Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TD1]

It's the intent, not the particular gesture or syllables.

A dangerous opinion to have for an adult, legally speaking 

[Frumple]

It can come back around later, too. My grandfather's said some interesting things about other people's ancestry over the last while, mostly insisting they're both first and other sorts of cousins of his at the same time (which has implications as to their family's reproductive habits, heh), just as an example.

[Vector]

I don't know why I'm in a bad mood like this today but I would love it if it never happened again, thanks

[McTraveller]

A dangerous opinion to have for an adult, legally speaking 

Not sure what you mean?

We haven't gotten to the nuances of "there are some things which shouldn't be taken as offensive, even if culture takes offense; likewise there are some things which should be taken as offensive even if culture doesn't."  For example, curse words and name calling should really not give offense.  Oppressing people due to their skin color or gender or sexual preference should always give offense.

Then there's that ill-defined line where name calling crosses the line into oppression.  Are you being overly sensitive because people called you four-eyes, or is there really a systemic oppression against those who need corrective eyewear?

[EuchreJack]

I don't know why I'm in a bad mood like this today but I would love it if it never happened again, thanks

That sucks.
What I try to do is segment my day so that a bad mood only affects a few hours rather than the entire day. It sometimes works.

[Mathel]

It's the intent, not the particular gesture or syllables.

A dangerous opinion to have for an adult, legally speaking 

Legally dangerous, maybe. But societally correct.

Meaning of gestures and of words changes. What was a perfectly fine statement 100 years ago, might now be offensive. Hell, even 20 years ago. What should matter is whether you are doing it to harm another, or because it is the word/gesture with the closest meaning.

I'll give you a few example from my czech.
"Cigán" and "Rom" both mean Gypsi (male). "Cigán" used to be the default word, but is now considered offensive. Yet older people still use it, just because they are used to it.
"Slepı" and "nevidomı" both mean "blind person (male)". But for some reason, "slepı" is now considered impolite, even though it has exactly the same meaning as the newer "nevidomı".

And something from english.
Some youtubers started using "unalive" instead of "die", to prevent demonetization. How long till "die" becomes taboo, and we are expected to use "unalive"?

[Kagus]

Today I got randomly introduced to the concept of the hilariously racist manga/anime Terraformars. What even the fuck.

[MrRoboto75]

How long till "die" becomes taboo, and we are expected to use "unalive"?

The Bart, the

[TD1]

What should matter is whether you are doing it to harm another, or because it is the word/gesture with the closest meaning.

Oh, I completely agree.
If you're not doing it to be offensive/to harm someone, you'll be very receptive to a polite 'please don't.' One-time problem, you've learned that person's personal preference for whatever, move on.

The problem I've encountered is that language is now so tightly policed - to the extent of losing your career, even - that the onus is on the speaker to be 100% correct at all times in 50 billion different contexts.

In my last work place, we got 'inclusivity and diversity training.' My main takeaway was that they had changed company policy. Intent was irrelevant, only effects mattered. If another staff member got offended, it was very much your problem no matter the context or intent.

At that point, I kind of marveled at the road society has taken.

[wierd]

I dont marvel at it at all. Its exactly where "the feelings are all that matters!" Thinking ends up.

Its the same kidney for sexual harassment. People can be talking about actual BBQ sausage; if a passing person THINKS it's a euphemism for eating dick, then THAT IS WHAT IT IS, and the people talking will be disciplined or fired.

That's how the laws are worded, and how that system works.

[None]

At the risk of sounding like a dead horse beater, you've got two problems- people that insist that demeaning a protected group of people/minority/The Other is their God-given right and corporations that understand that people are expendable and that liability reduces profits. The latter tolerate the former because the former support elected officials that will reduce corporate liability/taxes/regulations/etc and will do their best not to offend the former. They'll flip the script when it's fiscally/socially advantageous to pantomime support for whatever group/minority/social ideal (and there might really be some merit to the rote inclusivity/diversity training if inclusion actually makes it into the collective unconscience) and will do just enough lip-service to put on a good public image without supporting real social change. The exception here is probably where social change IS the public image (GamesDoneQuick springs to mind), but then the uncomfortable verbal goose-stepping you're afraid of there comes from retaliation from message deletion and collateral damage from people who are actively trying to be agitators/actively malicious.

The onus is on the speaker to protect profits and the status quo. Blame capitalism for this social issue.

[TD1]

I don't think we can reduce it to 'there are gits' and 'corporations like good-speak 'cause it's profitable.'

Corporate culture (not necessarily capitalism) is certainly a factor, but this issue is endemic to politics, education, even sports.

[None]

What can't we say in education and sports?

[heydude6]

Dear god, that first link is actually horrifying. Banning these types of discussions is equivalent to banning the discussion of evolution. LGBT+ people are a fact, they exist and no amount of legislation is going to erase what your eyes are seeing. What are the teachers going to do when little Timmy raises his hand during health class and says "You say marriage is between man and woman, but in The LoudHouse one of the kids has two dads". Due to this law, the teacher can't deny it, nor can they affirm it, nor can they mention this stupid bill because the banning of the discussion of LGBT+ stuff includes the bill itself.

This is literally the government passing a law that mandates that 2 plus 2 be equal to 5

[Mathel]

There are two options what the teacher can do.
A) Punish the kid for forbidden question. However, due to this bill, they can't tell the kid why it is forbidden.
B) Say basically:"I am sorry, I can't discuss it or tell you why. Look it up online."

I of course hope that the Floridan teachers choose option B significantly more often, and that Floridan government does not decide to censor the web to prevent people from learning about LGBT+.