4 ms·

Tolerance is not being politically correct, it's tolerating people who aren't. In recent history, it was not politically correct to be gay. In fact, things whic

Tolerance is not being politically correct, it's tolerating people who aren't. In recent history, it was not politically correct to be gay. In fact, things which were gay were very offensive to a lot of people. Tolerance is having the common sense to know the difference between someone who's trying to offend you and someone who's not. If you are "harmed" or "off-put" by those phrases, then you really need to go out and talk to these people that you think are so offensive. When someone doesn't mean you any offense, then none should be taken. Maybe you never played sports, or cursed, or got in fights, and that's fine. But to judge someone on their connotation rather than their meaning is irrational. I say shit's gay all the time. And I have no problem throwing around the word faggot. Does that mean I'm intolerant to gay people? No. Does it mean I'm trying to offend boys who like boys, or girls who like girls? No. They're just words. And when I use them I'm trying to express an emotion that I feel towards a certain experience or person. An emotion that is easily understood by those who are actually listening. But impossible for someone to understand if they are just looking to be offended. Words mean what the speaker intends them to mean, not what you want to interpret them to mean.

knappe 11y ago
You're making a huge leap of faith in using words that you know others find offensive, even if you yourself don't find them offensive nor mean to use them in an offensive manner. The leap of faith you're making is that _everyone_ will interpret their meaning in the way you've intended them to be used. Does it seem like that will always work out? The short answer is no. No it will not. This is _EXACTLY_ why we have conferences now enacting a code of conduct [0]. "Harassment includes offensive verbal comments related to gender, gender identity and expression, age, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, ethnicity, religion, technology choices, sexual images in public spaces, deliberate intimidation, stalking, following, harassing photography or recording, sustained disruption of talks or other events, inappropriate physical contact, and unwelcome sexual attention." The phrases used above certainly fall within the provision above. [0] http://confcodeofconduct.com/ http://confcodeofconduct.com/
- such_a_casual 11y ago
  People are people. As I tried to communicate to you before, this intolerance is no different than the intolerance used to persecute gay people all over the world. They are different, they are offensive. "It offends my religious beliefs." Morality is not about what's popular, and it's not about what offends you, it's about empathy. Failure to see that these words are not actually offensive is a direct result of failing to empathize with the speaker.
  - ethbro 11y ago
    Probably going to get a fair amount of negative karma over this, but... here goes with the "in my experience" stereotypes (albeit largely also agreed to by a friend from the Gulf states who spent time in both Atlanta and Boston): In the Northeast and much of the West coast, being tolerant is not saying a thing. In the Southeast, it's saying a thing with humor or empathy. Example: my friend makes a joke with an African American friend in Atlanta referring to a stereotype in a humorous manner. In the Southeast, that plays like "we both know our friendship is solid, and yes, some stereotypes we're both aware of are amusing." In the Northeast? Surrounding people (not the friend in question, mind you), "How could you even refer to a stereotype out loud? That just shouldn't be done." Call me crazy, but I subscribe to the Mel Brooks theory of laughing at a thing is the strongest form of rejection. You can reject his language, but not his right to use it.
  - zepto 11y ago
    If you know you are going to be misunderstood and offend people with the words you choose, and you use them anyway, that is the exact opposite of empathy. Failure to see that your words are offensive to some people is a direct result of failing to empathize with the listener.
    - such_a_casual 11y ago
      That is an absolutely ridiculous statement if you look at the context of this conversation. You are saying that I shouldn't call myself a pussy, because other people might get offended. That I should empathize with the fact that other people might get offended when I call myself names. > if I had only manned up and broken out sed, but I pussied out and wrote some Python Are you really suggesting that any given person should watch how they talk to themselves, because other people might get offended by how they talk to themselves? This is lunacy. Absolute lunacy. Censorship on how we talk to others is a joke in its own right, but now (when one puts your statements in context with the material being discussed) you are suggesting that failure to censor how we talk to ourselves represents a lack of empathy with the people who are listening in on our thoughts. Is it so necessary that I defend my right to talk to myself how I please, that I defend the author's right to talk to himself as he pleases, do you honestly fail to see the absolute ridiculousness of getting offended over someone's inner monologue.
jasonlotito 11y ago
> Words mean what the speaker intends them to mean, not what you want to interpret them to mean. Do you really shovel snow?
heptathorp 11y ago
Do you think it is just a coincidence that the words gay and faggot became insults? I keep seeing this idea repeated that it isn't homophobic because these words have taken on a new meaning and the people using them aren't actually referring to homosexuals when they lob them at people or things. But the reason why they are used as insults is because of a generally understood idea that homosexuality is bad. Do you really not see why it is disparaging that words used to identify a minority of people are becoming synonyms for bad, uncool, and so on?
- such_a_casual 11y ago
  Getting offended by etymology is impractical. I’ll explain. Faggot and gay are really fantastic examples because they have gone from everyday words to offensive slurs to useful emotional expressions all in the lifetime of many people who are alive today. Are we going down the etymology route only so far as it fits your argument? Are we going down the etymology route only until someone gets offended? Because if I wanted to play that line of reasoning I would just say a faggot is a cigarette and to be gay means to be happy. Now we both know those words don't mean those things anymore. But are we both willing to admit that when I call someone a faggot or say something is gay I am in no way referring to boys who like boys?
  - heptathorp 11y ago
    So that argument actually works in my favor. How did gay go from a positive word to a negative one? Because along the way it was used to refer to homosexuals, and lots of people hated (and still hate) homosexuals and want to distance themselves from that, and so everything else people hate becomes gay. Gay doesn't go from positive to negative without the hatred for homosexuals. Same goes for a word that means a cig or a bundle of sticks to become an insult. Do words randomly change meaning over time? Sure. Are a disproportionately large number of them that have referred to homosexuals now all being used as insults? Yes, because of homophobia, and the continued use of these words as synonyms for bad is disparaging.
    - such_a_casual 11y ago
zepto 11y ago
"Words mean what the speaker intends them to mean, not what you interpret them to mean." It's both. If you understand that someone else will interpret a word in a certain way, and you choose to use that word, then you are responsible for them receiving that meaning from you - since it was what you expected them to understand from what you said. If you don't actually know that other people will interpret words differently from the way you mean them, then you can't be responsible for misunderstanding until you get feedback and have a dialogue to figure out the different on understanding. And of course it's fine to speak however you like with people who understand that you don't mean to offend them. But you do know that people will understand certain of your words as offensive, so when you choose to use those words with people you know will be offended, you are intentionally offending them. So yes, you actually are trying to offend people - you just don't care about it.

knappe 11y ago

You're making a huge leap of faith in using words that you know others find offensive, even if you yourself don't find them offensive nor mean to use them in an offensive manner. The leap of faith you're making is that _everyone_ will interpret their meaning in the way you've intended them to be used. Does it seem like that will always work out? The short answer is no. No it will not. This is _EXACTLY_ why we have conferences now enacting a code of conduct [0]. "Harassment includes offensive verbal comments related to gender, gender identity and expression, age, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, ethnicity, religion, technology choices, sexual images in public spaces, deliberate intimidation, stalking, following, harassing photography or recording, sustained disruption of talks or other events, inappropriate physical contact, and unwelcome sexual attention." The phrases used above certainly fall within the provision above. [0] http://confcodeofconduct.com/ http://confcodeofconduct.com/

such_a_casual 11y ago
People are people. As I tried to communicate to you before, this intolerance is no different than the intolerance used to persecute gay people all over the world. They are different, they are offensive. "It offends my religious beliefs." Morality is not about what's popular, and it's not about what offends you, it's about empathy. Failure to see that these words are not actually offensive is a direct result of failing to empathize with the speaker.
- ethbro 11y ago
  Probably going to get a fair amount of negative karma over this, but... here goes with the "in my experience" stereotypes (albeit largely also agreed to by a friend from the Gulf states who spent time in both Atlanta and Boston): In the Northeast and much of the West coast, being tolerant is not saying a thing. In the Southeast, it's saying a thing with humor or empathy. Example: my friend makes a joke with an African American friend in Atlanta referring to a stereotype in a humorous manner. In the Southeast, that plays like "we both know our friendship is solid, and yes, some stereotypes we're both aware of are amusing." In the Northeast? Surrounding people (not the friend in question, mind you), "How could you even refer to a stereotype out loud? That just shouldn't be done." Call me crazy, but I subscribe to the Mel Brooks theory of laughing at a thing is the strongest form of rejection. You can reject his language, but not his right to use it.
- zepto 11y ago
  If you know you are going to be misunderstood and offend people with the words you choose, and you use them anyway, that is the exact opposite of empathy. Failure to see that your words are offensive to some people is a direct result of failing to empathize with the listener.
  - such_a_casual 11y ago
    That is an absolutely ridiculous statement if you look at the context of this conversation. You are saying that I shouldn't call myself a pussy, because other people might get offended. That I should empathize with the fact that other people might get offended when I call myself names. > if I had only manned up and broken out sed, but I pussied out and wrote some Python Are you really suggesting that any given person should watch how they talk to themselves, because other people might get offended by how they talk to themselves? This is lunacy. Absolute lunacy. Censorship on how we talk to others is a joke in its own right, but now (when one puts your statements in context with the material being discussed) you are suggesting that failure to censor how we talk to ourselves represents a lack of empathy with the people who are listening in on our thoughts. Is it so necessary that I defend my right to talk to myself how I please, that I defend the author's right to talk to himself as he pleases, do you honestly fail to see the absolute ridiculousness of getting offended over someone's inner monologue.

jasonlotito 11y ago

> Words mean what the speaker intends them to mean, not what you want to interpret them to mean. Do you really shovel snow?

heptathorp 11y ago

Do you think it is just a coincidence that the words gay and faggot became insults? I keep seeing this idea repeated that it isn't homophobic because these words have taken on a new meaning and the people using them aren't actually referring to homosexuals when they lob them at people or things. But the reason why they are used as insults is because of a generally understood idea that homosexuality is bad. Do you really not see why it is disparaging that words used to identify a minority of people are becoming synonyms for bad, uncool, and so on?

such_a_casual 11y ago
Getting offended by etymology is impractical. I’ll explain. Faggot and gay are really fantastic examples because they have gone from everyday words to offensive slurs to useful emotional expressions all in the lifetime of many people who are alive today. Are we going down the etymology route only so far as it fits your argument? Are we going down the etymology route only until someone gets offended? Because if I wanted to play that line of reasoning I would just say a faggot is a cigarette and to be gay means to be happy. Now we both know those words don't mean those things anymore. But are we both willing to admit that when I call someone a faggot or say something is gay I am in no way referring to boys who like boys?
- heptathorp 11y ago
  So that argument actually works in my favor. How did gay go from a positive word to a negative one? Because along the way it was used to refer to homosexuals, and lots of people hated (and still hate) homosexuals and want to distance themselves from that, and so everything else people hate becomes gay. Gay doesn't go from positive to negative without the hatred for homosexuals. Same goes for a word that means a cig or a bundle of sticks to become an insult. Do words randomly change meaning over time? Sure. Are a disproportionately large number of them that have referred to homosexuals now all being used as insults? Yes, because of homophobia, and the continued use of these words as synonyms for bad is disparaging.
  - such_a_casual 11y ago

zepto 11y ago

"Words mean what the speaker intends them to mean, not what you interpret them to mean." It's both. If you understand that someone else will interpret a word in a certain way, and you choose to use that word, then you are responsible for them receiving that meaning from you - since it was what you expected them to understand from what you said. If you don't actually know that other people will interpret words differently from the way you mean them, then you can't be responsible for misunderstanding until you get feedback and have a dialogue to figure out the different on understanding. And of course it's fine to speak however you like with people who understand that you don't mean to offend them. But you do know that people will understand certain of your words as offensive, so when you choose to use those words with people you know will be offended, you are intentionally offending them. So yes, you actually are trying to offend people - you just don't care about it.