Subject:
|
PCisms (was :Re: Yet Another Episode 1 Question)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 15 Apr 2000 01:48:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
312 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Stangl writes:
> > Well, I AM going to say it - you're too damned uptight.
For the record, I got a chuckle out of Tom's post.
> Whoa there...
>
> Here's my take, not like anyone cares... :-) No one has a right not to be
> offended. If someone chooses to use language that is bigoted or demonstrates
> prejudice, as long as that person is not advocating the initiation of force,
> there isn't much that can be done about it, legally, nor should there be.
Knowing how kids (adolescents, really) are, isn't raising kids in an
environment where racisim is embraced really the same as advocating the
initiation of force? I think that parents who raise racist kids should expect
them to potentially act foolishly and violently based on their beliefs. Even
if the parents would never dream of supporting such actions.
> However, I AM offended by slur words. You may not care, I don't have the right
> to not be offended, but if my opinion matters to you, maybe you might want to
> know.
I have a friend of Polish origin who has a personalized auto tag reading
pollak. I know that lots of people put no stock in these historic slurs -
including the victims. How does one come to a single perspective given members
of the victim group reacting in widely different ways these kinds of words?
Some of these words are active hot buttons, and others have been subsumed into
normal language. Do you (plural, not just Larry) have a different stance
toward the use of nigger and gyp?
> There ARE bigger problems out there, but I'd just rather that my kids, for
> example, never ever use the n word, and getting them to think about why that • is
> involves having them think about why if the n word is wrong, other, milder
> slurs are too.
Why is the 'n word' wrong? Is it based on how it makes listeners feel? Or on
how it makes the speaker seem? Or is it based on what actions the use of such
a word implies support of? How do you discuss this with the kids?
> > The world is going to hell in
> > a handbasket,
>
> Yes it is. And we've already discussed how I feel about profanity as well.
Should I take this snippet to mean that the word hell is profanity?
> You're excited, so I won't sweat it. But is that how you want my kids to
> perceive you?
They would see him - maybe for the first time - mildly freaking out. And then
if they continued to read, they'd see him making contributions to the community
and find how valuable he is to all of us. So if they become members of the
community, they won't really hold it against him, and if they don't, then what
does their first impression matter?
My first encounter with you (Larry) was when you told me that I'd better be
well armed because you were armed and a trained marksman. It was an ammusing
introduction, but comming on a little strong, just like Tom did.
my $.02,
Chris
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Yet Another Episode 1 Question
|
| (...) Whoa there... Here's my take, not like anyone cares... :-) No one has a right not to be offended. If someone chooses to use language that is bigoted or demonstrates prejudice, as long as that person is not advocating the initiation of force, (...) (24 years ago, 15-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
52 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
