|
Post by Cali on Apr 1, 2013 17:39:02 GMT 1
Sorry Linders. I think I'll come back to this thread when I'm in the mood to be serious.
|
|
|
Post by jklinders on Apr 1, 2013 17:43:31 GMT 1
No offense taken. I've been spending the day trying to decide if I was going to add some more guidelines on this site for certain debates. Namely things like wishing fictional violence on real people and you came in with...that.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Buch on Apr 1, 2013 20:16:44 GMT 1
Ok. So if people don't like what you say, you should be bullied into not saying it. I know a lot of people don't like the LGBT crowd; so does that make it ok for them to tell you to bugger off when you talk about gay rights? (Personally, I don't think this way at all; people should be allowed to express their views). You really need to stop being lazy and not simply say "opposite of above" and actually read what I'm saying. I read what you're saying. I don't reply in any detail because I know that nothing good will come of it. You and I could not disagree any more completely on weighty issues, and I don't think we respect each other's reasoning or attitude very much either. So I think that us debating is never going to be a good idea.* When I say 'opposite' or something, I'm saying that I really disagree and want to register a 'vote' against, but I don't want to start a fight. I'm not being lazy. And I'm not trying to insult you. Sometimes you say things that I can't just ignore, but I know engaging you on it would not lead to good things and I certainly wouldn't enjoy it. So I say 'I disagree'. But I could be less sarcastic about it, couldn't I? That's just childish of me. Sorry. * Never going to be a good idea. I typed 'bad' there at first. Typo.
|
|
|
Post by Clint Johnston on Apr 2, 2013 4:10:22 GMT 1
Buch, perhaps you can succinctly say what your views are on the original post and therefore not have to directly disagree with Iron?
Iron, perhaps you can temper your words so that your meaning is clear but they use less exaggeration? In addition, just because someone has a different view than you do does not mean you need to confront them every time they air it. If you honestly do not understand why someone says something, ask and patiently await their reply!
|
|
|
Post by Mister Buch on Apr 2, 2013 4:59:21 GMT 1
I thought it was possibly sexist, but impossible to know without hearing his tone of voice. I certainly wouldn't assume it was harmless - it sounded dodgy to me - but I'm not exactly about to write to my MP over it either.
--
My argument would have been with Iron's comment on 'political correctness' and the business about bashing people's heads in. I remember when the political correctness movement was new - it was an organised opposition to institutionalised racism. It was a very good thing and it was actually the opposite of censorship. It still is. But somehow people's understanding of the meaning and purpose of that phrase has been twisted and turned into 'censorship'. And that really annoys me, and then Iron said it being as he is my double from the mirror universe, and I can already see the giant argument sprawling out from this post....
But I wish people would remember what 'political correctness' was made for and why there was a need to give it a name. (A dumb name, I'll admit - no politics are ever 'correct', not even equality) And its still needed. Very badly. If some people are so on the alert for the persecution of women (still massive, by the way) that they throw up false positives, then yeah - that's a problem - but not nearly as big a problem as forgetting the glass ceiling exists. It's still there, it's still very low, it's still a stain on our culture. We ought to be yelling at sexist people when they turn up. Not silencing them, mind you, not accusing them without reason. But when someone says "You'd make a good wife" because the other can cook, then our ears ought to prick right up. 'Why did he say that? Is he saying that women should stay at home, or something else?' Decent people should be asking themselves these questions.
Fighting for human rights has become so 'uncool' these days. People maybe don't like the boat rocked anymore. That's worrying.
|
|
|
Post by Warhammer Gorvar on Apr 2, 2013 10:07:07 GMT 1
RELEVANT!
|
|
|
Post by Lily Ariel Linders on Apr 2, 2013 10:27:05 GMT 1
What about telling a man who can cook extremely well that he'd make a good husband? Is that as 'offensive'? What is offensive about complimenting someone's cooking? Someone with a talent for cooking well would probably be flattered that someone says they're good enough that other people would enjoy the results of the person's talent - male or female.
|
|
|
Post by jklinders on Apr 2, 2013 10:31:22 GMT 1
Well taken literally the statement here could be taken to mean that the politician in question was trying to suggest that her best life path was to be someone's wife. An inherently demeaning thing. Frankly I was not even alive the last time it was common for that phrase to mean as much. Context context always freaking context.
|
|
|
Post by lieden on Apr 2, 2013 10:31:43 GMT 1
What is offensive is that he would NEVER say to a guy 'oh, you cook well, you'd make a good husband.'
When it happens, of course, I'm game.
|
|
|
Post by jklinders on Apr 2, 2013 10:34:37 GMT 1
What is offensive is that he would NEVER say to a guy 'oh, you cook well, you'd make a good husband.' When it happens, of course, I'm game. It has happened...to me. But not with the meaning indicated in my post above. I doubt it was used in the event in question with that meaning either. Especially since the woman in question has actually asked everyone to calm down and that no offense was taken. I don't know how it is elsewhere but we take the piss out of our politicians with the best of them and there are no laws against us calling them on the carpet...yet. The totalitarian goons we have in power will get there if we give them enough time.
|
|
|
Post by Lily Ariel Linders on Apr 2, 2013 10:35:13 GMT 1
Oh, by the way, on the topic of good cooks making good marriage partners (male or female) ;D Linders! You're a terrific cook! You'd make a great... mm... never mind - no need to scare you off yet... I don't wanna lose you... or your cooking... ;D
EDIT: Dammit, Linders, ya ninja'd me... *pouts*
|
|
|
Post by jklinders on Apr 2, 2013 10:42:07 GMT 1
I'm a mod now. I gotta be quick.
|
|
|
Post by Lily Ariel Linders on Apr 2, 2013 10:48:10 GMT 1
Ooh, I could comment there, but I'll be good...
I'm a good girlfriend... can I graduate now? ;D
|
|
|
Post by Warhammer Gorvar on Apr 2, 2013 11:02:18 GMT 1
You see, Lily keeps a innocent face on...but then she implies something raunchy like this and the facade is gone. I know your game, lady! ... It involves lasers.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Buch on Apr 2, 2013 14:54:57 GMT 1
What about telling a man who can cook extremely well that he'd make a good husband? Is that as 'offensive'? No it's not. Because men don't have a history of being made to cook and serve for women. But I'm not saying that what this dude said was sexist: I'm saying it might have been. He may have meant to compliment her cooking and nothing more, he may have also accidentally implied a patriarchal family structure (we all grew up in one, it can happen accidentally), or he may have deliberately implied that the kitchen was where women should work. Could have been any one of those three things, and if it was the last one then that guy is sexist. I didn't say he IS sexist, just that people ought to be on the alert when people say ambiguous things like this. Also I can't stand that word 'offensive'. As Iron said, freedom of speech is as important as freedom to act. I don't care if what this dude said was offensive. If it was, good for him. Every civil rights leader who ever spoke was offensive. You need to offend people sometimes and even if you didn't, you should still be free to do so. I care if a person is sexist, though. I'm going to offend that guy all right. I'm not out to silence bigotry, just yell right back at it.
|
|