Which bit of that first quote of mine do you disagree with, or don’t understand?
And what do you mean by
if not that you are able to choose how you react to what you feel?
There’s an awful lot of qualifiers in here, but if we remove some of them, we get:
“The person has the option to continue feeling discomfort or not.”
Do you not think the qualifiers might be there for a reason?
Oh, I very much do.
I trust you missed it the first time I wrote it, so here it is again:
The qualifiers only qualify an additional experience a person may have. They don’t change your essential argument that people have the option to continue feeling something, which is nonsense.
Then best not to take them out then.
Bless your heart, but no. If you make a post like that, it’s perfectly reasonable to select a single set of possibilities from among the many you constructed. If you don’t want people doing that, make your points more clearly and with less obfuscation.
What are you talking about? that is nothing like my essential point.
You don’t have the option to chose that initial feeling of offence, you do have the option to stop taking offence and modify your reaction if you find the explanation of context, intent and usage valid.
You seem completely unclear on the difference between “the option to continue feeling discomfort” and “the option to modify your reaction.” At this point, I think that lack of clarity is on you, not me, and I don’t have the skills or interest to explain it to you.
I can’t stop you cherry picking my words in order to construct a point that you feel comfortable arguing against. If that’s your style, go for it but you’ll be playing by yourself.
OK, I’ll leave it there then.
Modnote: Do not accuse other posters of lying (outside of the Pit).
That is what calling their post(s) gaslighting is.
I’m just curious as to why people in this thread choose to be offended that realtors may start calling the biggest bedroom in the house the “Main” or “Primary” room rather than “Master”.
Thread drift. As mentioned, the OP question was answered, it’s not inherently racist but it’s falling out of favor.
But the discussion quickly drifted into the use of the word “master” itself and, from there, the question of whether the fact someone experiences discomfort, makes you morally obligated to prevent that discomfort.
Here’s the thing though… I can’t control what offends other people. I can only control myself. I’m not going to go out of my way to offend someone, but nor am I going to tiptoe around words that aren’t actually offensive to a reasonable non-ignorant person. It’s absurd to wall off whole words and phrases that aren’t offensive or racist in any way, simply because ignorant people don’t know better.
And getting offended over the innocuous use of the word “master” in the phrase “master bedroom” is pretty much the definition of unreasonable and ignorant. It’s not racist, it’s not classist, and it more than likely derives from the old term “master of the house”, meaning the person who runs the household.
It seems… timid and apologetic when no apology is necessary I guess.
To take a less politically-charged example: my fourth-grade daughter’s teacher just sent home rules for Hallowe’en costumes. They were pretty standard stuff: no gore, no super-scary costumes, no full-face masks. But there was an unusual rule added: no clown outfits.
I noticed this and mentioned it to my wife. My daughter overheard me and said, “Yeah, that was because of me.” She’s got a clown phobia, and in years past has gotten pretty stressed over Hallowe’en. And she’s pretty good about speaking up. So the teacher asked folks not to wear clown outfits.
Her clown phobia is, by definition, irrational. If it weren’t, it wouldn’t be a phobia. You could explain to her until the cows came home that a kid in a clown outfit doesn’t present a threat to her, and most of the time isn’t even trying to be scary. (there was a kid planning on a Pennywise costume, but even if there weren’t, the phobia would be there). She can’t control her emotion: the clown outfit is gonna make her feel stressed.
Knowing that, the teacher had a choice:
- Tell her to suck it up; or
- Ask students to wear a different costume.
I submit that the teacher made the right choice here: even though her distress is irrational, a kind person is willing to take minimal measures to alleviate others’ discomfort.
Acting all defensive about it and thinking you can explain people out of their emotions? Nonsense.
Everyone is ignorant, even you. No one is non-ignorant, not even you.
Using it as an insult to dismiss people as being unworthy of even your contempt doesn’t really come across as well as you may think it does.
And it’s not just those who would be ignorant of a word’s history that may find offense to it. It may be that they are less ignorant than you about how it is used contemporaneously.
The offense is rarely over the word itself, and more about the choice made by the speaker to use the word. You could choose to use a different word, and yet you chose to use this word. That choice that you made is what people are likely to find offensive.
Right, and everyone else is in the house is subservient to that master.
No one has said that you have to choose your vocabulary any differently, they have just said that they will. And if you are left as being one of the few who have chosen to not change their vocabulary, then it would be reasonable to assume that you made that choice for a reason, and to speculate as to what that reason may be. Your explanations will likely fall on uninterested ears, as they know that you had a choice, and they know what choice you chose.
And if a child chooses to come dressed as a clown anyway, and explains to your daughter that she has no reason to be afraid of clowns, I would put it on the child who chose to dress as a clown as the one trying to offend at that point.
If they’re our partner, we probably call them a dumbass or similar. If they’re our opponent, we just call the director (duplicate-bridge-specific).
I don’t think it’s ever been customary to make the words “renege” or “revoke” into agent nouns, rather than just saying that so-and-so has revoked, or reneged, in the play of the hand.
I get that you were winkying about the verbally transgressive potential of the made-up word “reneger”, but AFAICT there’s never been a real-life practice of using such a word. If anybody does need such a word, they’ll probably find that the synonym “revoker” works fine.
OMG, I’ve been playing online only for so long, I didn’t even conceive of someone illegally ruffing or sluffing, accidentally or deliberately.
This. I’ve been playing bridge for decades, and i use the verb “renege” somewhat frequently, as in, not than once a year, on average. I’ve never heard it turned into a noun.