Gay student almost misses prom due to dress code

[fskimospy]

White males are on top of the world in part because on the whole we have better things to do than get offended.

Wut.

 

[irishScott]

Wut.

I said "on the whole" and "in part". White males don't usually get wound up when they're called "crackers" or "honkies", for example. If we did there would never have been a successful civil rights movement; and we'd probably have handed Germany itself over to the Jews instead of Israel after WWII due to the Holocaust.

 

[jhbball]

"Something a white male said made me want to attack him, but someone with my skin tone saying the same thing is cool. I'm not racist." -A uneducated minority

White males are on top of the world in part because on the whole we have better things to do than get offended over race.

lol. yeah, that's it.

 

[K1052]

I said "on the whole" and "in part". White males don't usually get wound up when they're called "crackers" or "honkies", for example. If we did there would never have been a successful civil rights movement; and we'd probably have handed Germany itself over to the Jews instead of Israel after WWII due to the Holocaust.

What in the ever loving fuck are you talking about?

 

[irishScott]

Asian-Americans are another example of this. Despite the Japanese interment and general racism towards Asians since their arrival here, there have never been any real Asian race riots. Instead they quadrupled down on education and family and now even their stereotypes are mostly positive (smart, good at math and music, hard working, etc). Those Black and Hispanic people who have taken a similar mentality also seem similarly more successful.

So the correlation of "taking less racial offense" to "success" seems to be pretty high irrespective of race.

 

[jhbball]

Asian-Americans are another example of this. Despite the Japanese interment and general racism towards Asians since their arrival here, there have never been any real Asian race riots. Instead they quadrupled down on education and family and now even their stereotypes are mostly positive (smart, good at math and music, hard working, etc). Those Black and Hispanic people who have taken a similar mentality also seem similarly more successful.

So the correlation of "taking less racial offense" to "success" seems to be pretty high irrespective of race.

just stop.

 

[K1052]

Asian-Americans are another example of this. Despite the Japanese interment and general racism towards Asians since their arrival here, there have never been any real Asian race riots. Instead they quadrupled down on education and family and now even their stereotypes are mostly positive (smart, good at math and music, hard working, etc). Those Black and Hispanic people who have taken a similar mentality also seem similarly more successful.

So the correlation of "taking less racial offense" to "success" seems to be pretty high irrespective of race.

Because correlation = causation.

 

[irishScott]

just stop.

You've posted nothing but dumb one-liners, so no. Not on your say-so anyway.

I understand what I'm saying isn't politically correct. I also understand that there's a societal perception that white people should defer judgement of minorities who take offense to race out of some vague guilt over the actions of their ancestors. A notion I reject.

From where I'm standing it appears that people who take less racial offense usually get further in life, and those who take a lot of racial offense are usually going nowhere. It's not my edict, just seems to be the way things work.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Oh I know. I'm just saying that reaction would be kinda dumb, especially if I wasn't using the word offensively.

Here's the semi-conscious mental leaps involved for some bad words.

1: "That's a cool n*gger."
2: "Oh you must be like a slave master who hates black people!"
1: "No I was just saying he was cool guy.."
2: "YOU'RE WHITE!!! YOU SAID THE WORD!!! FUCKING RACIST!!!"

1: "Oh, that loudmouth cross-dressing fairy's screaming again, can he just shut up?"
2: "Oh, you must be some conservative christian who hates gay people!"
1: "No I was complaining about how he's obnoxious and in everyone's face all the time.."
2: "YOU JUST HATE GAY PEOPLE!!!"

Words are words are words. Whether they're offensive or not is all in whether they're meant offensively, but unfortunately taking people one at a time isn't as hard-coded into humanity as over-generalization. 😛

You can't use a word that everyone understands to be a slur and then argue that YOU are not one of those racist people that use the word, but instead you meant it as a compliment instead of what the definition of that word is. That is just another justification for your prejudices.

 

[irishScott]

Because correlation = causation.

No, but strong correlation is typically a good indicator of at least indirect causation.

 

[SMOGZINN]

You've posted nothing but dumb one-liners, so no. Not on your say-so anyway.

I understand what I'm saying isn't politically correct. I also understand that there's a societal perception that white people should defer judgement of minorities who take offense to race out of some vague guilt over the actions of their ancestors. A notion I reject.

From where I'm standing it appears that people who take less racial offense usually get further in life, and those who take a lot of racial offense are usually going nowhere. It's not my edict, just seems to be the way things work.

You reject the notion because it is much more comfortable for you remain bigoted then to accept that you are wrong. Being wrong would mean that you have to evaluate your behavior and change, and that is a lot of work.

Political correctness isn't in place to make minorities to feel good about themselves. It is to force people like you to face your prejudices by forcing you to examine the language you use to think about them.

 

[SMOGZINN]

No, but strong correlation is typically a good indicator of at least indirect causation.

No it is not.

 

[fskimospy]

No, but strong correlation is typically a good indicator of at least indirect causation.

Correlation can be strong evidence of causation but it requires a plausible causal mechanism, which yours lacks.

 

[K1052]

No, but strong correlation is typically a good indicator of at least indirect causation.

But that's not what you argued. You proposed direct causation without anything to back it up other than a statement using stereotypes as justification.

 

[irishScott]

You can't use a word that everyone understands to be a slur and then argue that YOU are not one of those racist people that use the word, but instead you meant it as a compliment instead of what the definition of that word is. That is just another justification for your prejudices.

And what prejudices might those be, since you know me so well?

They don't understand the word to be a slur, the understand the word from a white person or straight person to be a slur. If I was able to change my skin pigment to black or my sexual preferences to gay I could say both words with impunity despite no other change.

It's a perfectly human reaction. It's also completely irrational and self-destructive.

 

[fskimospy]

And what prejudices might those be, since you know me so well?

They don't understand the word to be a slur, the understand the word from a white person or straight person to be a slur. If I was able to change my skin pigment to black or my sexual preferences to gay I could say both words with impunity despite no other change.

It's a perfectly human reaction. It's also completely irrational and self-destructive.

That's because the source matters.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

And what prejudices might those be, since you know me so well?

They don't understand the word to be a slur, the understand the word from a white person or straight person to be a slur. If I was able to change my skin pigment to black or my sexual preferences to gay I could say both words with impunity despite no other change.

It's a perfectly human reaction. It's also completely irrational and self-destructive.

Black people are not a monolithic group who all think as one and operate with a strong desire to repurpose former slurs into everyday speech. There are large contingents of the black community who hate the n-word, view it as nothing but a slur, and hate that other black people are using it so casually. You'll find the same thing in the gay community with slurs that have been used against gays for decades; some people co-opt the terms, others emphatically reject them. Language is funny that way. But even though context is important (which I think is what you're getting at), you're still painting with a very broad brush to assume that every minority views slurs the exact same way.

 

[irishScott]

But that's not what you argued. You proposed direct causation without anything to back it up other than a statement using stereotypes as justification.

I proposed "not taking severe racial offense is typically a trait of successful individuals, which implies some sort of causative link". Given that we're talking psychology it's also completely possible that success and taking less racial offense cause each other, in much the same way that behavior modification changes mentality.

 

[SMOGZINN]

And what prejudices might those be, since you know me so well?

They don't understand the word to be a slur, the understand the word from a white person or straight person to be a slur. If I was able to change my skin pigment to black or my sexual preferences to gay I could say both words with impunity despite no other change.

It's a perfectly human reaction. It's also completely irrational and self-destructive.

You are not using it friendly, you know how it will be taken and are using it anyway.
So, the audience has to decide why you are doing that. The only two explanations are you are a complete moron, or you know that most people will assume you are a bigoted jackass who is trying to put them in their place. Everything else is just crocodile tears.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I proposed "not taking severe racial offense is typically a trait of successful individuals, which implies some sort of causative link". Given that we're talking psychology it's also completely possible that success and taking less racial offense cause each other, in much the same way that behavior modification changes mentality.

Causal links are one way. Even a casual study of psychology would tell you that if there is a causal link is almost certainly the other way around. Successful individual don't have to take severe racial offense, because they are already successful.

 

[irishScott]

You are not using it friendly, you know how it will be taken and are using it anyway.
So, the audience has to decide why you are doing that. The only two explanations are you are a complete moron, or you know that most people will assume you are a bigoted jackass who is trying to put them in their place. Everything else is just crocodile tears.

Actually believe it or not I didn't know how "fairy" would be taken when I originally posted it. I've used it plenty of times in casual conversations among friends (including some homosexual friends) and they take it just fine because it's clear I don't mean anything by it. I have a tendency to post like I'm talking because otherwise my posts get bogged down with qualifications, but vocal tone doesn't transfer, and your interpretation is a good example of how much that can twist things.

 

[irishScott]

Black people are not a monolithic group who all think as one and operate with a strong desire to repurpose former slurs into everyday speech. There are large contingents of the black community who hate the n-word, view it as nothing but a slur, and hate that other black people are using it so casually. You'll find the same thing in the gay community with slurs that have been used against gays for decades; some people co-opt the terms, others emphatically reject them. Language is funny that way. But even though context is important (which I think is what you're getting at), you're still painting with a very broad brush to assume that every minority views slurs the exact same way.

Well this is a casual internet discussion, of course I'm painting with broad strokes. To give this issue the academic rigor it deserves would require a thesis and a research budget.

I know different people view slurs differently even among minorities. But that's kinda like saying a lot of people listen to modern rock music. It's true, but there's no denying that Taylor Swift has more fans and makes more money than any modern rock group. If I'm painting with broad strokes I'm going with majorities, and it appears that the majority of black people are fine with the n-word in certain contexts, ditto for gay people and "fairy".

 

[irishScott]

Causal links are one way. Even a casual study of psychology would tell you that if there is a causal link is almost certainly the other way around. Successful individual don't have to take severe racial offense, because they are already successful.

So what about those people who don't start out successful but don't take severe racial offense and become successful?

Behavior can change mentality, mentality can change behavior. Both can happen at once, working off each other. This is well proven aside from being self-evident.

 

[SMOGZINN]

So what about those people who don't start out successful but don't take severe racial offense and become successful?

Behavior can change mentality, mentality can change behavior. Both can happen at once, working off each other. This is well proven aside from being self-evident.

What about those people that do take sever racial offense and become successful? Does the counterexample not negate your position? That is normally a good sign of cherry picking.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I know different people view slurs differently even among minorities. But that's kinda like saying a lot of people listen to modern rock music. It's true, but there's no denying that Taylor Swift has more fans and makes more money than any modern rock group. If I'm painting with broad strokes I'm going with majorities, and it appears that the majority of black people are fine with the n-word in certain contexts, ditto for gay people and "fairy".

I think you need to be careful letting your personal experiences transfer to "the majority of people." In my experience, gay people really aren't that pleased with straight people using the word "fairy," and I'm going to go out on a limb and guess I know more gay people than you (though there's probably a generational gap, since I mostly know old lesbians). Just because you can use a word with friends who know you and know your intentions doesn't mean you should be able to use that particular language in every setting, and on the Internet, most people are strangers. It's a dangerous assumption to use potentially inflammatory language without knowing how your audience will respond, so you should generally err on the side of caution.

I'm actually with you in thinking that political correctness has gotten out of hand, but I also understand the rationale behind it; part of being respectful to other people is not using language that is specifically hurtful to a group they happen to be a part of. I've been saying "retarded" for most of my life and I've never once meant it as relating to someone with a developmental disability. If someone gets offended when I say it, I don't defend myself and say "you're just taking it out of context," I apologize because I'm the one who made the mistake of using insensitive language in the first place. So maybe rather than vehemently defending your use of language that strangers on the Internet were offended by, you should accept that you were unaware that it was going to cause offense, apologize and move on.