't mean you can say whatever you want, whenever you want.  if you say something folks don't like, you can and may face repercussions for it.
> 
> also, I've seen it said that citing free speech when called out is the ultimate concession: you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say in defense of your position is that it isn't literally illegal to express.



Here's the thing. I think an employer, parent, instructor (within various amounts of reason) can suspend free speech in the office, home, or classroom - and even then if someone is not following the rules then the rule breaker can be fired/grounded/kicked out of class. That also said I think if someone in class has an opposing viewpoint, especially if the class is paid for and the student is ruffling feathers but being otherwise respectful, they shouldn't be automatically kicked from the class. School is a place to learn and that also means learn different points of view.

I think corporations, as separate entities (they are considered a person after all) sould be held to PC standard. Corps are people but not truly, so they don't have the same rights as individuals. However I think small mom and pop's where the owners are doing business under their own SSN should have pretty much the same freedoms as the individual doing business. 

I think on an individual level, not on the job or again they are their own job, sould be free to say whatever they want. If it's on a forum (meaning Internet or a place like a bar) the moderator/bouncer can suspend someone causing trouble *on EITHER side of the PC debate - its up to the owner/mod of the place of discussion.  But if it's in a free space like the street people can say whatever they want period. If someone on the street offends you and to want to fight it out then you do you. I'd much rather go on my way and ignore it, but I think the person has a right to say whatever. 

I wanted to add, too, that I don't care if people here call me a bigot for defending weekday I defend, because I'm not, but also I have the right to defend those I don't think are the things they're being called. This really goes both ways to me. You can say whatever but I can say whatever in defense, too.


----------



## piichinu (Mar 24, 2017)

i just dont say the wrong things. i ignore the existence of the actual term "politically correct" tho. i say things not cuz theyre politically correct but bc i think theyre okay things to say/its what i truly think


----------



## moonford (Mar 24, 2017)

If I was called something I'm not by some random person I wouldn't care because that person is nothing to me. I do make jokes that are offensive because I like offensive humour especially when its at my expense because I don't care and I think its funny, if somebody came up to me and said "you're not being politically correct" I would look at them and laugh because I wasn't trying to be politically correct in the first place. Jokes are not made to be serious! I don't make race, sexuality or rape jokes because they aren't my type of humour and their just terrible but I'm not going to harass someone if they do make these jokes because they probably didn't think it through or mean it at all, does it justify it? No, but it shouldn't affect your life or their life if you get offended because they don't care about you! So move on, because the only person who will be annoyed is you and they certainly won't help you because they don't give a damn about you. If somebody made a racist joke to me I wouldn't laugh and I wouldn't harass them because what's the point? Trying to change people because you got offended is very controlling and controlling people who don't share the same humour to you is messed up, stop trying to change people who don't fit your idealistic world, control freaks. And newsflash: people rarely change so why bother? Especially when these people don't do anything life threatening, seriously its not like they stab you when they make jokes.

I have made very offensive jokes in the past and I have apologized to the people who have been offended by me and when I look back on those jokes I realize now that they were really bad and I needed to reevaluate my choice of words. Now I'm more careful and I have lost friends because I realized they don't understand me nor do they try to and I don't want to offend people because 1) I don't have the time to listen to somebody complaining about me 2) If you don't have the same humour as me I probably won't be the best of friends because its a coping mechanism of mine. 3) I have low self esteem so I tend to tell rude jokes about other people often. It's a problem of mine which I would like to stabilize.

I'm aware that I am an offensive person but harassing me because I tell offensive jokes is offensive and abusive, the hypocrisy is real.

To the people who say "I still have faith in humanity" does that mean that literally anyone who tells a politically incorrect joke is a terrible human being? I'm just asking!

*Edit: I'm sick at the moment so there may be a few mistakes so I apologize in advance.*


----------



## forestyne (Mar 24, 2017)

Whiteflamingo said:


> To the people who say "I still have faith in humanity" does that mean that literally anyone who tells a politically incorrect joke is a terrible human being? I'm just asking!



Whether they like it or not, everyone's told an offensive joke at least once in their lifetime.

I know I'm repeating myself but if you've told the "why did the chicken cross the road" joke to somebody aka the base of all humour itself, you have indeed told an offensive joke. You have told an offensive joke to suicidal people(?) and all chickens around the world. The Cuckoos hate you.


----------



## moonford (Mar 24, 2017)

forestyne said:


> Whether they like it or not, everyone's told an offensive joke at least once in their lifetime.
> 
> I know I'm repeating myself but if you've told the "why did the chicken cross the road" joke to somebody aka the base of all humour itself, you have indeed told an offensive joke. You have told an offensive joke to suicidal people(?) and all chickens around the world. The Cuckoos hate you.



Exactly, but its understandable why people would get offended by jokes about suicide, abuse, racism and so on. They may have experienced these and when people joke and mock those topics they will be hurt by those jokes. It all comes down to whether or not you care about strangers feelings, telling a joke like that doesn't make you a bad person but if you went up to a rape victim and you knew they were a rape victim and still told a rape joke to hurt them deeply, it does mean your a jerk. (Obviously)


----------



## oath2order (Mar 24, 2017)

forestyne said:


> Whether they like it or not, everyone's told an offensive joke at least once in their lifetime.
> 
> I know I'm repeating myself but if you've told the "why did the chicken cross the road" joke to somebody aka the base of all humour itself, you have indeed told an offensive joke. You have told an offensive joke to suicidal people(?) and all chickens around the world. The Cuckoos hate you.



How is the chicken joke a suicide joke


----------



## forestyne (Mar 24, 2017)

oath2order said:


> How is the chicken joke a suicide joke



The conclusion to the joke "to get to the other side" is metaphorical for "to die". The chicken willingly crosses the road, knowing that he would be hit by a car, thus committing suicide.

It's not even a funny joke. Everyone seems to think this is the safest of safe jokes but really, if you put even a smidge of thought into it, it's offensive.

- - - Post Merge - - -



Whiteflamingo said:


> Exactly, but its understandable why people would get offended by jokes about suicide, abuse, racism and so on. They may have experienced these and when people joke and mock those topics they will be hurt by those jokes. It all comes down to whether or not you care about strangers feelings, telling a joke like that doesn't make you a bad person but if you went up to a rape victim and you knew they were a rape victim and still told a rape joke to hurt them deeply, it does mean your a jerk. (Obviously)



Yeah, as long as you're not saying it maliciously or to cause harm, offensive humour doesn't make you a criminal. We shouldn't _ban_ offensive humour, because (for some people) they're often the best kinds of jokes. Stiff and safe jokes like "haha i walked into a wall" is funny (I wrote that it wasn't and then started laughing, what is wrong with me), but there's barely any comedic value if you don't have a wild imagination. Until you add "and then I broke my nose" or something, it spices up the joke. But even a "safe joke" like that is at the expense of another person. Comedy is usually always at the expense of someone else.

I've tried to commit suicide multiple times and I tell suicide jokes, it helps me cope and I enjoy mocking myself. Sensitive people can't censor what they don't want to hear.

- - - Post Merge - - -

Everyone's told the chicken joke and you suck because of it. So now you are all hypocrites. BOoM


----------



## moonford (Mar 24, 2017)

forestyne said:


> The conclusion to the joke "to get to the other side" is metaphorical for "to die". The chicken willingly crosses the road, knowing that he would be hit by a car, thus committing suicide.
> 
> It's not even a funny joke. Everyone seems to think this is the safest of safe jokes but really, if you put even a smidge of thought into it, it's offensive.
> 
> ...



For me you always need to add something to a joke to make it even funnier, when I was reading your post I didn't laugh or smile at the wall thing but when you mentioned "and then I broke my nose" I started to imagine it and then I smiled and giggled.


----------



## Ghost Soda (Mar 24, 2017)

forestyne said:


> But they're just jokes. We'd be better off being programmed machines if we couldn't tell jokes. It's sensitive people like this that ruin it for everybody.



Please point out to me where I said we couldn't ever make any jokes ever. If hearing "don't make jokes that rely on bigotry and hurting others" causes you to reach the "we can't ever make any jokes ever again" conclusion, maybe you ought to reevaluate your sense of humor there, bud.



Apple2012 said:


> Now I'm not trying to say that you are one of these guys, but did you know that those who try to use the strict definition of freedom of speech to point out that it doesn't protect speech from political correctness and those who find people who complain about political correctness and SJWs annoying are actually SJWs? When people are annoyed by anti-SJWs or annoyed by those who think political correctness is a bad thing, it kinda hints that they actually support political correctness (which includes the suspension of those five students that worn American flag shirts on Cinco de Mayo, one of the few cases where it has gone too far). Even at the beginning, it was ridiculous. Now it's mutated to a more dangerous level.
> 
> I did want it to become illegal because of the damages done, but I don't think it doesn't need to be illegal anymore. Why? It's because when people use coercive political correctness to bully someone else, the one applying PC gets a major backlash. Remember when Food Network fired Paula Deen for saying the N-word 28 years before she got fired. Although people would not defend her use of that word, Food Network lost a lot of viewers because of that. They even received several hate comments on their Facebook page. Remember when a Christian bakery refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple and got sued for that. The lesbian couple received tons of death threats from others, really bad ones, worse than the kind of death threats companies normally get when something isn't going peoples' way. And all these people who beg for safe spaces, trigger warnings, and no-platforms in college, more people view them negatively. As much as aggression against people who are PC can get really mean, and as much as I do not tolerate this kind lf behavior if it gets that bad, I felt it's justified. The reason, if you are unwillingly to respect their right to have an opinion or even respect their rights in general, then you shouldn't even get respect. Sure it doesn't have to be in form of death threats, but bullying people with political correctness should guarantee a backlash.
> 
> I understand some would pull the SJW card or "political correctness" card to defend their bigotry, but those who complain about that usually support political correctness and find politically incorrect stuff to be offensive.



I don't know why people keep spouting this "respect all opinions" stuff. The idea that I should treat harmful opinions like "we need protect white people from other races!!!" and "gay people deserve to go to heck!!" as being equal to "POC and LGBT people are human beings and deserve to be treated with respect" is, frankly, pure bologna.

And supporting equal rights yourself doesn't give you a free pass to spout bigotry. So if I see someone make a "hurr durr i identify as a fighter jet" or whatever like it's pure comedy gold and dig their head in the sand when called out, than I really don't care if they're a total grade A homophobe/transphobe or "actually an ally!!". If it quacks like a duck.



forestyne said:


> Whether they like it or not, everyone's told an offensive joke at least once in their lifetime.
> 
> I know I'm repeating myself but if you've told the "why did the chicken cross the road" joke to somebody aka the base of all humour itself, you have indeed told an offensive joke. You have told an offensive joke to suicidal people(?) and all chickens around the world. The Cuckoos hate you.



But there's a difference between telling bad jokes before, but feeling guilty and knowing better now vs telling trashy hurtful jokes in the present and than sticking your fingers in your ears and going "wahh wahhh sjws are taking my freedon of speech" when you're called out.



forestyne said:


> The conclusion to the joke "to get to the other side" is metaphorical for "to die". The chicken willingly crosses the road, knowing that he would be hit by a car, thus committing suicide.
> 
> It's not even a funny joke. Everyone seems to think this is the safest of safe jokes but really, if you put even a smidge of thought into it, it's offensive.
> 
> ...



That's like saying that as long as you're not _trying_ to hurt anybody, that you should be able to shoot bullets into the air or something. "I wasn't trying to hurt anybody" means squat when exactly that happens. You don't know if a sexual abuse surviver might be walking by when you tell your oh so funny rape joke. And if you were so imaginative, you should be able to think of jokes that aren't "lol gay people/trans people/black people/ect are different than us!!! #joke!!!"

And since you keep bringing up that chicken joke, please bring proof that it's about suicide. As far as I know, it's a joke because you expect something crazy to happen but it literally just gets to the other side of the road.


----------



## forestyne (Mar 24, 2017)

Ghost Soda said:


> Please point out to me where I said we couldn't ever make any jokes ever. If hearing "don't make jokes that rely on bigotry and hurting others" causes you to reach the "we can't ever make any jokes ever again" conclusion, maybe you ought to reevaluate your sense of humor there, bud.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



special snowflake alert


We can't shelter you because you're 'offended' or 'triggered'. Comedy doesn't cater to the sensitive. Grow a backbone and then come back.

But you're right; we don't know who's gone through what when you're walking past a stranger on the street. Millions of people have gone through and continue to go through sexual abuse, domestic abuse, racism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia around the globe. If you tell a joke on the street, you don't know who's going to overhear that joke or how they react to it. Newsflash: that isn't the person who's telling the joke's problem. *You're a dickhead if you tell a somethingist joke with intent to hurt someone who's is of that race/gender/sexual orientation or who's gone through what.* The way you're wording yourself is that we should shelter everybody and every place on the internet should be a "safe zone1!!!1!!" and nobody should tell any jokes ever.

Nobody's flaunting white privilege here, so stop saying that.


And the chicken joke is anti-comedy to the sheltered simple minds, disguised as an offensive joke that those sheltered simple minds can pick up on.


----------



## Ghost Soda (Mar 24, 2017)

forestyne said:


> special snowflake alert
> 
> 
> We can't shelter you because you're 'offended' or 'triggered'. Comedy doesn't cater to the sensitive. Grow a backbone and then come back.
> ...



Ok.

Chill out there, kiddo. I'm not saying people who make terribad jokes should be thrown in the dungeon or executed on the streets! You can make your 2edgy4you unfunny "jokes" all you want to! Just don't throw a fit when people call you out on your behavior.

And _please_ explain to me the difference between telling a rape joke with the intent to hurt someone and telling a rape joke with the intent to entertain your buddies. Either we shouldn't care about anyone's feelings and tell anyone that we hurt to shove it, or we put thought into the things we say and care about others feelings. You can't have it both ways. Again, intent isn't a magical get-out-of-jail free card that makes it so the things you do somehow manage not to hurt anybody just because you don't want them to, ya nutterbutter!

Uh, I didn't say anybody was flaunting white privilege, did I?

I still don't see any proof, just some "Ash is in a coma" esque theories.


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Mar 24, 2017)

Ghost Soda said:


> I don't know why people keep spouting this "respect all opinions" stuff. The idea that I should treat harmful opinions like "we need protect white people from other races!!!" and "gay people deserve to go to heck!!" as being equal to "POC and LGBT people are human beings and deserve to be treated with respect" is, frankly, pure bologna.
> 
> And supporting equal rights yourself doesn't give you a free pass to spout bigotry. So if I see someone make a "hurr durr i identify as a fighter jet" or whatever like it's pure comedy gold and dig their head in the sand when called out, than I really don't care if they're a total grade A homophobe/transphobe or "actually an ally!!". If it quacks like a duck.



I don't defend bigotry, nor would I support it. But in some of these cases that bother me (like that wedding cake case), the one being persecuted isn't being a bigot. If a religious for-profit business refuses to attend a wedding that violates their beliefs for supporting, they have the right to refuse. If someone chooses not to have diversity in their art, they have the right to decide what's in their art. That's what SJWs fail to recognize. Instead, they would continue harassing people, shoving their beliefs down their throat, as they want the world to revolve around them.

Another thing I have a problem with political correctness is that in the past few years, it became more of a tool of oppression against straight white males and conservatives. I do not support prejudice or discrimination towards African Americans, women, non-Christians, LGBT, the poor, and foreign-born people. However, as much as I oppose discrimination towards these people, I am also against discrimination towards whites, men, Christians, straight people, the rich, and Americans. Political correctness has been used to target these people, as well as conservatives of the other groups. You see, I may support voter ID laws and stand-your-ground laws while I have no respect for Black Lives Matter, but I'm against racial segregation and racial disenfranchisement like what we seen in the Jim Crow Era. I am pro-life and against radical feminism, but I have more female friends than male friends (I'm a male) while I oppose patriarchy like what we had before. I believe businesses have the right to refuse service or participation in any wedding, but I support keeping same-sex marriage legal. I oppose censorship of art and history no matter what content people are offended by, but I find offensive jokes and stereotypes to be very offensive (even if they don't describe me). The thing with SJWs is that not only they will accuse people like me of bigotry for having the part of the beliefs they find politically incorrect, but they will also use that as an excuse for bullying. They even think it's moral to bully people who disagree with them while they think it's immoral to treat them with respect. They may say that conservatives, whites, Christians, and men are intolerant with no proof, but their actions prove otherwise. SJWs are the real bigots, yet they don't realize it.


----------



## forestyne (Mar 24, 2017)

Ghost Soda said:


> Ok.
> 
> Chill out there, kiddo. I'm not saying people who make terribad jokes should be thrown in the dungeon or executed on the streets! You can make your 2edgy4you unfunny "jokes" all you want to! Just don't throw a fit when people call you out on your behavior.
> 
> ...




do u mean when u said



Ghost Soda said:


> The idea that I should treat harmful opinions like "we need protect white people from other races!!!" and "gay people deserve to go to heck!!" as being equal to "POC and LGBT people are human beings and deserve to be treated with respect" is, frankly, pure bologna.



but nobody's forcing the "white people are so precious" down your throat like a SJW (like yourself) here like you claim? 


Don't turn around and say "chillax kiddo omg" when people call you out on shoving your views and beliefs down people's throats.
All I see is that you can't respect opinions that don't match your own and, therefore, should be demonised. And please stop jumping the gun on rape jokes.

It is not anyone's responsibility to care about others. We don't _have_ to, but it's ideal. Freedom of speech is being able to say what we want without being prosecuted for it. Trying to restrict that is against human rights. What I am saying is that *if you walk up to a rape victim knowingly and tell a rape joke, you are an *******.* I don't know how bigger I need to make the text; it's pretty clear what I'm trying to say and what the difference is. I see no need to repeat myself further.

Nobody here has said you need to accept opinions. All we've said is to respect them, because it's the basic human right.

- - - Post Merge - - -



Apple2012 said:


> The thing with SJWs is that not only they will accuse people like me of bigotry for having the part of the beliefs they find politically incorrect, but they will also use that as an excuse for bullying. They even think it's moral to bully people who disagree with them while they think it's immoral to treat them with respect. They may say that conservatives, whites, Christians, and men are intolerant with no proof, but their actions prove otherwise. SJWs are the real bigots, yet they don't realize it.



While I don't _agree_ with your opinions (which you are entitled to), I agree with this. I agree that SJW are the real bigots. They make bigots look bad and people who are fighting for equality look like ****. Somehow they need to represent the feminist fight in the media, but they're such extreme views and they're shoving their extremist views and bigotry down people's throats, when the only way we can ever move forward is with acceptance of other opinions, respect and coexisting to teach that POC, women and other sexualities that aren't straight aren't any different.


sorry if there's typos, my computers lagging and i'm tired lol

- - - Post Merge - - -

haha, treating other people's opinions with respect because they don't match my radical and restricted views??????! well, i never!!!! just the *IDEA* is disgusting


----------



## Ghost Soda (Mar 24, 2017)

Apple2012 said:


> I don't defend bigotry, nor would I support it. But in some of these cases that bother me (like that wedding cake case), the one being persecuted isn't being a bigot. If a religious for-profit business refuses to attend a wedding that violates their beliefs for supporting, they have the right to refuse. If someone chooses not to have diversity in their art, they have the right to decide what's in their art. That's what SJWs fail to recognize. Instead, they would continue harassing people, shoving their beliefs down their throat, as they want the world to revolve around them.
> 
> Another thing I have a problem with political correctness is that in the past few years, it became more of a tool of oppression against straight white males and conservatives. I do not support prejudice or discrimination towards African Americans, women, non-Christians, LGBT, the poor, and foreign-born people. However, as much as I oppose discrimination towards these people, I am also against discrimination towards whites, men, Christians, straight people, the rich, and Americans. Political correctness has been used to target these people, as well as conservatives of the other groups. You see, I may support voter ID laws and stand-your-ground laws while I have no respect for Black Lives Matter, but I'm against racial segregation and racial disenfranchisement like what we seen in the Jim Crow Era. I am pro-life and against radical feminism, but I have more female friends than male friends (I'm a male) while I oppose patriarchy like what we had before. I believe businesses have the right to refuse service or participation in any wedding, but I support keeping same-sex marriage legal. I oppose censorship of art and history no matter what content people are offended by, but I find offensive jokes and stereotypes to be very offensive (even if they don't describe me). The thing with SJWs is that not only they will accuse people like me of bigotry for having the part of the beliefs they find politically incorrect, but they will also use that as an excuse for bullying. They even think it's moral to bully people who disagree with them while they think it's immoral to treat them with respect. They may say that conservatives, whites, Christians, and men are intolerant with no proof, but their actions prove otherwise. SJWs are the real bigots, yet they don't realize it.



Tbqh, in that specific instance I feel like a better thing to do would have been to tell others what happened and let other people decide if they would have wanted to boycott the place or not. Likewise, if someone, for whatever reason, doesn't want to have diversity in their art, then fine by me. They'll just lose out on money and fans they could have gotten and probably fade into obscurity.







And here's where I stop taking you seriously. You're not the oppressed gender/race/sexuality because a bunch of people online called you a bigot. Is it jerkish to assume someone is bigotted because they're white/cis/straight/whatever? Yes. Is it oppression. Heck no. You said it yourself that people act rude to your based on your beliefs, NOT based on being a straight white dude, and until you get paid less, abused, disowned, fired and even killed for being a straight white dude, you don't get to wave your "b-b-but i'm oppressed!!" flag.



forestyne said:


> do u mean when u said
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I was using that as an example of "opinions" that shouldn't be respected. I never said anyone was flaunting white privilege. Don't drink and argue online, kiddo!

lel You can keep on hiding behind "opinions" all you want here but when you think that anyone that's different than you deserves to be abused and killed than I have literally no obligation to treat you and your crummy "opinions" with respect. Respect's a two way street, mate, and if you refuse to treat us and our lives with respect then don't act all surprised when we don't feel like bending over backwards for you.

And last time I checked, nobody's being sent to jail for being a bigot. If you really want to go around making a donkey's behind of yourself and spew bigotry, than go ahead and do you. But nobody's obligated to stay silent while you do.

You say it's clear what the difference is, yet you have yet to say why. Imagine this; A man is in a forest waving around a gun when he accidentally shoots someone. Yes, he didn't try to hurt anybody, but that doesn't change the fact that someone was hurt because of his negligence. By _willingly and knowingly_ choosing to do something that could really hurt others, you're basically saying "screw anybody that gets hurt over my actions because I need to have this!!!" It's one thing to just make jokes like that in private, (I still down see why you would, but ok.) but when you make them in public there's always going to be the chance of a survivor hearing you make jokes about what they went through.

Anyways, you've made it abundantly clear that the rights for people to spread hate speech and bigotry matter more to you than the people who are affected by it. You say that people who spout these hateful views shouldn't be called out while expecting the people that are being attacked by them to respect their abusers and then demonizing anyone who has the gall to get upset.

*Nobody should be obligated to accept bigoted attacks towards them. Being rightfully upset that someone has hurt you doesn't give them the right to hurt you even more!*


----------



## forestyne (Mar 24, 2017)

Ghost Soda said:


> And here's where I stop taking you seriously. You're not the oppressed gender/race/sexuality because a bunch of people online called you a bigot. Is it jerkish to assume someone is bigotted because they're white/cis/straight/whatever? Yes. Is it oppression. Heck no. You said it yourself that people act rude to your based on your beliefs, NOT based on being a straight white dude, and until you get paid less, abused, disowned, fired and even killed for being a straight white dude, you don't get to wave your "b-b-but i'm oppressed!!" flag.



But those same cis white straight males are under pressure to be perfect in society and those _same_ cis white straight males are five times more likely to kill themselves than women. They are just as vulnerable as the rest of the population, even more so. So if these straight white cis males are perfect and are completely problem-free and nobody needs to care about them, why does a statistic like this even exist?


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Mar 24, 2017)

Ghost Soda said:


> Tbqh, in that specific instance I feel like a better thing to do would have been to tell others what happened and let other people decide if they would have wanted to boycott the place or not. Likewise, if someone, for whatever reason, doesn't want to have diversity in their art, then fine by me. They'll just lose out on money and fans they could have gotten and probably fade into obscurity.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This whole post totally reminds me of why I find you to be annoying. You're always pointing at me in a negative light for what I speak. I will no longer read what you post, so welcome to my ignore list.

@forestyne: I totally agree. Both extremes are bad. In fact, I think the radical left and their bullying of the right wing is exactly why we have Donald Trump in office. I don't think the Russians have influenced our vote nor has James Comey tilted the election towards Trump. It's the anger from those who were fed up with society from the past four years. It was a dark time for conservatives, as they were treated poorly under Obama. I may not like who we have as president now, but I do think he got in because of how badly treated the voters were before the election. There were many other factors why he won, but this was one of them.


----------



## Fleshy (Mar 24, 2017)

A lot of people who advocate "political correctness" are _very_ oversensitive and like to nit-pick and police people's words unnecessarily, and a lot of people apposed to political correctness like to say certain things for the sole purpose of being controversial and upsetting people. In my opinion, when it comes to political correctness, people should be able to say what they like, but on the other hand, in some cases, a little understanding can go a long way. The words we use shouldn't have to be such a controversial issue.


----------



## forestyne (Mar 24, 2017)

Apple2012 said:


> @forestyne: I totally agree. Both extremes are bad. In fact, I think the radical left and their bullying of the right wing is exactly why we have Donald Trump in office. I don't think the Russians have influenced our vote nor has James Comey tilted the election towards Trump. It's the anger from those who were fed up with society from the past four years. It was a dark time for conservatives, as they were treated poorly under Obama. I may not like who we have as president now, but I do think he got in because of how badly treated the voters were before the election. There were many other factors why he won, but this was one of them.



All their posts are like that. They are also to be added to my ignore list. It's just sad.

I've said since the election that the extremist feminist backlash against Trump was the reason why he won. The baby boomers got tired of these twelve year old bigot kids shoving these extremist views down their throats that they all got together and voted him in. Of course, he did also brainwash and manipulate an entire nation, thus dividing them, but that's a different story.

Every single race, gender and sexuality has their own set of individual struggles and problems, denying that one group's problems don't exist, on either ends of the majority to minority scale, is bigotry. 

Denying that straight white men who are 'cancerous to society and we should all take up Hitler's ideology and kill them all' have their own problems to face in life is utter rubbish and bull****. The United State male-to-female suicide ratio alone is 3:1. Men file 17.5% of sexual harassment charges. The rate of suicide is highest in middle age — white men in particular. Men are much more likely to kill themselves and suffer from mental health problems. Denying that these problems exist because they are a majority is bullplop if I've ever heard it. 

Denying that POC have their own problems to face in life is utter rubbish. A 1999 study found that doctors treat black and white patients differently, even when their medical files were statistically identical. When shown patient histories and asked to make judgments about heart disease, the doctors were much less likely to recommend cardiac catheterization (a helpful procedure) to black patients. Denying that those problems exist because they're a minority is utter rubbish.

Denying that these problems exist, just to protect your special snowflake ego, is pure bigotry.

- - - Post Merge - - -

pwned


i've never spent so much time on WHO in my entire life lmfao


----------



## Ghost Soda (Mar 24, 2017)

forestyne said:


> But those same cis white straight males are under pressure to be perfect in society and those _same_ cis white straight males are five times more likely to kill themselves than women. They are just as vulnerable as the rest of the population, even more so. So if these straight white cis males are perfect and are completely problem-free and nobody needs to care about them, why does a statistic like this even exist?



Where did I say that cis straight white dudes lead perfects existences and have 0 problems. Nowhere. I was simply stating the fact that they don't and will never face homophobia, transphobia, racism or sexism.

Please bring out the statistics.


----------



## moonford (Mar 24, 2017)

Ghost Soda said:


> Where did I say that cis straight white dudes lead perfects existences and have 0 problems. Nowhere. I was simply stating the fact that they don't and will never face homophobia, transphobia, racism or sexism.
> 
> Please bring out the statistics.



Everybody can be affected by racism and sexism, denying that they can't face hate because of their race/sex is ridiculous. They won't face homophobia or transphobia because they aren't trans/gay so why bring that up, they will very rarely be targeted because of their sexuality because people who are LGBT+ are more understanding and know what it's like so they would never dream of putting someone through that but it still happens!

You are trying to get the point across that people should be treated equally but you are denying the fact that men who are white, cis and straight can face sexism and racism when they most certainly can. They may not get nearly as much racism or sexism directed towards them but they still are victims of it and the last time I checked minorities matter (and so they should) because it's all about equality. 

Equality for everyone on Earth will never ever be achieved if we continue to behave like this.

Look at www.Salon.com for racist articles against white people.

Sexism against men  here.


----------



## koopakingg (Mar 24, 2017)

Ghost Soda said:


> Where did I say that cis straight white dudes lead perfects existences and have 0 problems. Nowhere. I was simply stating the fact that they don't and will never face homophobia, transphobia, racism or sexism.
> 
> Please bring out the statistics.



"You can't be racist to white people!"

This statement. -_-


----------



## forestyne (Mar 24, 2017)

I brought so many statistics that cis white straight men will face sexual abuse and significant mental health problems and make up a large majority of suicide statistics yet it's still all about minorities and what they don't suffer from. I'm offended that there's still a counter argument without statistics to back that bigotry up.

- - - Post Merge - - -



koopakingg said:


> "You can't be racist to white people!"
> 
> This statement. -_-



McBusted.


----------



## moonford (Mar 24, 2017)

forestyne said:


> I brought so many statistics that cis white straight men will face sexual abuse and significant mental health problems and make up a large majority of suicide statistics yet it's still all about minorities and what they don't suffer from. I'm offended that there's still a counter argument without statistics to back that bigotry up.
> 
> - - - Post Merge - - -
> 
> ...



I'm offended that people can't google statistics when they are there and easy to find. -__-


----------



## forestyne (Mar 24, 2017)

Whiteflamingo said:


> Everybody can be affected by racism and sexism, denying that they can't face hate because of their race/sex is ridiculous. They won't face homophobia or transphobia because they aren't trans/gay so why bring that up, they will very rarely be targeted because of their sexuality because people who are LGBT+ are more understanding and know what it's like so they would never dream of putting someone through that but it still happens!
> 
> You are trying to get the point across that people should be treated equally but you are denying the fact that men who are white, cis and straight can face sexism and racism when they most certainly can. They may not get nearly as much racism or sexism directed towards them but they still are victims of it and the last time I checked minorities matter (and so they should) because it's all about equality.
> 
> ...



I doubt it will be read since my sources were completely ignored as if I spouted rubbish, so all I will say is that even though they won't be killed for being that gender and that race, there are lots of other problems that men will face that extremist feminists will deny and not understand. Men experience sexism. Men experience prejudices and discrimination (even though it's not widely reported and I'm not even saying "reverse racism is real omgomg #whiteopression) for what the media paints them as - women-beating, black-hating sexists. Painting a man up to be a perfect, strong man with no problems/irrelevant problems is sexist in itself.


----------



## Leen (Mar 24, 2017)

koopakingg said:


> "You can't be racist to white people!"
> 
> This statement. -_-




You can't be racist to a white person. Racism is the systematic oppression of a people, and in this case, minorities, or marginalized groups. So in order to actually be racist against a white person, we would have to go back in time and put in place a system that would benefit a marginalized group. 

You can be prejudiced towards a white person, but you can't be racist.


----------



## Soda Fox (Mar 24, 2017)

Haven't caught up but can you both please stop name calling?

Ghost Soda, you don't get to tell people that they shouldn't say hurtful things and then stay camping people bigots. This makes you a hypocrite.

Forestyne, you know Ghost doesn't like some of the words you're using to describe him. Can you show a little respect please?

I'll have more to say when I catch up but I think you're both being very childish.


----------



## forestyne (Mar 24, 2017)

If I keep looking up suicide statistics for this argument, Google's gonna hmu with a suicide hotline recommendation saying "are you okay?"


----------



## Soda Fox (Mar 24, 2017)

Leen said:


> You can't be racist to a white person. Racism is the systematic oppression of a people, and in this case, minorities, or marginalized groups. So in order to actually be racist against a white person, we would have to go back in time and put in place a system that would benefit a marginalized group.
> 
> You can be prejudiced towards a white person, but you can't be racist.



Racist is prejudice against a race. You can certainly be racist against anyone of a different background.


----------



## forestyne (Mar 24, 2017)

Leen said:


> You can't be racist to a white person. Racism is the systematic oppression of a people, and in this case, minorities, or marginalized groups. So in order to actually be racist against a white person, we would have to go back in time and put in place a system that would benefit a marginalized group.
> 
> You can be prejudiced towards a white person, but you can't be racist.



Yes, reverse racism doesn't exist. I did clarify my response that white people do experience prejudices rather than racism.

- - - Post Merge - - -



Soda Fox said:


> Racist is prejudice against a race. You can certainly be racist against anyone of a different background.



racism
noun
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

So, I mean.... yeah.... but it's not common to call it racism when it's against white people for some reason. But technically you're correct, based on the definition of racism.


----------



## Ghost Soda (Mar 24, 2017)

C/Ping older arguement forestyne never responded to:



Ghost Soda said:


> I was using that as an example of "opinions" that shouldn't be respected. I never said anyone was flaunting white privilege. Don't drink and argue online, kiddo!
> 
> lel You can keep on hiding behind "opinions" all you want here but when you think that anyone that's different than you deserves to be abused and killed than I have literally no obligation to treat you and your crummy "opinions" with respect. Respect's a two way street, mate, and if you refuse to treat us and our lives with respect then don't act all surprised when we don't feel like bending over backwards for you.
> 
> ...





Whiteflamingo said:


> Everybody can be affected by racism and sexism, denying that they can't face hate because of their race/sex is ridiculous. They won't face homophobia or transphobia because they aren't trans/gay so why bring that up, they will very rarely be targeted because of their sexuality because people who are LGBT+ are more understanding and know what it's like so they would never dream of putting someone through that but it still happens!
> 
> You are trying to get the point across that people should be treated equally but you are denying the fact that men who are white, cis and straight can face sexism and racism when they most certainly can. They may not get nearly as much racism or sexism directed towards them but they still are victims of it and the last time I checked minorities matter (and so they should) because it's all about equality.
> 
> ...



Look, I'm getting real tired of this argument here. TBH, I really don't want to get into the whole "does reverse racism/sexism" exist can of worms. I was/am just getting tired of apple's victim complex.



Soda Fox said:


> Haven't caught up but can you both please stop name calling?
> 
> Ghost Soda, you don't get to tell people that they shouldn't say hurtful things and then stay camping people bigots. This makes you a hypocrite.
> 
> ...



Thank you. Look, I wasn't trying to say that anyone here and now was a bigot, but if I did I'm sorry. This argument is using a lot of brain stamina. :U


----------



## moonford (Mar 24, 2017)

Ghost Soda said:


> C/Ping older arguement forestyne never responded to:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



People will gradually leave this thread, so let's start now. How about that? 
I'll go first unless someone feels like throwing out another point which is interesting.

- - - Post Merge - - -



forestyne said:


> Yes, reverse racism doesn't exist. I did clarify my response that white people do experience prejudices rather than racism.
> 
> - - - Post Merge - - -
> 
> ...



Definitions = Facts. 
We should respect the words we are given and use them correctly, it's not common because racism against white people isn't as common 'so racism against white people should be called something different', isn't that kinda racism in itself?

Don't reply to me because I won't reply to you, k? K? c;


----------



## Tao (Mar 24, 2017)

Ghost Soda said:


> Please point out to me where I said we couldn't ever make any jokes ever. If hearing "don't make jokes that rely on bigotry and hurting others" causes you to reach the "we can't ever make any jokes ever again" conclusion, maybe you ought to reevaluate your sense of humor there, bud.



Many would argue that humor is largely drawn at the expense of somebody/something else, or "hurting others" as you put it. 

"hurting others" is a pretty wide net to cast, so in saying that, yea, you've pretty much said "no, I don't like humor", since that covers almost everything from Roy Chubby Brown and the Three Stooges to Tom & Jerry and Red Dwarf. 

Other than that I guess we have "lulzxDs0r4nd0m!!!1!1!111" humor and "that's a reference/quote, so it's a joke for some reason", and if that's all we're allowed to laugh at, then I'm fine with a humorless world.




Ghost Soda said:


> Where did I say that cis straight white dudes lead perfects existences and have 0 problems. Nowhere. I was simply stating the fact that they don't and will never face homophobia, transphobia, racism or sexism.



I see you're using the Buzzfeed definitions of those words rather than the actual definitions.

I'm just gonna pick those goalposts up and put them back where they belong...Sexism is treating somebody differently based on their sex. Racism is treating somebody differently based on their race. White males are not excluded from that and saying they are is ironically both sexist and racist. 

And irony is fundamentally based in misery, so, I dunno, make up your mind. Is "hurting others" okay or not? You're givin' me mixed signals here, dude.



forestyne said:


> And please stop jumping the gun on rape jokes.



But I got a real doozy involving a quadruple amputee and 2 dwarfs.


----------



## UglyMonsterFace (Mar 24, 2017)

Leen said:


> You can't be racist to a white person. Racism is the systematic oppression of a people, and in this case, minorities, or marginalized groups. So in order to actually be racist against a white person, we would have to go back in time and put in place a system that would benefit a marginalized group.
> 
> You can be prejudiced towards a white person, but you can't be racist.



I hate when people say this. This is the definition of racism in its simplest form:



> rac?ism
> ˈrāˌsizəm/Submit
> noun
> *prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.*



Where does it say that it _has to be_ institutionalised? 

Here's another:



> 1:  a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
> 
> *2a:  a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles
> b:  a political or social system founded on racism*
> ...



The bolded statement might be what you are talking about, but racism is an umbrella term, and as you can tell, has other brackets of definition other than the one you like to use to support your agenda. You can be racist as an individual, or as a political system. So yes, a person of colour _can_ be racist against whites. In fact, the idea that white people cannot experience racism, is in fact, *RACISM*. It is racist to assume that a white person is automatically racist because of white privilege, or that a white person can't suffer the same poverty or discrimination within a governmental system. How about Asians? Can we experience racism? Asians have the highest rate of success in America (even more so than whites). Is this Asian privilege? It must mean that Asians are favoured, right? NO, my friends, racism can be expressed by all, and experienced by all. Maybe in different ways, but yes, it is still *racism*.

I just get really annoyed when people try to say white people must have gotten to Harvard or Yale because they are white, or that white people are automatically ignorant about other people's cultures, or if a white person goes to Africa to do charity work it is assumed it's because they feel like they are superior and are just pitying the poor people of Africa. That is a type of racism that we people of colour don't often experience. But it's still racism.


----------



## Soda Fox (Mar 24, 2017)

Ghost Soda said:


> Please point out to me where I said we couldn't ever make any jokes ever. If hearing "don't make jokes that rely on bigotry and hurting others" causes you to reach the "we can't ever make any jokes ever again" conclusion, maybe you ought to reevaluate your sense of humor there, bud.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sorry if the formatting is a little wonky. I'm on my phone and reading the firm between games ok Mario Kart 8.

Firstly, why should anyone respect your opinion if you think respecting others opinions is "bologna"? You need to be willing to extend the olive branch first if you expect the same respect in return. And, again, if you show respect and others don't, take it in stride and be above that. 

Secondly what's "trashy" or offensive to you might be hilarious to 10other people. So try not to police what people joke about. If you don't like it, voice your opinion, and if it doesn't stop, remove yourself from the situation.


----------



## Jeremy (Mar 24, 2017)

We've had to go through this thread because part of the discussion turned into an aggressive argument.  If you can't respectfully disagree with someone, you shouldn't be posting in threads like this. Please read our rules and guidelines for more details:




			
				Rules and Guidelines - 1.a. Respecting Others said:
			
		

> *1. Community Guidelines*
> 
> *Respecting Others*
> *Respect other Bell Tree members in your posts, private messages, visitor messages, Wi-Fi ratings, and other conversations.*
> ...



Users have already been infracted for rude posts in this thread, and if it continues we will have to close it.


----------



## kayleee (Mar 25, 2017)

the only thing that worries me is people who actually find rape jokes funny


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Mar 25, 2017)

kayleee said:


> the only thing that worries me is people who actually find rape jokes funny



At least I don't. I don't get why people even laugh at that.


----------



## forestyne (Mar 25, 2017)

kayleee said:


> the only thing that worries me is people who actually find rape jokes funny



Rape jokes aren't funny, though. At least not to me.


----------



## Red Cat (Mar 25, 2017)

Leen said:


> You can't be racist to a white person. Racism is the systematic oppression of a people, and in this case, minorities, or marginalized groups. So in order to actually be racist against a white person, we would have to go back in time and put in place a system that would benefit a marginalized group.
> 
> You can be prejudiced towards a white person, but you can't be racist.



Women, minorities, and members of the LGBT community experience discrimination on a much worse level than straight white men, but discrimination going the other way does exist. As someone who is a straight white male, it bothers me when people throw terms like white privilege or male privilege in my face. I'm not racist or sexist and I don't owe anyone an apology for being white or male or straight just like no one should have to apologize for being black or gay. Millennials in particular are much more accepting and respectful of all people than older generations, but we don't appreciate people trying to shame us or make us feel guilty because we may have a racist or sexist or homophobic uncle or grandparent. Most people support equality, but when people start going for restitution, it just reopens wounds and makes people bitter and angry and sabotages the push for equality.


----------



## forestyne (Mar 25, 2017)

Red Cat said:


> Women, minorities, and members of the LGBT community experience discrimination on a much worse level than straight white men, but discrimination going the other way does exist. As someone who is a straight white male, it bothers me when people throw terms like white privilege or male privilege in my face. I'm not racist or sexist and I don't owe anyone an apology for being white or male or straight just like no one should have to apologize for being black or gay. Millennials in particular are much more accepting and respectful of all people than older generations, but we don't appreciate people trying to shame us or make us feel guilty because we may have a racist or sexist or homophobic uncle or grandparent. Most people support equality, but when people start going for restitution, it just reopens wounds and makes people bitter and angry and sabotages the push for equality.



Yes, it is not unheard of for white men to experience discrimination. I think 'white privilege' and 'male privilege', this idea that white people and men are automatically born with silver spoons in their mouths and they're already set for life, are stereotypes because there are plenty - in fact lots of - white people who are worse off, who are carers/young carers, who are homeless through no fault of their own, who struggle to make ends meet with rent. Life doesn't pick favourites and life doesn't play nice for anyone.


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Mar 25, 2017)

Red Cat said:


> Women, minorities, and members of the LGBT community experience discrimination on a much worse level than straight white men, but discrimination going the other way does exist. As someone who is a straight white male, it bothers me when people throw terms like white privilege or male privilege in my face. I'm not racist or sexist and I don't owe anyone an apology for being white or male or straight just like no one should have to apologize for being black or gay. Millennials in particular are much more accepting and respectful of all people than older generations, but we don't appreciate people trying to shame us or make us feel guilty because we may have a racist or sexist or homophobic uncle or grandparent. Most people support equality, but when people start going for restitution, it just reopens wounds and makes people bitter and angry and sabotages the push for equality.



You know, it's actually racist to invoke the "white privilege" card and sexist to invoke the "male privilege" card, and I agree, both are harmful. They're basically calling us "privileged" because we have more successful lives or didn't face discrimination like the others did, but if you want to know who's fault that we have inequality, I would blame those who aren't "privileged" because they made that choice. If you choose not to go to college, you're not gonna go far. If you chose not to get a good job, you're not going to have a good life. If you chose not to behave, then you're gonna get in trouble. That, and stuff like that tend to get passed down through generations. And now we're being blamed for having a "privilege" when they made bad choices before.

I would also like to say that it's not just bigotry and intolerance to invoke the privilege card, but that's the pinnacle of online bullying too. As much as we scorn intolerance, bullying is much, much, worse than that. It's also another stupid term made these days such as "micro-aggressions" and "cultural appropriation". I don't know why people make up these terms, but it sounds like they're preaching intolerance.


----------



## amanda1983 (Mar 25, 2017)

Whiteflamingo said:


> Exactly, but its understandable why people would get offended by jokes about suicide, abuse, racism and so on. They may have experienced these and when people joke and mock those topics they will be hurt by those jokes. It all comes down to whether or not you care about strangers feelings, telling a joke like that doesn't make you a bad person but *if you went up to a rape victim and you knew they were a rape victim and still told a rape joke to hurt them deeply, it does mean your a jerk. (Obviously)*



I just want to comment on the bolded part. You don't have to be *trying* to hurt them deeply to be a jerk in this instance. You don't even actually have to know they've been raped, or anything about them. If the person you're talking to starts looking distressed/upset/shocked/horrified or anything else that a normal, rational human being would be able to recognise as a cue to *stop talking now* and you notice it and identify the non verbal signal correctly BUT YOU KEEP TALKING to finish your joke - then you are being a jerk right now. Putting your own feelings and wants ahead of those of the person you're talking to, and doing so whilst aware it is upsetting them, is unescapably selfish and jerkish behaviour.

Communication is a two way street : to be understood you need to communicate your meaning and intentions effectively AND they have to be received and interpreted correctly by the recipient. And vice versa. If the person you're talking to isn't supposed to react to you in any way except to lap up what you're offering then you have NO business talking to them - you don't want to communicate, you want a passive and captive audience.

I have a quite dark and biting sense of humour and i can be scathing and brutal in my choice of words - knowing this about myself doesn't give me a free pass to say what I please without consequence. If I offer a cutting rebuttal to my manager in my workplace, it may be technically hilarious to an observer but even if my manager is privately amused, I'll still get a (deserved) talking-to.

If I'm sharing a funny story about one of the children at work with a random person at a social gathering and they suddenly start looking upset at what I'm saying I would be a jerk to continue as though nothing was wrong. Whether their reaction is from trauma or something *I* think is serious or not - if they're upset, and I continue, I'm a jerk. Yes, this has happened a few times now. Once was because it was the anniversary of their stillborn baby that day. Another time a word I said triggered a traumatic memory for them. One incident involved a stranger telling me off for allowing children in my care to play in a shallow river with me - once they stopped and listened to me, they understood they'd jumped to a highly inaccurate conclusion because of something they'd read in the news, which they apologised for and we kept chatting.

I'm not "politically correct" because of any need to fit in or look good. I'm considerate of the feelings, thoughts, and reactions of others because I'm, frankly, not a jerk. When I make mistakes, I acknowledge them. I apologise, explain what happened from my perspective if relevant, and take care to try and understand the other person's perspective. I may not agree with it, their values are often not mine - but just as I expect a certain level of politeness and curtesy, so I try my best to give that to the people around me.


----------



## KaydeeKrunk (Mar 25, 2017)

When I was in elementary school we had super fun Christmas plays, super harmless, no Jesus to be mentioned at ALL. A short time after I went on to middle school they cut the Christmas plays to be more PC and instead did summer "galas" that were just America everything. Horrible horrible time.


----------



## Weiland (Mar 25, 2017)

It's everywhere in this rampant world. I hate it because jokes are apparently "taken too far." As you can probably tell, I dislike it quite a bit.


----------



## forestyne (Mar 25, 2017)

Apple2012 said:


> I would also like to say that it's not just bigotry and intolerance to invoke the privilege card, but that's the pinnacle of online bullying too. As much as we scorn intolerance, bullying is much, much, worse than that. It's also another stupid term made these days such as "micro-aggressions" and *"cultural appropriation"*. I don't know why people make up these terms, but it sounds like they're preaching intolerance.



I think you worded your point pretty well and I agree with you. But I just felt like clarifying that the earliest existence of cultural appropriation was black-face. Culture appropriation is defined by portraying someone else's culture, usually in a negative or mocking way (as was black-face), or using it and trying to claim it as your own without saying that it's from said culture. 

Micro aggression _is_ a thing, invented by psychiatrist and Harvard University professor Chester M. Pierce in 1970 to "describe insults and dismissals he regularly witnessed non-black Americans saying to African Americans", but it's become a bit of a laughing stock because of SJWs also pulling that card when they're 'triggered' by something. Here is an example of 'micro-aggression' in the media.





Like what??


----------



## carp (Mar 25, 2017)

Jeremy said:


> If you can't respectfully disagree with someone, you shouldn't be posting in threads like this.



very sorry if my question caused this


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Mar 25, 2017)

forestyne said:


> I think you worded your point pretty well and I agree with you. But I just felt like clarifying that the earliest existence of cultural appropriation was black-face. Culture appropriation is defined by portraying someone else's culture, usually in a negative or mocking way (as was black-face), or using it and trying to claim it as your own without saying that it's from said culture.
> 
> Micro aggression _is_ a thing, invented by psychiatrist and Harvard University professor Chester M. Pierce in 1970 to "describe insults and dismissals he regularly witnessed non-black Americans saying to African Americans", but it's become a bit of a laughing stock because of SJWs also pulling that card when they're 'triggered' by something. Here is an example of 'micro-aggression' in the media.
> 
> ...



Just looking at the picture, I don't any racist there, but in recent times, it's only "taboo" to give students bad grades because students have become spoiled brats. Judging by that picture, I can see that it's now "racist" to give non-white students low grades, but "not racist" to give white students low grades, if in both cases the low grades were well-deserved. Points are only counted off if anyone is not doing the work correctly. They don't care who you are, whether you're black or white, male or female, or even the teacher's pet.

Though I did hear that in some colleges in the Northeast, instructors are afraid of giving students C's or even B's, no matter how incorrect they are. Seriously, millennials are ruining college. They don't do the work right, but they beg for good grades. They're not gonna get good jobs if they do that.


----------



## revika (Mar 25, 2017)

There are literally hundreds of scholarly journals/articles proving cultural appropriation, sexism, racism, white privilege all exist within english speaking countries.

Also you all need to learn the difference between racism and xenophobia.


----------



## Cynicat (Mar 25, 2017)

People are allowed to feel insulted, and people are allowed to insult (in my opinion). Be politically correct if you want to, don't be if you don't want to. I don't feel the urge to be rude without a reason, but I am very blunt which some people perceive as rude behaviour. I will always say things the way they are (according to me). 
I do think some people are way too sensitive, a joke is a joke.


----------



## forestyne (Mar 25, 2017)

revika said:


> Also you all need to learn the difference between racism and xenophobia.



I read back and I saw no mentions of xenophobia, also racism and xenophobia are the same thing. They are both forms of racism and, in the dictionary, synonyms of each other. at least on google they are lmao


----------



## moonford (Mar 25, 2017)

Meh, never mind.


----------



## lostineverfreeforest (Mar 25, 2017)

Tao said:


> I'm just gonna pick those goalposts up and put them back where they belong...Sexism is treating somebody differently based on their sex. Racism is treating somebody differently based on their race. White males are not excluded from that and saying they are *is ironically both sexist and racist.*



You mean to say SJWs are quick to accuse others of bigotry when they are in fact extremely bigoted themselves? What do you expect from a group that's obsessed with viewing everyone by the color of their skin, by what they have between their legs, and by what people they prefer to **** all the while judging the **** outta people based on these attributes? In other news: water is wet. More at 11.


----------



## PizzaTotinoBoy (Mar 25, 2017)

Whiteflamingo said:


> Meh, never mind.



Basically my entire thoughts about this thread after I made my points.


----------



## cIementine (Mar 25, 2017)

i think there is a fine line between being politically correct and being offended at things that aren't offensive, just for the sake of picking a fight. i also think this line is becoming more and more indistinguishable. 
i think that being politically correct in the sense that you aren't racist/sexist/homophobic etc should be standard but spinning things that aren't any of those to make it seem as though they are is something that is tiring and dilutes issues that aren't okay.


----------



## nintendofan85 (Mar 25, 2017)

Apple2012 said:


> Just looking at the picture, I don't any racist there, but in recent times, it's only "taboo" to give students bad grades because students have become spoiled brats. Judging by that picture, I can see that it's now "racist" to give non-white students low grades, but "not racist" to give white students low grades, if in both cases the low grades were well-deserved. Points are only counted off if anyone is not doing the work correctly. They don't care who you are, whether you're black or white, male or female, or even the teacher's pet.
> 
> Though I did hear that in some colleges in the Northeast, instructors are afraid of giving students C's or even B's, no matter how incorrect they are. Seriously, millennials are ruining college. They don't do the work right, but they beg for good grades. They're not gonna get good jobs if they do that.



My mom taught at a historically black college here in Jackson from 2003 until 2007, and by 2006 her job was in jeopardy because she wouldn't pass people that had averages in the 30s because it was "racist".


----------



## Tao (Mar 25, 2017)

revika said:


> There are literally hundreds of scholarly journals/articles proving cultural appropriation, sexism, racism, white privilege all exist within english speaking countries.



Literally hundreds? Wonder what translates to in time...Could have watched the Back to the Future trilogy instead.

Well if that was the conclusion, the people who wrote those journals and articles wasted time, effort and possibly money. I could have told you that those things exist in English speaking countries for free in one sentence on an Animal Crossing forum. Are we just saying 'English speaking', or are we assuming that English speaking also means 'white'? Doesn't matter either way, the same holds true.

In fact, I would go as far to say they exist in all countries regardless of ethnicity or language. I might even blow some minds here and say that those things exist no matter where you are, because some people are dicks and pigmentation or Celtic heritage doesn't really have an input on that. 

White privilege I would assume is the exception, though I won't delve any deeper than that since I'm not wasting my time I don't have the time to accurately research how white people are treated in each place of the world.


*Or* are we saying all those things are inherently 'white people things'? If so, okay, but who do I speak to about places like Saudi Arabia, India or Japan culturally appropriating my sexism and racism? That is my sexism and racism and I am appalled and offended that 'not whites' are using it.




revika said:


> Also you all need to learn the difference between racism and xenophobia.



One is treating others differently based on their race, the other is probably what Ridley experiences in the Alien franchise.




lostineverfreeforest said:


> You mean to say SJWs are quick to accuse others of bigotry when they are in fact extremely bigoted themselves? What do you expect from a group that's obsessed with viewing everyone by the color of their skin, by what they have between their legs, and by what people they prefer to **** all the while judging the **** outta people based on these attributes?* In other news: water is wet.* More at 11.



You take that back, heathen! That is not true!

Legitimately trustworthy source


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Mar 25, 2017)

nintendofan85 said:


> My mom taught at a historically black college here in Jackson from 2003 until 2007, and by 2006 her job was in jeopardy because she wouldn't pass people that had averages in the 30s because it was "racist".



Did you know: the term "racist" has been overused to the point it became meaningless (or almost meaningless). Now when people hear the term "racist", people no longer believe it, as they think they were saying it to be desperate. If you called a storeowner "racist" for denying service to an African-American because of his/her skin (when that was the real reason), then I think your use of the term is justified. However, most of the times it was used, it was only to strip personal power from someone or to object to a norm we were living with, including:


A conservative that is winning a debate.
Voter ID laws, stand-your-ground laws, guns, and police.
Supporting a non-white conservative.
Opposing Obama and/or his policies and actions.
Punishing a non-white person (such as giving an F for getting more than 40% incorrect answers), even when deserved.

The list can go on and on, and you can see how ridiculous the term is. They also use that term as an excuse for bullying. Under no circumstance is it acceptable to bully anyone. If they are bigots, bullying them doesn't make you any better. If they're not, but you're accusing them of it, then you're the bad guy for accusations and bullying. What's pretty funny is that in the 1800's to the mid 1900's, the liberals were the tolerant ones while the conservatives were intolerant. Today's liberals are much more intolerant than historical conservatives while today's conservatives were at least on the par with historical liberals. Political correctness, safe spaces, trigger warnings, no-platforms, and social justice warriors all prove this point, and there's still more from the left.


----------



## Romaki (Mar 25, 2017)

We as a society need to move on and become less racist/sexist over the years, not find more excuses for it.


----------



## moonford (Mar 25, 2017)

Apple2012 said:


> Did you know: the term "racist" has been overused to the point it became meaningless (or almost meaningless). Now when people hear the term "racist", people no longer believe it, as they think they were saying it to be desperate. If you called a storeowner "racist" for denying service to an African-American because of his/her skin (when that was the real reason), then I think your use of the term is justified. However, most of the times it was used, it was only to strip personal power from someone or to object to a norm we were living with, including:
> 
> 
> A conservative that is winning a debate.
> ...



Conservatives and liberals are as bad as each other when it comes down to it, they are both intolerant in many different ways to each other and saying things like "Today's liberals are much more intolerant than historical conservatives" is ignorant unless you have valid evidence which you haven't provided, you only have opinions not facts. Each side has bad features to them and it's understandable that you, a conservative, would leave out all the conservative bad sides in modern society because you are biased, which again is completely understandable.


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Mar 25, 2017)

Whiteflamingo said:


> Conservatives and liberals are as bad as each other when it comes down to it, they are both intolerant in many different ways to each other and saying things like "Today's liberals are much more intolerant than historical conservatives" is ignorant unless you have valid evidence which you haven't provided, you only have opinions not facts. Each side has bad features to them and it's understandable that you, a conservative, would leave out all the conservative bad sides in modern society because you are biased, which again is completely understandable.



I have to admit, I did make a blanket statement. But I do have to admit that not all liberals do that. But on both sides, the radicals give the whole group a bad name, which makes opponents generalize the whole group and not just the radicals. That's kinda why I have been harsh, but I'm not lost, so I have no disability getting along with liberals.


----------



## moonford (Mar 25, 2017)

Apple2012 said:


> I have to admit, I did make a blanket statement. But I do have to admit that not all liberals do that. But on both sides, the radicals give the whole group a bad name, which makes opponents generalize the whole group and not just the radicals. That's kinda why I have been harsh, but I'm not lost, so I have no disability getting along with liberals.



At least you own up to it unlike some people. c:
I appreciate that, thank you.


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Mar 26, 2017)

For your entertainment, I came up with a tier system for coercive political correctness, which measures how ridiculous it is and how severe it gets. There's low, medium, and high. And no, stuff like ban on slurs and stereotypes don't count, because they are literally offensive. Political correctness (like what we were talking about) attacks non-offensive stuff some people find offensive when most don't. Likewise, non-coercive PC (like adding more gay characters to your own story by choice) isn't included in the tier system.



Spoiler: Political Correctness Tier System




*Low Tier* - _Basically language police_. Some words (other than racial slurs and stereotypes) are forbidden usage as alternatives are suggested. Some people can even get punished or at least directed to an alternative. Milder cases include changing "Christmas" to "holiday" and changing "BC/AD" to "BCE/CE". The worst cases of this is an attack other words because of one or two definitions or relations to something else, as well as an attack on words that only apply to like 95% to 99% percent of the population and not the other population. An example of that includes NYC's ban on the words "dinosaur", "birthday", "Halloween", "divorce", and "television" on standardized testing.
*Medium Tier* - This is when political correctness starts to go out of control. It's not just language police at an extreme, but also the ban on some stuff because of how easily offended people can get or how not everyone follows the same customs or whatever. For example, a beach officer got fired for calling Trayvon Martin a "thug" (and this was on Facebook while off duty). Also in the same year, some teachers (or school faculty) in Oregon have declared peanut butter and jelly sandwiches to be "racist" because of how in other cultures some don't eat sandwich bread (which meant they were banned from discussion). The most infamous case of this was the suspension of five students for wearing American flag shirts on Cinco de Mayo in 2010. And this tier of political correctness is more than just that. _Censorship of art and literature made prior to 2000 and censorship of history also goes here_.
*High Tier* - By this point, it's not even about ridiculous ways to minimize offensiveness for all. _This is where double standards and PC discrimination go_. The bullying and discrimination of white people, men, Christians, the rich, straight people, and American-born US citizens goes here (which includes portraying them as intolerant without proof). It also includes the bullying and discrimination of non-whites, LGBT, and women that associate with the Republican Party or are at least conservative. People who support PC at this level would be perfectly fine or would encourage it if all the groups I mentioned above were being bullied or discriminated out of hate, but if the same happens to anybody else for any reason, then they would take offense and do crazy things. This is also where no-platforms, safe spaces, and trigger warnings go under. I might even include the whole "cultural appropriation" nonsense under this group.

The Low Tier is only scorned by conservatives, sometimes scorned by moderates. But as I go higher up, it starts to include liberal opponents, not just conservatives and moderates. The High Tier is only supported by far-left Millennials and far-left Gen Z-ers.


You don't have to take the tier system seriously, but this is something I came up with to describe political correctness and how bad it can be.


----------



## Ghost Soda (Mar 26, 2017)

Soda Fox said:


> Sorry if the formatting is a little wonky. I'm on my phone and reading the firm between games ok Mario Kart 8.
> 
> Firstly, why should anyone respect your opinion if you think respecting others opinions is "bologna"? You need to be willing to extend the olive branch first if you expect the same respect in return. And, again, if you show respect and others don't, take it in stride and be above that.
> 
> Secondly what's "trashy" or offensive to you might be hilarious to 10other people. So try not to police what people joke about. If you don't like it, voice your opinion, and if it doesn't stop, remove yourself from the situation.



(Tbh, the formatting looks fine to me!)

I'm not asking for people to respect my opinions, I'm saying that if they don't respect _me_ as a _human being_ that I won't be obligated to extend the same courtesy their way. I don't accept that people have the right to treat me like garbage while I'm expected to shut off my emotions and not hold any negative feelings towards them or else I'm suddenly "the reason why LGBT people are treated badly".

And I agree that people have the right to voice their concerns over needlessly offensive "jokes".


----------



## lostineverfreeforest (Mar 26, 2017)

ITT: SJW double standards (also commonly known as bull****) being metaphorically executed by logic. Good stuff TBT, you make me proud.



Ghost Soda said:


> (Tbh, the formatting looks fine to me!)
> 
> I'm not asking for people to respect my opinions, I'm saying that if they don't respect _me_ as a _human being_ that I won't be obligated to extend the same courtesy their way.



I may think your arguments and beliefs are completely absurd. And that it takes an impressive amount of mental gymnastics to prevent oneself from accepting said beliefs are inherently hypocritical (also known as cognitive dissonance). But I'll still respect your right to believe it.


----------



## forestyne (Mar 26, 2017)

Apple2012 said:


> For your entertainment, I came up with a tier system for coercive political correctness, which measures how ridiculous it is and how severe it gets. There's low, medium, and high. And no, stuff like ban on slurs and stereotypes don't count, because they are literally offensive. Political correctness (like what we were talking about) attacks non-offensive stuff some people find offensive when most don't. Likewise, non-coercive PC (like adding more gay characters to your own story by choice) isn't included in the tier system.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It has come to my attention that the SJW definition of "triggered" is completely different to the normal definition of 'triggered'.

Being triggered does not mean "being upset" or "being offended" or "being angry," but instead it means "having a significant anxiety attack or strong emotional response via a flashback to survived trauma". Being 'triggered' isn't being upset because you saw the word 'dog' in someone's post, it's hearing or seeing something that causes a flashback (and flashbacks suck). Basically, *the only content that should have trigger warnings is explicit/violent content picturing violence, sexual content/sexual abuse or blood and gore.* Not the word "Christmas", "food", "dog", "cat", "math(s)", "hexagons", "man", "woman", i.e words that are used in everyday in the English language.


----------



## fenris (Mar 26, 2017)

forestyne said:


> It has come to my attention that the SJW definition of "triggered" is completely different to the normal definition of 'triggered'.
> 
> Being triggered does not mean "being upset" or "being offended" or "being angry," but instead it means "having a significant anxiety attack or strong emotional response via a flashback to survived trauma". Being 'triggered' isn't being upset because you saw the word 'dog' in someone's post, it's hearing or seeing something that causes a flashback (and flashbacks suck). Basically, *the only content that should have trigger warnings is explicit/violent content picturing violence, sexual content/sexual abuse or blood and gore.* Not the word "Christmas", "food", "dog", "cat", "math(s)", "hexagons", "man", "woman", i.e words that are used in everyday in the English language.



Literally anything can be a trigger.  For instance, Christmas could be a trigger for someone whose loved one died on Christmas, or someone who was assaulted on or near Christmas, or a non-Christian who faced extreme hostility during the season.  I'm not saying that all Christmas-related content should come with trigger warnings, but I am saying that triggers aren't always conventional.  I remember a post by someone who is triggered by popsicles, clear broth, and jell-o, because those were the only things they were allowed to eat during a very long, unpleasant stay in the hospital.  Food can also be a trigger for people with eating disorders, or alcohol can be a trigger for recovering alcoholics, etc.

Also, trigger responses look different in different people.  Not everyone has flashbacks.  Some people become withdrawn, some get aggressive, some have panic attacks, some fall into depressive episodes, some relapse into harmful habits, and so on.


----------



## forestyne (Mar 26, 2017)

fenris said:


> Literally anything can be a trigger.  For instance, Christmas could be a trigger for someone whose loved one died on Christmas, or someone who was assaulted on or near Christmas, or a non-Christian who faced extreme hostility during the season.  I'm not saying that all Christmas-related content should come with trigger warnings, but I am saying that triggers aren't always conventional.  I remember a post by someone who is triggered by popsicles, clear broth, and jell-o, because those were the only things they were allowed to eat during a very long, unpleasant stay in the hospital.  Food can also be a trigger for people with eating disorders, or alcohol can be a trigger for recovering alcoholics, etc.
> 
> Also, trigger responses look different in different people.  Not everyone has flashbacks.  Some people become withdrawn, some get aggressive, some have panic attacks, some fall into depressive episodes, some relapse into harmful habits, and so on.



Yes, fair enough. I guess I didn't really think about that writing my response. But the behaviours you've described aren't being triggered.

My main point was that 'triggered' does not mean offended or upset by what someone's said. 


I would simply be quoting and trying to lengthen it out, like trying to reach the word count in an essay (by increasing the words for the word count and by adding those words to increase the word count the words make up the word count) so I will just leave it there.

- - - Post Merge - - -

don't know what happened to the size during editing but at least it's readable i suppose (?)


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Mar 26, 2017)

When I use the word "trigger", I try to stick to only the strict definition to it, and that would mean "activate" (in terms of switches). If I triggered something, it means I pressed a button or pulled a switch on a machine, causing it to do something (like opening doors or moving parts). Somehow, people distorted that word, making it mean "remind people of a bad time" or "offend". Now it has become one of the worst words in the English language.


----------



## forestyne (Mar 26, 2017)

Apple2012 said:


> When I use the word "trigger", I try to stick to only the strict definition to it, and that would mean "activate" (in terms of switches). If I triggered something, it means I pressed a button or pulled a switch on a machine, causing it to do something (like opening doors or moving parts). Somehow, people distorted that word, making it mean "remind people of a bad time" or "offend". Now it has become one of the worst words in the English language.



Yes, I agree. If I use the modern-day definition of the word 'trigger', it's either in a joke (because trigger warnings in front of meaningless words and things are a bit of a joke) or I refer to the ''true'' meaning (having a flashback to a traumatic event). The only time I've ever been 'triggered' is when seeing something gory or depicting rape in a movie. I used to get triggered by self-harm and eating disorder mentions back when I was 12, but I've matured since then.


----------



## amanda1983 (Mar 26, 2017)

fenris said:


> Literally anything can be a trigger.  For instance, Christmas could be a trigger for someone whose loved one died on Christmas, or someone who was assaulted on or near Christmas, or a non-Christian who faced extreme hostility during the season.  *I'm not saying that all Christmas-related content should come with trigger warnings, but I am saying that triggers aren't always conventional.*  I remember a post by someone who is triggered by popsicles, clear broth, and jell-o, because those were the only things they were allowed to eat during a very long, unpleasant stay in the hospital.  *Food can also be a trigger for people with eating disorders, or alcohol can be a trigger for recovering alcoholics, etc.*
> 
> *Also, trigger responses look different in different people.  Not everyone has flashbacks.  Some people become withdrawn, some get aggressive, some have panic attacks, some fall into depressive episodes, some relapse into harmful habits, and so on.*



Precisely! Thank you for explaining this often misunderstood reality so well.

I mentioned in my last post in this thread two incidents I've had where something I said inadvertently triggered trauma in someone I was talking to in a social situation. One was due to the anniversary of the birth of their still-born child, and the other was a fairly common word that was used in a particular context which caused a "flashback" episode to a time they were abused. Neither of these were incidents I could have been aware of ahead of time. Thankfully, both times I noticed their distress and was able to help them deal with the situation as effectively as possible. I did nothing wrong, and neither did they - life just happens like that sometimes.

In written form, words and context can be just as triggering. I often use "Trigger warning : ____" when sharing content on Facebook. I share a wide range of things, and as an educator with a strong interest in human rights issues, many of the topics that I link to and talk about can be very distressing for particular people I know. Anything to do with child abuse gets clearly sign-posted, as does animal abuse. Graphic descriptions of violence/injuries et al, photos and videos of a graphic or explicit nature, and the like are also labelled. If the comments of an article have content I know will upset some people, I also mention it.

I use "trigger" warnings to allow people to make their own informed decision about engaging in content I share. With so many friends and acquaintances who come with so much "baggage" (a terrible term IMO) covering everything from murdered loved ones/deceased children/miscarriage/rape/sexual assualt/incest/sustained child abuse/self harm including suicide attempts/PTSD from war, any of the above traumas, other causes such as car accidents, armed robberies, and on and on and on.. I personally feel it would be incredibly rude of me to disregard that knowledge I have and just kinda hope that noone "takes" offence*.

I appreciate people warning me about similar content so that I can choose when I engage with it. A link that looks nice and easy yet actually talks graphically about child abuse is absolutely NOT something I want to read before going to bed, or when I've had a bad day at work. 

This is the same way the schools and universaties I know "warn" about things that might seriously distress people, whether it's labelled a "trigger warning" or not - not to censor content, or provide an "opt out" clause, but to allow individuals to prepare themselves and/or engage with the content at a time of their choosing. For example : detailed historical accounts, including graphic photos and videos, of experiments conducted on children were covered in one of my required classes in my children's services : education and care diploma course. The course paperwork noted this content and it's scope, as well as the purpose for it's inclusion in the course. An advisory note was included on the class timetable as well as the summary of assessments. Additional time with our teacher was allocated after the classes spent on this in order to "debrief". Knowing in advance about the content as well as seeing the thought and care that went into providing it allowed us to get the most out of the experience as students. No "shock tactics" necessary, no feeling of being blindsided, no distraction from engaging with the actual content.

I fail to see how this approach is a *bad* thing. Done poorly  - as with anything - it can cause problems. I'm not personally aware of any use of trigger or advisory warnings (you know, like the ones at the start of movies on tv? Or messages before certain scenes in all kinds of tv shows/videos warning that "if ___ you may like to look away..) IRL that actively hindered rather than helped. I'm sure examples exist, but they are not at all the norm at least where I live. Given my personal experience with trigger warnings, I'm at a loss to understand the amount of ridicule they receive.

 * A misnomer - feeling offended is a reaction, something that happens to you, not something you *cause*. Inapproprate or distressing reactions can certainly be worked upon, and even controlled to an extent with a great deal of time and assistance. But a visceral reaction is literally as unstoppable a bodily response as blinking, swallowing, or breathing are in a healthy body.


----------



## amanda1983 (Mar 26, 2017)

Apple2012 said:


> When I use the word "trigger", I try to stick to only the strict definition to it, and that would mean "activate" (in terms of switches). If I triggered something, it means I pressed a button or pulled a switch on a machine, causing it to do something (like opening doors or moving parts). Somehow, people distorted that word, making it mean "remind people of a bad time" or "offend". Now it has become one of the worst words in the English language.



Your "strict" definition is not wholly accurate according to at least two highly regarded dictionaries :

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trigger

2 trigger verb  trig?ger
triggered; triggering \ˈtri-g(ə-)riŋ\
transitive verb
1
a :  to release or activate by means of a trigger; especially :  to fire by pulling a mechanical trigger trigger a rifle
b :  to cause the explosion of trigger a missile with a proximity fuse
2
:  *to initiate, actuate, or set off by a trigger an indiscreet remark that triggered a fight a stimulus that triggered a reflex*

intransitive verb
:  to release a mechanical trigger

---

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/trigger

trigger noun UK ​ /ˈtrɪɡ.ər/ US ​ /ˈtrɪɡ.ɚ/
Note : [C] = Countable noun: a noun that has a plural.

- [ C ] a part of a gun that causes the gun to fire when pressed:
"It's not clear who actually pulled the trigger"
-[ C usually singular ] an event or situation, etc. that causes something to start:
"There are fears that the incident may be a trigger for more violence in the capital."
- specialized psychology [ C usually singular ] *something that causes someone to feel upset and frightened because they are made to remember something bad that has happened in the past:
A trigger is something that sets off a flashback, transporting the person back to the traumatic event.*

trigger verb [ T ] UK ​ /ˈtrɪɡ.ər/ US ​ /ˈtrɪɡ.ɚ/
Note : [T] Transitive verb: a verb that has an object.

- *to cause something to start:
"Some people find that certain foods trigger their headaches."
"Ultraviolet-B radiation triggers the skin to produce vitamin D."
"The racial killings at the weekend have triggered off a wave of protests."*


----------



## B e t h a n y (Mar 27, 2017)

I think it can be good in certain situations but people have taking it way over the top these days. Yes, obviously people have had different experiences therefore will and will not be offended at certain things. If you know that someone doesn't like particular topic or whatever, just don't talk about it around them and have respect for that. If you can't help yourself, avoid them. That's the thing, not everyone has the same views and not everyone will get along. But that doesn't mean someone with the opposite views to you doesn't deserve respect.

That being said, you can't expect special treatment over extremely minor things.


----------



## Nightmares (Mar 27, 2017)

If you can't take a joke then you're a bit of a boring **** lmao 
However, I do understand that some jokes do go a bit far but I've never seen or heard one that's actually offended me so


----------



## kylie32123 (Mar 27, 2017)

You're not allowed to call them dinosaurs any more. It's speciesist. You have to call them pre-petroleum persons.


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Mar 27, 2017)

kylie32123 said:


> You're not allowed to call them dinosaurs any more. It's speciesist. You have to call them pre-petroleum persons.



If you want to know why the word "dinosaur" was banned on the NYC standardized testing, they did it because it was a subtle reference to evolution. Basically, the NYC standardized testing was banning some words because of a controversy it relates to or because of one definition they object to, or whatever. It can take one bad context or one controversy to completely taint a word.

Here are the reasons some everyday words mentioned were banned by NYC standardized testing:


Dinosaur - reference to evolution, a heavily controversial subject.
Halloween - reference to Paganism.
Birthday - Jehovah's witnesses are not allowed to celebrate birthdays according to their religion.
Religion - you probably know why this one got banned.
Alien - reference to immigration (yes, I'm referring to space creatures).
Divorce - may offend somebody who had a traumatic experience.
Television - people watch it excessively.

They banned more, but what I find more ridiculous on their banning of these words is why they do it (at least to some). The birthday part is a perfect example of how it takes a very small minority to completely ruin a word under political correctness. Just like what I said in my very post in this thread, just because someone can't do something or doesn't do something doesn't mean nobody should be allowed to talk about it. The Bible doesn't allow Christians to work on Sundays. But we do allow them to work on Sundays. Jews aren't allowed to eat beef with cheese, but schools still served hamburgers with cheese. Atheists don't follow any religious beliefs, but we still talk about religion in schools. If all these cases are true, then why aren't we allowed to talk about birthdays if Jehovah's witnesses can't celebrate them? The case for dinosaurs, they banned it because of a subtle reference to evolution. If you're gonna test students over something, don't be afraid to bring out controversies or controversial subjects. But they just not only try to steer clear of controversies, they take it to the extreme. One context should not ruin a whole word, and one small group should not affect the whole. The television one is very ridiculous too.

And all of this happened before political correctness got worse.


----------



## xSuperMario64x (Mar 27, 2017)

I suppose people just think it's easier to be offended by something than to put on their big boy boots and live with it.



Oh wait, I said "boy". Does that make me a sexist jerk?


----------



## amanda1983 (Mar 27, 2017)

Apple2012 said:


> -- snip --
> Basically, the NYC standardized testing was banning some words because of a controversy it relates to or because of one definition they object to, or whatever. It can take one bad context or one controversy to completely taint a word.
> 
> Here are the reasons some everyday words mentioned were banned by NYC standardized testing:
> ...



How bizarre. I found a source here https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...0/gIQANuqJkS_blog.html?utm_term=.bf2204f11bc0 and that is just a ludicrous set of words and even more confusing reasons given.

I'm not sure how much has really changed regarding "political correctness" between 2012 and now. In five years a lot has changed but **** like this has been happening for as long as people have had the capacity to dictate what other's may do. As one of the comments below the article explains, they were subjected to a ridiculous level of "censorship for their own good" in the US in the 1950s.

I am completely against standardised testing as an educator. The bureaucratic processes involved almost universally limit the input and knowledge of actual teachers and best practices (which are drawn from sound scientific knowledge and research) in favour of ... whatever the relevant committee (frequently an appointed board with sub-par levels of knowledge in the education field) *thinks* is important, whilst simultaneously awarding huge  contracts to "education" businesses that make billions of the fatally flawed "testing culture" that thrives despite the appalling lack of ROI (return on investment).

No teacher I know would support a censorship list like this. A list of words to be used with caution in the classroom, yes. But barring profanity and actual "hate speech", all words should be allowed in the classroom depending on age and developmental stage. As they generally are in my part of the world.

Perhaps the issue is less to do with so-called political correctness than it is to do with sub-par planning and oversight going into education in this instance?


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Mar 27, 2017)

xSuperMario64x said:


> I suppose people just think it's easier to be offended by something than to put on their big boy boots and live with it.
> 
> Oh wait, I said "boy". Does that make me a sexist jerk?



Absolutely not. Common everyday language should not get you in trouble. Except for cuss words, slurs, stereotypes, you know. But you're right, in this time and age, people are getting so offended at anything. There's no word that everybody can agree on without being offended. But let me tell you this. Now it has gotten to a so dangerous level that it's leading to a lot of rebellion. The worse it gets, the more people would rebel against it. I would rebel if it gets worse, but I wouldn't get extreme about it.


----------



## Tao (Mar 27, 2017)

Apple2012 said:


> If you want to know why the word "dinosaur" was banned on the NYC standardized testing, they did it because it was a subtle reference to evolution.



They can't ban the word dinosaur! We have hard evidence like fossilized remains and documentaries such as Jurassic Park which factually proves they existed! 

But oh no, here come the ney sayers, marching with their fingers in their ears to the battle cry of "lalalalalalaIcan'thearyoulalalalalala"! 



xSuperMario64x said:


> I suppose people just think it's easier to be offended by something than to put on their big boy boots and live with it.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh wait, I said "boy". Does that make me a sexist jerk?



Ey, why does it have to be big 'boy' boots? Are you implying that girls can't wear big boots? Are you giving boots a gender!? Are you saying women belong in the kitchen!?


Well, it's clear now what the spinning N in your avatar means...It means *NAZI!!!!*


"All hail the mighty Nazi 64"!? "Get Nazi or get out"!? I'm so offended right now!


----------



## Leen (Mar 27, 2017)

Tao said:


> They can't ban the word dinosaur! We have hard evidence like fossilized remains and documentaries such as Jurassic Park which factually proves they existed!
> 
> But oh no, here come the ney sayers, marching with their fingers in their ears to the battle cry of "lalalalalalaIcan'thearyoulalalalalala"!
> 
> ...




This thread has gotten way outta hand.


----------



## PizzaTotinoBoy (Mar 27, 2017)

Leen said:


> This thread has gotten way outta hand.



Honestly after how hostile and depressing this thread gets it's about damn time that someone joke around a bit...Picks up the mood a bit, if you ask me. Having stuff like that sprinkled here and there makes me just a bit less annoyed when I see these discussions became arguments, resulting in nobody being happy.


----------



## seliph (Mar 27, 2017)

Leen said:


> This thread has gotten way outta hand.



I was gonna make a serious post in this thread but yeah I see it's not worth it



Ash Q. Scrumfleton said:


> Honestly after how depressing this thread gets it's about damn time that someone joke around a bit...Picks up the mood a bit, if you ask me. Having stuff like that sprinkled here and there makes me just a bit less annoyed when I see these discussions became arguments, resulting in nobody being happy.



IMO it's more depressing when threads get to this state. You can pick up the mood without resorting to... whatever _that_ was.


----------



## PizzaTotinoBoy (Mar 27, 2017)

gyro said:


> I was gonna make a serious post in this thread but yeah I see it's not worth it
> 
> 
> 
> IMO it's more depressing when threads get to this state. You can pick up the mood without resorting to... whatever _that_ was.



I mean, if it gets out of hand, and everyone's starting to make fun of it then it's just ridiculous, the point of the discussion is just lost. I guess I just meant in a more lighthearted general sense of the word, I think these kinds of debates shouldn't get overly hostile or overly...trollish? Is that the word? Not sure. I agree that there's better ways to make the thread better. 



EDIT-What Tao did was fine. Honestly this thread needed something like that after how toxic it's gotten.


----------



## amanda1983 (Mar 27, 2017)

Apple2012 said:


> Absolutely not. Common everyday language should not get you in trouble. Except for cuss words, slurs, stereotypes, you know. But you're right, in this time and age, people are getting so offended at anything. There's no word that everybody can agree on without being offended. But let me tell you this. Now it has gotten to a so dangerous level that it's leading to a lot of rebellion. The worse it gets, the more people would rebel against it. I would rebel if it gets worse, but I wouldn't get extreme about it.



There is literally no word that is not a curse word or a slur that offends me in any way. There is *context* that words can be used in that can upset me (mostly when used to trivialise/mock the feeling and thoughts of someone as this is just rude), or that I could - loosely - find "offensive", as per the dictionary meaning (ignoring the ones relating to law and sport!) :

offence - noun (UPSET FEELINGS) :

upset and hurt or annoyed feelings, often because someone has been rude or shown no respect:
"I really didn't mean (to cause/give) any offence (= did not intend to upset anyone) - I was just stating my opinion."
"Do you think he took offence (= was upset) at what I said about his hair?"
informal "If you don't mind, I'd rather go on my own - no offence (intended), but I think it would be better."

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/offence

Offence =/= bad in and of itself. It's a reaction. It just is. It may be a "fair" one to have to a reasonable person depending on the situation ("joking" about rape particularly of children is generally considered inappropriate). Or it might be utterly unreasonable. That's the thing about reactions - they *happen*. A feeling of revulsion caused by what someone has said (and how they said it, as tone and context make all the difference) is not something you or anyone can actually PREVENT from happening - within yourself or anyone else. What you do about it, however, is entirely up to you within the limits of your circumstances.

I cannot stand hearing/seeing/reading people mock children. It is deeply offensive to me as I believe such belittling behavior contributes to the way society - generally  - treats children - as nuisances to be controlled, placated, and ignored. None of which helps grow children into responsible, caring, resilient, contributing members of society - which is what any rational adult would agree is better than having irresponsible, uncaring, fragile, non-contributing members of society, surely?

I wasn't raised to be fragile or to think my needs and wishes trumped those of others. Equally true is that I was raised to stand my ground, understand other perspectives, listen to people, and try to communicate effectively. Why so many people seem unable to do the same is something that continues to bother me, particularly when I consider the implications of these people being/becoming parents. But I'm only responsible for me (when not at work), and all I can do is keep trying to improve myself and work towards improved outcomes for my community and the world in general.


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Mar 27, 2017)

amanda1983 said:


> How bizarre. I found a source here https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...0/gIQANuqJkS_blog.html?utm_term=.bf2204f11bc0 and that is just a ludicrous set of words and even more confusing reasons given.
> 
> I'm not sure how much has really changed regarding "political correctness" between 2012 and now. In five years a lot has changed but **** like this has been happening for as long as people have had the capacity to dictate what other's may do. As one of the comments below the article explains, they were subjected to a ridiculous level of "censorship for their own good" in the US in the 1950s.
> 
> ...



You know, even if I don't like standardized testing/benchmark tests, I agree banning words like these is stupid, especially for the reasons given. It clearly shows that liberals (not all liberals though) want to destroy our education system. They want to get rid of math or at least dumb down math because of how kids these days find it too hard. Then they want to attack social studies and language arts by censoring words and topics people get offended by. If you censor words and subjects like that, students are not gonna get a good education. And if they want to live successful lives and make good money, they have to get a good education. But nope, it's now all about satisfying emotional needs than doing what's best for students. This is why homeschooling became more common, and why schools are failing.

While education is being under attack, holidays (or at least select holidays) are also under attack. Let's forget about Columbus Day for a second, but holidays like Christmas and Easter are under attack in schools and public spaces because of religious relations. Thanksgiving had some religious relations as well. And then Halloween started to be under attack. Why is Halloween being attacked when it's not related to Christianity? The reason: the "cultural appropriation" nonsense. Halloween is a time where you can dress up like anything you want, as long as you're not being offensive about it. But people on Tumblr find it to be offensive to dress up like any culture that's not yours, whether or not you're doing it in a respectful manner. If people can't tolerate Christmas, Easter, and Thanksgivings for having religious relations and Halloween because of some of the costumes, what's next? Maybe 4th of July, April Fool's, and even New Year's may go next if we keep going down this path.


4th of July might be under attack, not because of the concern of fireworks, but because of what we're really celebrating. After the national anthem protest in 2016, I think some people would not want to celebrate anything American anymore due to our history of racism (or at least because of controversies in recent times).
April Fool's might be under attack because in a time and age where people get easily offended at everything, they would no longer take a joke and think everything on April Fool's is serious.
As for New Year's Day, not everybody celebrates a new year on January 1st. Most do, but not all.

I may not know if any of this will come true, but this is a careful analysis I thought of judging by recent times. But don't worry, many people still celebrate these holidays without making a fuss, as only a small minority would not celebrate these holidays for certain reasons.


----------



## xSuperMario64x (Mar 27, 2017)

Tao said:


> Ey, why does it have to be big 'boy' boots? Are you implying that girls can't wear big boots? Are you giving boots a gender!? Are you saying women belong in the kitchen!?
> 
> 
> Well, it's clear now what the spinning N in your avatar means...It means *NAZI!!!!*
> ...



Thank you for making my day.

And yes, the N in my avatar definitely means Nazi ^^ you figured me out


----------



## Tao (Mar 27, 2017)

Leen said:


> This thread has gotten way outta hand.



Yea, how dare I lace my opinions and observations with humor...And false Nazi accusations.

Allow me to rephrase that post for you:



Tao said:


> It's unreasonable that they would ban the word dinosaur. The hard evidence is there to factually prove the existence of dinosaurs, such as the many fossils discovered which date back to the era in which they would have existed, not to mention serving as hard evidence directly strengthening the theory of evolution. There even exist many documentaries compiling much research and evidence compiled so that anybody may learn of this genuine history that factually happened.
> 
> It is disheartening that the word be entirely dismissed in any form simply because it doesn't fall into the belief system of any particular group, especially when that same group is unable to provide any real evidence to prove it incorrect. That a group of people can successfully censor something to any degree that factually existed simply by making enough fuss is an example of how low we are willing to sink in order to prevent somebodies feelings from being hurt.
> 
> ...




Happy? Did the removal of any potential humor make the exact same point any more valid for you?


Lighten up, you'll live longer.


----------



## xSuperMario64x (Mar 27, 2017)

Tao said:


> Yea, how dare I lace my opinions and observations with humor...And false Nazi accusations.
> 
> Allow me to rephrase that post for you:
> 
> ...



THAT'S MA'AM TO YOU BOI 

WHAT YOU TALKIN BOUT


----------



## PizzaTotinoBoy (Mar 27, 2017)

Tao said:


> Yea, how dare I lace my opinions and observations with humor...And false Nazi accusations.
> 
> Allow me to rephrase that post for you:
> 
> ...



You've done something truly amazing. You've given light to this thread. I thank you for that...It's really a sight for sore eyes to see someone being humorous. Like I said, it needed it after how hellishly toxic this place got.


----------



## xSuperMario64x (Mar 27, 2017)

Ash Q. Scrumfleton said:


> You've done something truly amazing. You've given light to this thread. I thank you for that...It's really a sight for sore eyes to see someone being humorous.



torched.


----------



## amanda1983 (Mar 27, 2017)

Guess we're done with the actual conversation then. I would have thought we had more than enough "humourous" threads here that we could spare a few for discussion, but I guess the quota is allocated now to the marijuana and cosmetic surgery threads.

Have fun guys


----------



## PizzaTotinoBoy (Mar 27, 2017)

amanda1983 said:


> Guess we're done with the actual conversation then. I would have thought we had more than enough "humourous" threads here that we could spare a few for discussion, but I guess the quota is allocated now to the marijuana and cosmetic surgery threads.
> 
> Have fun guys



To be honest it's better off this conversation, at least from what I've seen of it die off. It's almost nothing but hateful at this point. We've got more civilized discussions now and that way it'll be less bitter. Thank goodness, I really didn't want to see this get even uglier. :/


----------



## forestyne (Mar 27, 2017)

Tao said:


> They can't ban the word dinosaur! We have hard evidence like fossilized remains and documentaries such as Jurassic Park which factually proves they existed!
> 
> But oh no, here come the ney sayers, marching with their fingers in their ears to the battle cry of "lalalalalalaIcan'thearyoulalalalalala"!
> 
> ...



Good lord.

xSuperMario64x Nazi confirmed? Clearly.

- - - Post Merge - - -

I don't actually know what happened here but I'm liking it.


----------



## PizzaTotinoBoy (Mar 27, 2017)

forestyne said:


> Good lord.
> 
> xSuperMario64x Nazi confirmed? Clearly.
> 
> ...



Yeah, me too. It's as if this thread went from something dark, depressing, and toxic to something...Magical~<3


----------



## Sporge27 (Mar 27, 2017)

TLDR most of the thread, but...

  When you say something people have a right to be offended at it, as much of a right as you do to say whatever it was.  What you say can have real world consequences.  You can be fired for things you say, as that is your employer's right to distance themselves from your own statements.  What you say can definitely come back to haunt you if you ever become famous or a politician.
  You have the freedom to say whatever you want but you are not free from the consequences of other's freedom.  Your freedom is no more absolute than their's.  
  You can choose to dedicate your life to solving world hunger and curing poverty in third world countries, or you can choose to systematically set fire to every orphan in a 10 mile radius, but I am pretty people will try to stop and hurt you for one of those 2 things.  Certainly an extreme case, but the point is people react to what you say and do and you have no more control over what they say and do than you do over what you say and do.  In my mind always better to make more friends than enemies, but whatevs.  The issue is when a culture agrees it is socially acceptable to denegrate an entire group of people usually it ends badly for that group so of course they are going to largely rebel against that.


  I'm too tired for this why did I even try to start.


----------



## seliph (Mar 27, 2017)

Jokes about Nazis, so magical.



Sporge27 said:


> TLDR most of the thread, but...
> 
> When you say something people have a right to be offended at it, as much of a right as you do to say whatever it was.  What you say can have real world consequences.  You can be fired for things you say, as that is your employer's right to distance themselves from your own statements.  What you say can definitely come back to haunt you if you ever become famous or a politician.
> You have the freedom to say whatever you want but you are not free from the consequences of other's freedom.  Your freedom is no more absolute than their's.
> ...



This is essentially what I wanted to say but you put it way better than I ever could. Bless.


----------



## PizzaTotinoBoy (Mar 27, 2017)

Sporge27 said:


> TLDR most of the thread, but...
> 
> When you say something people have a right to be offended at it, as much of a right as you do to say whatever it was.  What you say can have real world consequences.  You can be fired for things you say, as that is your employer's right to distance themselves from your own statements.  What you say can definitely come back to haunt you if you ever become famous or a politician.
> You have the freedom to say whatever you want but you are not free from the consequences of other's freedom.  Your freedom is no more absolute than their's.
> ...



Yeah, I've gotta agree with this...I mean, shoot, everything people do is going to have it's benefits and consequences. I just go by the idea to just be a nice person. Not to be disrespectful to others generally, etc. Nothing wrong with having respect for others.


----------



## amanda1983 (Mar 27, 2017)

Ash Q. Scrumfleton said:


> Yeah, I've gotta agree with this...I mean, shoot, everything people do is going to have it's benefits and consequences. I just go by the idea to just be a nice person. Not to be disrespectful to others generally, etc. Nothing wrong with having respect for others.



Same here. I'm a bit confused by how you see this thread has having had so much hatred and bitterness - from my perspective I haven't seen much of that at all and it has been a great opportunity to see how different people around the world perceive "political correctness".

I also appreciated Apple2012's reference to words being banned from NYC standardised testing, particularly, since education is both my profession and my passion.


----------



## PizzaTotinoBoy (Mar 27, 2017)

amanda1983 said:


> Same here. I'm a bit confused by how you see this thread has having had so much hatred and bitterness - from my perspective I haven't seen much of that at all and it has been a great opportunity to see how different people around the world perceive "political correctness".
> 
> I also appreciated Apple2012's reference to words being banned from NYC standardised testing, particularly, since education is both my profession and my passion.



Well, I was exaggerating a bit there. I'll admit that for sure. I do think eventually this thread got a bit bitter between people, around the time I dropped out of it. I'm sorry about that. :/ I do think seeing people's opinions on what political correctness is quite interesting myself, but...I don't know. This was just a discussion I didn't want to take part in after a little while. Maybe it got better over time, I wouldn't personally know. I'm sure it wasn't as bad as I said it was..


----------



## forestyne (Mar 27, 2017)

amanda1983 said:


> Same here. I'm a bit confused by how you see this thread has having had so much hatred and bitterness - from my perspective I haven't seen much of that at all and it has been a great opportunity to see how different people around the world perceive "political correctness".
> 
> I also appreciated Apple2012's reference to words being banned from NYC standardised testing, particularly, since education is both my profession and my passion.



I got an infraction for this thread. Obviously it got heated I did nothing wrong for a bit.


----------



## Leen (Mar 27, 2017)

One thing is stating your opinion on things and its a whole other thing to start taking it to a ridiculous level. 

This thread has gone beyond that. Not even interesting to read up anymore.


----------



## PizzaTotinoBoy (Mar 27, 2017)

forestyne said:


> I got an infraction for this thread. Obviously it got heated I did nothing wrong for a bit.



That so, eh? I thought something was up with this thread after I ditched it...Maybe it got better...Who knows, it seems like a mix of frustration with bits of information and discussion in it. Who knows, I'm too tired to look.


----------



## Munyo (Mar 27, 2017)

I thought political correctedness was about how to cloud words more to bring less offense or to remove the chance of triggering (yes, I used this word appropriately) a memory or thought. I didn't know it was all these things mentioned in the thread. I would know, I worked in a lot of spaces where social justice and political correctedness was mentioned. I just think politcal correctedness needs to have its limits. You can't grow if you have everything blurred out for you. Not everything or everyone intends to hurt you. If it is, it's a different story, and you should have the feeling to be hurt by whatever's _intended_ to hurt you.


----------



## PizzaTotinoBoy (Mar 27, 2017)

Munyo said:


> I thought political correctedness was about how to cloud words more to bring less offense or to remove the chance of triggering (yes, I used this word appropriately) a memory or thought. I didn't know it was all these things mentioned in the thread. I would know, I worked in a lot of spaces where social justice and political correctedness was mentioned. I just think politcal correctedness needs to have its limits. You can't grow if you have everything blurred out for you. Not everything or everyone intends to hurt to you. If it is, it's a different story, and you should have the feeling to be hurt by whatever's _intended_ to hurt you.



Well, I mean it's a very hard term to define when you think about it. People have their different takes on it. If you want my opinion id say your views of what it is are just as valid as another's definition of it.


But, yeah, I agree here...I mean, it's also a huge issue i have with censorship. I think it does blur a lot of things from people much like if someone took political correctness too far and shut out people's opinions. Am I saying this was its goal, no. I do think some people can and have taken it to a level where it's trying, maybe not intentionally, to shut out people having their own opinions because it's not in line with a crowd of people. Like i said this may not be the aim of it, but my basic take on this whole thing  is, think what you want, say what you want, joke about what you want, as long as you're a respectful person. If you can just be a nice person to others then i dont see the issue of making a few raunchy jokes in the right context. And by right context i mean somewhere where making these jokes aren't aimed specifically at a person, i.e. calling a fat guy fat and making fun of him for it if he's not laughing with them. Hell l joke about my dyslexia all the time. And I mean, nobody is insulting me if we make a joke about it. I'm laughing right with them..Yes, there are times when it's wrong. I'm not denying that. There are times when a joke isn't right or saying something about so and so isn't right. .My point is, as I've stated many times, just have respect. There's a right time for everything. Now do i think racist views are right? Sexist, and other biases are right? No, but I'm not going to kill you over it. I'd gladly discuss it and see if i can teach you anything on my side of the argument but i can't force anything upon someone.

Idk if i made my point, I'm tired and im on my.phone , this keyboard sucks so sorry if I'm a little wonky wobbly in my speech.


----------



## amanda1983 (Mar 28, 2017)

forestyne said:


> I got an infraction for this thread. Obviously it got heated I did nothing wrong for a bit.



I didn't see this thread til at least a day after it started, and my first post here was # 105. Things had certainly gotten heated by then, I agree. I was very glad to see things settled down and some nice interesting discussion took place - from my perspective at least. (I have to say that receiving an infraction =/= a "heated" thread let alone confirm there's much hatred and bitterness occuring.. it just means something you posted broke one or more forum rules. I understand what you're saying, I just wanted to make that clarification as I'm quite a literal and detail-oriented person.)

It's interesting how we can perceive the same events so very differently, and how much that perception colours our view of things.


----------



## Tao (Mar 28, 2017)

Leen said:


> One thing is stating your opinion on things and its a whole other thing to start taking it to a ridiculous level.



So immediately resorting to calling people



Leen said:


> ****s



and



Leen said:


> ableist ****



within the first 10 posts of a thread starting (more accurately, within 9 words insults were thrown) among with pretty much every '-ist' basically for not agreeing 100% with your belief isn't at all ridiculous, but when I refer to Jurassic Park as a documentary in what was otherwise an opinion mocking that we'll go as far as to censor factual things that historically happened to just appease peoples feelings if they complain enough is the written equivalent of a custard pie fight?

Or is it that I jokingly confirmed xSuperMario64x was a Nazi? Because that seems at least somewhat similar to immediately stating that basically anybody who didn't agree with you on the subject (political correctness) is a 





Leen said:


> ****s


...I'm not even sure what ****s is, sounds infectious, but I'm kinda finding it at least a little ironic that you're taking the stupid Nazi reply of mine so much to heart, yano, considering the way it was written was kind of mocking the people who deal with differing opinions and beliefs via hurling insults and labels around to defame those who don't agree with them...Yano, exactly like you did?

...Are you satire?



But, seeing as though I did a pretty good job tweeking my old post, I'll give yours a whirl:



Leen said:


> One thing is stating your opinion on things, as long as it falls exactly in line with my opinion of things, otherwise you are a ****s and a ******, probably a ****** as well. Tao is also so awesome, like, super awesome, kind of like a T-rex, and I hope even a small amount of their awesome rubs off on me. They're also super hot and they're really super good at playing the drums



I don't play the drums, but thanks anyway.



But really, don't try to put yourself on a pedestal like you're above what I have to say because at best, you've proven to be just as bad as I am...At least I'm aware I'm no angel.


----------



## PizzaTotinoBoy (Mar 28, 2017)

Leen said:


> One thing is stating your opinion on things and its a whole other thing to start taking it to a ridiculous level.
> 
> This thread has gone beyond that. Not even interesting to read up anymore.



Yet claiming anyone who isn't with the whole pc thing  was automatically egotistical, throwing out tons of -isms, insults, and overgeneralizations wasnt ridiculous? I'm all against racism, sexism, etc. But I don't think starting a discussion with immediately  spouting out generalizations and insults was the best way to attempt making your point.


...This thread's been ridiculous since it started, hon. I'm not saying you're the only culprit, because you aren't, but I'm just stating my opinion of the matter.  


I'm too tired to be responding to this


----------



## Leen (Mar 28, 2017)

Tao said:


> So immediately resorting to calling people and within the first 10 posts of a thread starting (more accurately, within 9 words insults were thrown) among with pretty much every '-ist' basically for not agreeing 100% with your belief isn't at all ridiculous, but when I refer to Jurassic Park as a documentary in what was otherwise an opinion mocking that we'll go as far as to censor factual things that historically happened to just appease peoples feelings if they complain enough is the written equivalent of a custard pie fight?
> 
> But really, don't try to put yourself on a pedestal like you're above what I have to say because at best, you've proven to be just as bad as I am...At least I'm aware I'm no angel.



I received an infraction for cussing on my first post and it was edited by mods, so if you're looking back on it now, my post probably doesn't make sense anymore. But nowhere in my posts did I ever directly insult anyone on this thread. If you or anyone felt personally insulted by my opinion on this topic, then the arguments many people have been making on here about people being overly sensitive is pretty ironic. Hypocritical. 


I'm not putting myself on a pedestal, nor do I think I'm above anyone for the opinions I have. However, I'm going to call bull when I see it. Sorry not sorry.





			
				Ash Q. Scrumfleton said:
			
		

> I'm all against racism, sexism, etc.
> 
> This thread's been ridiculous since it started, hon.




You sure about that, "hon"?


----------



## Tao (Mar 28, 2017)

Leen said:


> I received an infraction for cussing on my first post and it was edited by mods, so if you're looking back on it now, my post probably doesn't make sense anymore. But nowhere in my posts did I ever directly insult anyone on this thread. If you or anyone felt personally insulted by my opinion on this topic, then the arguments many people have been making on here about people being overly sensitive is pretty ironic. Hypocritical.



So, mods took out all (what I'll assume were) well thought reasoned opinions of the highest caliber and replaced it all with straight up insults? Okay...Seems unlikely but I'll roll with it.

And no, you didn't directly insult anybody specifically, just generalizations which would apply to anybody who didn't agree with you. There's not really a difference in the argument I was presenting. My point still stands no matter which way you side step on this. 

And if I got personally offended every time somebody with opinions far different from my own spoke up, I would spend my days angry and alone. That isn't my issue, it's the "if you disagree with me, you're *some form of insult*" approach to conflict.




Leen said:


> I'm not putting myself on a pedestal, nor do I think I'm above anyone for the opinions I have.


So declaring the thread over and that it's no longer of worth to you from a specific post isn't exactly that?



Unlike yourself who has declared leaving the thread twice now but is still here, I'm leaving it here, because it's a waste of time responding to somebody who just constantly moves the target around rather than be willing to take a well aimed hit once in a while.


----------



## PizzaTotinoBoy (Mar 28, 2017)

Leen said:


> I received an infraction for cussing on my first post and it was edited by mods, so if you're looking back on it now, my post probably doesn't make sense anymore. But nowhere in my posts did I ever directly insult anyone on this thread. If you or anyone felt personally insulted by my opinion on this topic, then the arguments many people have been making on here about people being overly sensitive is pretty ironic. Hypocritical.
> 
> 
> I'm not putting myself on a pedestal, nor do I think I'm above anyone for the opinions I have. However, I'm going to call bull when I see it. Sorry not sorry.
> ...



Are you implying that im a bigot? Thats what i got out of it, sorry if im wrong. Because i think people are entitled to having their own opinion? You really need a lesson to what bigotry is. Never, through this whole thread have i said anything bigoted. And besides, it isn't like I'm trying to force you to change your opinion, I'm only trying to make my points. I don't give a damn who you are in terms of race, sex, etc. I judge people by their personality. Anyone can be a bad person, just as much as anyone can be a good person. I don't see the point of automatically calling everyone in a biased minority a good person. And I'm not denying prejudices either. They exist, and they're not something I agree with.  It's hard to change people's opinions though, but I still think you can discuss with people about it. Forcing it isn't right though. It's a really hard thing to debate because prejudices aren't right but it'll be pretty damn hard to just stop it. Humans by nature group themselves. Now, people can try to discuss to build bridges, which i think we should try to bring people together. Basically I'm just saying its hard to stop prejudice but I think we should make an effort to go towards being more unified and cutting as many hateful acts as possible, such as violence against a certain race, sexual abuse, etc. None of that is right, obviously.

Also, continuing on the subject of my alleged "bigotry", think what you will, I really dont care, i just want to make my point here...but just know that I don't see how you could think it, just because I think that if political correctness limits the right to have free speech, the right to make a joke, etc, it's wrong. Be respectful, try to cut down hate, but don't create a society of people who can't think differently. As I've said before, just be respectful to others and you're  good to go. Like i said, I don't agree with hate but i don't agree with shutting out people's voices either, even if i don't agree with them.


----------



## amanda1983 (Mar 28, 2017)

Okay, now I'm seeing the "heated" thing. *sigh*

Sorry I missed it before. I had read the thread but things can look very different when you're observing than they do when you're participating. I should have thought more about that context when reading back.


----------



## Corrie (Mar 28, 2017)

I feel like people need to realize the difference between when something is directed at them and when they aren't. I feel that these people somehow think that other people care about them so much as to constantly direct something at them. If they wouldn't take things so personally, then we wouldn't have this problem. They need to learn when to laugh it off. If anything, it'll help them too since they won't constantly be upset and stressed.


----------



## PizzaTotinoBoy (Mar 28, 2017)

Corrie said:


> I feel like people need to realize the difference between when something is directed at them and when they aren't. I feel that these people somehow think that other people care about them so much as to constantly direct something at them. If they wouldn't take things so personally, then we wouldn't have this problem. They need to learn when to laugh it off. If anything, it'll help them too since they won't constantly be upset and stressed.



Yeah, I've seen a lot of people with that trait. It's really not healthy for anyone..I used to be that way back in middle school. Looking back I feel like I'm a lot happier I don't let things get tp me as much.


----------



## Corrie (Mar 28, 2017)

Ash Q. Scrumfleton said:


> Yeah, I've seen a lot of people with that trait. It's really not healthy for anyone..I used to be that way back in middle school. Looking back I feel like I'm a lot happier I don't let things get tp me as much.



Mhm! There's a difference between standing up for someone or yourself (I'm all for this!) and just getting rattled over every single thing. Usually the people who you call out for doing something minimal don't actually care about your opinion (since the topic is so unimportant) so in the end, you only lose if you choose to get all uptight.


----------



## Soda Fox (Mar 28, 2017)

Corrie said:


> I feel like people need to realize the difference between when something is directed at them and when they aren't. I feel that these people somehow think that other people care about them so much as to constantly direct something at them. If they wouldn't take things so personally, then we wouldn't have this problem. They need to learn when to laugh it off. If anything, it'll help them too since they won't constantly be upset and stressed.



I wanted to add to this to say that the PC culture has turned not only into everything is a personal slight, but also a lot of PC/SJWs get offended for _other people _. I'm all for defending a friend who you know hates certain jokes, but a lot of SJWs assume offense for someone they don't even know. 

White Knights defending female gamers is a great example. I have a lot of guy friends and we make a lot of sexist jokes. I think it's funny and its never a problem when it's just my group talking. But if we need to use in-game chat the Knights come out of the woodwork getting all upset and crazy being offended on my behalf and get even more crazy defensive of me when I tell them to chill because I'm cool with the jokes. And when I make sexism jokes against myself their brain breaks or something and they shut up. It's just weird.

*edited some spelling


----------



## Corrie (Mar 28, 2017)

Soda Fox said:


> I wanted to add to this to say that the PC culture has turned not only into everything is a personal slight, but also a lot of PC/SJWs get offended for _other people _. I'm all for defending a friend who you know hates certain jokes, but a lot of SJWs assume offense for someone they don't even know.
> 
> White Knights defending female gamers is a great example. I have a lot of guy friends and we make a lot of sexist jokes. I think it's funny and its never a problem when it's just my group talking. But if we need to use in-game chat the Knights come out of the woodwork getting all upset and crazy being offended on my behalf and get even more crazy defensive of me when I tell them to chill because I'm cool with the jokes. And when I make sexism jokes against myself their brain breaks or something and they shut up. It's just weird.
> 
> *edited some spelling



Ahh! You're totally right!

I remember when Avril Lavigne's Hello Kitty song got a lot of hate by non Japanese people about how she was being rude towards the culture, meanwhile from what I read, no Japanese people were offended but instead were happy their culture was being spread around the world.


----------



## PizzaTotinoBoy (Mar 28, 2017)

Soda Fox said:


> I wanted to add to this to say that the PC culture has turned not only into everything is a personal slight, but also a lot of PC/SJWs get offended for _other people _. I'm all for defending a friend who you know hates certain jokes, but a lot of SJWs assume offense for someone they don't even know.
> 
> White Knights defending female gamers is a great example. I have a lot of guy friends and we make a lot of sexist jokes. I think it's funny and its never a problem when it's just my group talking. But if we need to use in-game chat the Knights come out of the woodwork getting all upset and crazy being offended on my behalf and get even more crazy defensive of me when I tell them to chill because I'm cool with the jokes. And when I make sexism jokes against myself their brain breaks or something and they shut up. It's just weird.
> 
> *edited some spelling



Yeah, that was always an anomaly to me, getting offended for others. I mean, like you said, defending friends who are hurt is right. That's just a good thing to do. But...Really when people start getting mad for something that you or a group of people are doing that's not hurting anyone, it just makes me question "why?" I never understand it, there's no need to get mad on someone's behalf if they're obviously not mad about it. That's just kind of intrusive when you think about it.


----------



## forestyne (Mar 28, 2017)

Leen said:


> You sure about that, "hon"?



I don't want another infraction for this thread, so all I'll say is that this seems extremely hypocritical of you when you look at the posts you have made on this thread.

- - - Post Merge - - -



Soda Fox said:


> I wanted to add to this to say that the PC culture has turned not only into everything is a personal slight, but also a lot of PC/SJWs get offended for _other people _. I'm all for defending a friend who you know hates certain jokes, but a lot of SJWs assume offense for someone they don't even know.
> 
> White Knights defending female gamers is a great example. I have a lot of guy friends and we make a lot of sexist jokes. I think it's funny and its never a problem when it's just my group talking. But if we need to use in-game chat the Knights come out of the woodwork getting all upset and crazy being offended on my behalf and get even more crazy defensive of me when I tell them to chill because I'm cool with the jokes. And when I make sexism jokes against myself their brain breaks or something and they shut up. It's just weird.
> 
> *edited some spelling



Being offended for others drives me mad. I mean, sure, it's okay to defend people sometimes, but you can't jump the gun and make rash assumptions because of their gender, race or sexual orientation. That kind of behaviour often does more harm than good.


----------



## Leen (Mar 28, 2017)

forestyne said:


> I don't want another infraction for this thread, so all I'll say is that this seems extremely hypocritical of you when you look at the posts you have made on this thread.



Not so spoiler alert: A man calling a woman "hon" is pretty sexist.


----------



## forestyne (Mar 28, 2017)

Leen said:


> Not so spoiler alert: A man calling a woman "hon" is pretty sexist.



omg what

- - - Post Merge - - -

pls tell me that was a joke

- - - Post Merge - - -

OMG


----------



## Leen (Mar 28, 2017)

forestyne said:


> omg what



I honestly don't understand what's so surprising/confusing about that?


----------



## B e t h a n y (Mar 28, 2017)

Leen said:


> Not so spoiler alert: A man calling a woman "hon" is pretty sexist.



How is that even sexist, please explain


----------



## Munyo (Mar 28, 2017)

forestyne said:


> omg what
> 
> - - - Post Merge - - -
> 
> ...



dw im screaming too wtf


----------



## forestyne (Mar 28, 2017)

Leen said:


> I honestly don't understand what's so surprising/confusing about that?



lmaooooooooooooooooooo

i had to take a time out omg




do you even know what hon means?

hon is short for honey

the word 'honey', when addressing someone, is someone who is close to you.

so you are telling me that by my dad calling me honey, or my grandparents or my mother calling me hon, that is a sexist and insulting/gross and disgusting word, when many mothers and fathers and loved ones use it when addressing other family members or close friends???

- - - Post Merge - - -



Munyo said:


> dw im screaming too wtf



SAME THIS IS KILLING ME

- - - Post Merge - - -

ash you monster, how dare you call a woman 'hon'


----------



## Ichiban (Mar 28, 2017)

Is this thread a joke?


----------



## PizzaTotinoBoy (Mar 28, 2017)

Leen said:


> Not so spoiler alert: A man calling a woman "hon" is pretty sexist.




-bangs head on the table-
I can't believe you would take something like that so seriously! Like...There's a thing called Sarcasm. I used the term "Hon" in that way. Even then there's no way that the term "hon" could be sexist. Not like I'm calling you sugar**** or anything. Like..You've lost all of the little credibility you had if you think a little bit of sarcasm is somehow "Sexist". Using a term like "hon" isn't sexist. Unless somehow we aren't allowed to call people honey anymore, is this what it's come to? My god...It's really funny, honestly.

- - - Post Merge - - -



FreeHelium said:


> Is this thread a joke?



That's what I want to know. I really would like to know if this thread is a joke.


----------



## Ichiban (Mar 28, 2017)

Ash Q. Scrumfleton said:


> -bangs head on the table-
> I can't believe you would take something like that so seriously! Like...There's a thing called Sarcasm. I used the term "Hon" in that way. Even then there's no way that the term "hon" could be sarcastic. Not like I'm calling you sugar**** or anything. Like..You've lost all of the little credibility you had if you think a little bit of sarcasm is somehow "Sexist". Using a term like "hon" isn't sexist. Unless somehow we aren't allowed to call people honey anymore, is this what it's come to? My god...It's really funny, honestly.
> 
> - - - Post Merge - - -
> ...



I dunno, theres a few _hypocrites_ here lol


----------



## Leen (Mar 28, 2017)

You guys...Here's a source from the U.S department of interior: 



> Terms of Endearment, such as... “honey,” “dear,” “sweetheart,” or some similar expression. (The effect is the primary issue rather than intent. Even if the person “means nothing to you” or you have “used the term for years” you should be aware that such expressions are inappropriate.)



I'm not saying that your dad or friend that calls you honey/hon is sexist, what I'm saying is that in context of his message, whom I am not familiar with at all, is not appropriate, and can be viewed as sexist.


----------



## TheMisaMisa (Mar 28, 2017)

Leen said:


> I honestly don't understand what's so surprising/confusing about that?



I have never heard someone claim that the word "hon" is sexist in my entire life. It is literally a term used for affection as others have stated. Please elaborate?


----------



## B e t h a n y (Mar 28, 2017)

Ash Q. Scrumfleton said:


> -bangs head on the table-
> I can't believe you would take something like that so seriously! Like...There's a thing called Sarcasm. I used the term "Hon" in that way. Even then there's no way that the term "hon" could be sexist. Not like I'm calling you sugar**** or anything. Like..You've lost all of the little credibility you had if you think a little bit of sarcasm is somehow "Sexist". Using a term like "hon" isn't sexist. Unless somehow we aren't allowed to call people honey anymore, is this what it's come to? My god...It's really funny, honestly.
> 
> - - - Post Merge - - -
> ...



you mean bangs head on wall, ash we talked about this


----------



## PizzaTotinoBoy (Mar 28, 2017)

FreeHelium said:


> I dunno, theres a few _hypocrites_ here lol



Please excuse that typo, if that's what you're referring to. I fixed it, sorry about that I was having a hard time concentrating with this.


----------



## Byngo (Mar 28, 2017)

men _and_ women call each other hon all the time lol

my mom for as long as I can remember has used that nickname for my dad


----------



## Munyo (Mar 28, 2017)

Leen said:


> You guys...Here's a source from the U.S department of interior:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying that your dad or friend that calls you honey/hon is sexist, what I'm saying is that in context of his message, whom I am not familiar with at all, is not appropriate, and can be viewed as sexist.



hon,
pls chill


----------



## forestyne (Mar 28, 2017)

Leen said:


> You guys...Here's a source from the U.S department of interior:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying that your dad or friend that calls you honey/hon is sexist, what I'm saying is that in context of his message, whom I am not familiar with at all, is not appropriate, and can be viewed as sexist.



No, it cannot, because the word is in no way sexist. You lost all credibility.


----------



## Ichiban (Mar 28, 2017)

I don't know who to side with, hypocrite A or hypocrite B.



send help pls


----------



## PizzaTotinoBoy (Mar 28, 2017)

Leen said:


> You guys...Here's a source from the U.S department of interior:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying that your dad or friend that calls you honey/hon is sexist, what I'm saying is that in context of his message, whom I am not familiar with at all, is not appropriate, and can be viewed as sexist.




I still don't see how *a simple term I used to be just the tiniest bit sarcastic* is automatically me believing that men are superior to women. You know what, just keep it to yourself. Keep believing that, I don't give a damn anymore. I'm just done with this thread. It's better off if it were either left to die or just get closed. It's not constructing anything at all. Have a nice day.


----------



## B e t h a n y (Mar 28, 2017)

Leen said:


> You guys...Here's a source from the U.S department of interior:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying that your dad or friend that calls you honey/hon is sexist, what I'm saying is that in context of his message, whom I am not familiar with at all, is not appropriate, and can be viewed as sexist.



"A man calling a woman "hon" is pretty sexist" thats exactly would you said.  But now you're saying only in certain instances where there isn't affection between the two parties it's sexist. If a women called a man she didn't have affection for "hon" would that be sexist?


----------



## forestyne (Mar 28, 2017)

Byngo said:


> men _and_ women call each other hon all the time lol
> 
> my mom for as long as I can remember has used that nickname for my dad



Yeah, pretty much everyone in the UK uses the word 'hon' to address each other, even people they don't know. Not in London, but where I'm from (Wales) you can't walk down the street without someone saying "you 'right, hon?" or "you 'right love?".

- - - Post Merge - - -

IF YOU USE THE SAME LOGIC BUT REVERSED IT IS SEXIST, BUT FOR SOME REASON IT ISN'T BECAUSE THAT AFFECTS MEN AND MEN AREN'T IMPORTANT OBVIOUSLY


omGG


----------



## Ichiban (Mar 28, 2017)

This is just schoolyard bab argument.

Nobodys gonna win in the end


----------



## B e t h a n y (Mar 28, 2017)

forestyne said:


> Yeah, pretty much everyone in the UK uses the word 'hon' to address each other, even people they don't know. Not in London, but where I'm from (Wales) you can't walk down the street without someone saying "you 'right, hon?" or "you 'right love?".
> 
> - - - Post Merge - - -
> 
> ...



my point exactly, the hypocriticalness is too much

- - - Post Merge - - -



FreeHelium said:


> This is just schoolyard bab argument.
> 
> Nobodys gonna win in the end



i reckon i can win, im queen, im rlly gud


----------



## Leen (Mar 28, 2017)

FreeHelium said:


> This is just schoolyard bab argument.
> 
> Nobodys gonna win in the end



Right, which is why I'm not gonna engage anymore. Clearly not going anywhere.


----------



## Ichiban (Mar 29, 2017)

Leen said:


> Right, which is why I'm not gonna engage anymore. Clearly not going anywhere.



you realize that in the end you look like a fool


your gonna go places kid


----------



## B e t h a n y (Mar 29, 2017)

FreeHelium said:


> you realize that in the end you look like a fool
> 
> 
> your gonna go places kid



*you're

im going places


----------



## Jake (Mar 29, 2017)

Let's stop.


----------

