191–199 of 199 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Charity should begin at home.
Why does geographic proximity trump other possible orderings? E.g., why not "charity should begin with people of the same race as me" or "Charity should begin in my church"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have an acquaintance who looks white but was named Mohammed (he is Kurdish). He changed his name to "Michael" because, as he said, "It's easier to say... like for example at the airport." I agree about referencing the word "nigger", Louis CK has a bit where he says he hates the phrase "the n-word" because, "you still put the word 'nigger' into my head, so it's not like you didn't say it". But socially one probably…
A former co-worker is ethnically Persian but grew up in Belarus so he has a vaguely European accent. When traveling, he likes to wear a shirt that says "Italia" because when airline security thinks that he's Italian, he gets less hassle.
During the last few months, I have let myself have a beard. I have a darkish skin, so with a beard I look very Arabic.
In my last flight, security were specially bothersome, making me open and show my luggage. I didn't relate it until my friend pointed it out, but I am very sure he was right now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why does geographic proximity trump other possible orderings? E.g., why not "charity should begin with people of the same race as me" or "Charity should begin in my church"?
Why do you feed your childrn when their are people starving on the other side of the planet?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, I mean, you are quite literally, in the traditional sense of that word, arguing that etymology is more important when the modern meaning of the word is offensive, and that the modern meaning of the word is more important when the etymology is offensive. No, that word is not offensive because of the etymology meaning "black;" consider that using the term "black" is not at all offensive.
You seem to believe that "nigger" means something different than "black" nowadays. What's this new meaning?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
there's basically two kinds of people in the world. those that will sit around and mope and moan about how unfair the world is, and invent terms like 'victim blaming'. and those who take concrete, actionable steps to overcome or work around the problem. don't fucking fool yourself, nothing will erase the prejudice against certain names in the next 50 years. just ask any american who isn't white. they've had to deal w…
>nothing will erase the prejudice against certain names in the next 50 years. Why the pessimism? Race relations have come on a decently long way in the last 50 years. I don't think anyone's saying that it's wrong for someone to change their name to avoid prejudice. The point is that no-one should be expected to change their name for this reason.
So the school wanted diversity so they called him for an interview, but they hired him even though he was white. Yeah I don't buy that.
Maybe he didn't interview in person? Not everyone feels the need to physically meet someone before hiring them. What does it really say about us, that we so deeply feel the need to see someone before hiring them? It's not like their credentials change with visual contact.
So the school wanted diversity so they called him for an interview, but they hired him even though he was white. Yeah I don't buy that.
He makes the point that the school did indeed 'get diversity' - his upbringing is quite far outside the mainstream. Diversity is not exclusively furthered by hiring people with dark skin.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This type of hyped up placeholder is _exactly_ an example of political correctness gone too far. It's exaggeration. My argument is not even against purposefully using words that are offense. It's about how there are so many words that are deemed offensive today that I can't even keep track of what they are. For example, calling one of my own non-homosexual friends a "faggot" or "gay" is offensive. Even though I'm not…
> For example, calling one of my own non-homosexual friends a "faggot" or "gay" is offensive. Even though I'm not homophobic and personally find it to be a funny, playful insult. Um... if you don't have anything against homosexuality then why would you use it as an insult? How is this logical? It shouldn't have anything to do with "not offending people". The real question is "What are you actually communicating?" Cas…
The point is that I find it funny, for my own personal reasons. But someone else may find it offensive, for their own personal reasons, however now my freedom of speaking this way becomes limited because of the potential for someone else to find it offensive.
Going back to the original post about the author inserting ".. [horrific racial expletive deleted]" into post. I find this type of reaction to only further the agenda of limiting people from speaking freely by falsely implying that certain words may not be used because they are likely to offend. Whether they offend or not should never be a criterion for limiting the use of a word.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>nothing will erase the prejudice against certain names in the next 50 years. Why the pessimism? Race relations have come on a decently long way in the last 50 years. I don't think anyone's saying that it's wrong for someone to change their name to avoid prejudice. The point is that no-one should be expected to change their name for this reason.
that's very noble. but you sound like you're a white guy who has good intentions but very loose grasp of how things work in reality. maybe i'm wrong, but that's just my feeling.