3 ms·

>who are you are excluding and insulting. Change it to Dad then. I'm someone's Dad, have a Dad, and none of us feel excluded or insulted. It's a figure of sp

>who are you are excluding and insulting. Change it to Dad then. I'm someone's Dad, have a Dad, and none of us feel excluded or insulted. It's a figure of speech.

SNvD7vEJ 11y ago
LOL, this is one ignorant defense.
- forgetsusername 11y ago
  >LOL, this is one ignorant defense. So, saying you're a Mom and offended is a valid argument, but that you're a Dad and not offended isn't? Yep, that sounds about right for one of these arguments.
  - dllthomas 11y ago
    Saying you are a mom (or dad) and are offended is a valid argument that offence is occurring. Saying you are a dad (or mom) and are not offended is not a valid argument that offence is not occurring. Sounds right for any rational argument. Of course, having established that offence is occurring, it still leaves open what the appropriate response is.
Blahah 11y ago
You don't speak on behalf of dads generally. I'm a dad, and would be insulted if the word chosen was dad. Singling out some group as symbolic of something negative (in this case, ignorance about technical matters), is unnecessary and likely to offend.
- bcook 11y ago
  What's offensive about being ignorant of technical matters?
  - tptacek 11y ago
    Obviously, because that creates the presumption that the thoughts and opinions of dads (or moms, or grandfathers, or whatever) regarding technology can be dismissed. Ask a simple question, get a simple answer.
    - bcook 11y ago
      I always thought a statement of someone's ignorance was more or less a statement of fact, vs questioning someone's abilities or intelligence, which are considered insults. Whether the implication was intended to be negative... I dunno. Sorry about my sub-par manners today.
smt88 11y ago
"Figure of speech" isn't a defense against something being harmful. "That's very white of you" used to be an expression in the South in the US, where "white" meant "good". (It's now changed to me, "That's very Christian of you.")

>who are you are excluding and insulting. Change it to Dad then. I'm someone's Dad, have a Dad, and none of us feel excluded or insulted. It's a figure of speech.

SNvD7vEJ 11y ago

LOL, this is one ignorant defense.

forgetsusername 11y ago
>LOL, this is one ignorant defense. So, saying you're a Mom and offended is a valid argument, but that you're a Dad and not offended isn't? Yep, that sounds about right for one of these arguments.
- dllthomas 11y ago
  Saying you are a mom (or dad) and are offended is a valid argument that offence is occurring. Saying you are a dad (or mom) and are not offended is not a valid argument that offence is not occurring. Sounds right for any rational argument. Of course, having established that offence is occurring, it still leaves open what the appropriate response is.

Blahah 11y ago

You don't speak on behalf of dads generally. I'm a dad, and would be insulted if the word chosen was dad. Singling out some group as symbolic of something negative (in this case, ignorance about technical matters), is unnecessary and likely to offend.

bcook 11y ago
What's offensive about being ignorant of technical matters?
- tptacek 11y ago
  Obviously, because that creates the presumption that the thoughts and opinions of dads (or moms, or grandfathers, or whatever) regarding technology can be dismissed. Ask a simple question, get a simple answer.
  - bcook 11y ago
    I always thought a statement of someone's ignorance was more or less a statement of fact, vs questioning someone's abilities or intelligence, which are considered insults. Whether the implication was intended to be negative... I dunno. Sorry about my sub-par manners today.

smt88 11y ago

"Figure of speech" isn't a defense against something being harmful. "That's very white of you" used to be an expression in the South in the US, where "white" meant "good". (It's now changed to me, "That's very Christian of you.")